Atheism

The lack of belief in god does not force a belief in anything else.

Your reductionist assumptions about what morals an atheist must adopt are incorrect.

Who here said that atheists are incapable of bad things?

I said you represent the kinds of obstacles I encounter in real life

You also won't be the last to refuse any answer that defies your narrative on what an atheist is

Untrue.

Neither psychology, nor cognitive science supports anything you've said about how the brain works.

Rather we see that the brain works by associative binary systems. This is why indoctrination at such young ages is so potent.

We also are learning things about mirror neurons that are challenging many of the ideas we have about human nature being inherently selfish. Rather, that we are empathetic creatures.

This is the latest gem in your crown of ignorance.

Your reply to me still doesn't address what I said. I specifically said "without indoctrination." The test is not the early church, whom members were very much being told what to believe.

This would demonstrate divergence, not convergence on religion being a product of intellect.

There is no logical path to any of the world's religions.

The point of this thread is not and never has been to "promote" atheism.

It was begun as a venue for atheists to disucss the experience of being atheists.

It is hardly promoting atheism to answer the wild and spurious allegations made by theists or mere contrarians.

The statement that the early church fathers were atheists before they became christians is one of them most hilariously stupid unfounded contentions i have ever read.

You "caught" that one, heh? LOL It's more likely, most priests or ministers had parents of their particular religion. I call it the "accident of birth."
Hardly atheist conversions; that'll almost be a miracle.

Initially, of course, they were confessional Jews.

Quote:

The lack of belief in god does not force a belief in anything else.

Of course it does. It means the Bible is not the literal word of God. It means there is no God based morality.

Quote:

Your reductionist assumptions about what morals an atheist must adopt are incorrect.

People vary, but logic says if you are rational why wouldn't you employ any means at your disposal to ensure your genetical survival if there was no cost?

What is the basis for morality?

Animals dont believe in God do they ?

Quote:

Who here said that atheists are incapable of bad things?

Atheists on this thread have said religion has started all wars. This was refuted by other atheists as well as the religious and agnostic but it recurs often enough to associate it atheists justification of their superiority.

Quote:

I said you represent the kinds of obstacles I encounter in real life

If you can comfortably do so, what are those obstacles that you have never mentioned but object to me assuming they are on the internet, our common ground ?

Quote:

You also won't be the last to refuse any answer that defies your narrative on what an atheist is

WE agreed on a definition of an atheist some time back.

Quote:

Untrue.

True. Religion has a p[policy on all of those things. Pick anyone of them and find people who support it, chances are they will be an atheist. There is a link. There does not have to be a link with all of them and the one person, unless of course the person is religious, in which case the matter is not up to the individual.

Quote:

Neither psychology, nor cognitive science supports anything you've said about how the brain works.

I am very surprised to hear that.

The brain has two hemispheres and for simplicity we will call one God and one logic.

The God one has a memory of everything.

The logic one has control.

People who are religious are handing over to the God part some decision making.

People who are self-proclaimed "scientists" keep control in the logic one.

Women "believe" in esp, ghosts, etc and all manor of these things more than men because they spend 50% of their time in the emotional part of the God side.

Men spend up to 90% of their time in the other half.

Alien hand syndrome is where the God side tries to take over.

Spoilers are people with conflict between the two.

Autism is where the control part fails and the God side that knows everything is let loose.

Intelligence is randomness built into the control part.

The decision to believe or not believe in God is the SAME decision and it requires FAITH to go either way.

Quote:

Rather we see that the brain works by associative binary systems. This is why indoctrination at such young ages is so potent.

It is ? I dont see why from those two statements.

Quote:

We also are learning things about mirror neurons that are challenging many of the ideas we have about human nature being inherently selfish. Rather, that we are empathetic creatures.

Perhaps as a self declared atheist who believes in evolution you might want to explain how such a system came about from pond scum ?

I always have trouble with you going off at tangents.

Follow this carefully.....you said that indoctrination was essential to religious beliefs. I cited doubting Thomas as someone who had to see with his own eyes. Not a very good example of indoctrination, was he ?

I said, Many of the early church leaders came from atheism and brought excellent minds with them. The early christian church came from atheists who had become disenchanted with the Greek/Roman religion. They were atheists.

Some were following the Jewish religion from a distance, unimpressed with circumcision.

Most were atheists who needed something in their lives apart from eat, ****, **** and die.

Quote:

This is the latest gem in your crown of ignorance.

Are you any relation to **** for brains?

He makes wild sweet arse guesses and then is proven wrong all the time but he still comes back for more, never convinced of his obvious failure.

Quote:

Your reply to me still doesn't address what I said. I specifically said "without indoctrination." The test is not the early church, whom members were very much being told what to believe.

????Now this is just plain puzzling. Indoctrination starts as children according to you, so how many generations would Christianity have taken to expand?

Do the math...

it proceeded far quicker than indoctrination allows. And your knowledge of the early church is pathetic for someone wanting to comment on it. There was great variety in beliefs. It took a thousand years to standardise it. How did that happen if everyone was indoctrinated from the same source ?

Quote:

This would demonstrate divergence, not convergence on religion being a product of intellect.

A trend towards atheism pulls religions apart, intelligence would dictate they grow together.

Quote:

There is no logical path to any of the world's religions.

I doubt you have enough knowledge of the worlds religions to say that, having seen you crash and burn on Christianity.

Reread what you just typed.

I said it does not force a belief in anything else.

You confirm this in your own post.

Not believing in a god based morality, does not subscribe a person to any other alternative. They still have to pick. Atheism doesn't do that for them.

No cost is your false assumption.

if you can eat humans, then you can be fed to humans.

Quote:

What is the basis for morality?

Are you asserting that there is only one cause to be identified?

Quote:

Animals dont believe in God do they ?

The only animal I feel qualified to speak on are humans.

So you are retracting your statement.

None of the above comes close to asserting that all atheists are good people.

Or that good atheists are good by virtue of being atheists.

Nobody ever made the claim that atheists were better,

you can't back it up so you're fleeing. You're attempting to move the goalpost because you talked yourself into a corner.

If you can comfortably do so,

what are those obstacles that you have never mentioned

but object to me assuming they are on the internet,our common ground ?

I believe you are missing a comma somewhere.

We agreed atheists don't believe in gods. You've gone far beyond that in asserting all sorts of other things that they must believe.

You just repeated contradicted yourself.

If a link (a term for which you've not cared to define) exists

but does not have to be a link (recursive definition error) with all of them and the person, then where is the link?

In the end you describe how person to person the beliefs are individual, but somehow not up to them.

You are? I wonder what you'll say next? Perhaps you'll try and explain how you think the brain works in some other display of complete and total... holy **** you are...

we will not.

Why? How? Specifics please. With citations.

of?

We get to pick what part of brain does specific functions?

People who aren't, use the "logic one" for...?

50% he says! Wow! A clean 50%! Amazing!

I'd like to read more.

Is this from the same source?

I would have called it "god brain crusade."

I thought those went on wings and on the back of cars to create down-force and increase drag?

Not that it's enough that you claim to know the mechanics of the brain, you've perfectly described what autism is not. Autistic persons often have an incredible capacity for logic (savants), but are challenged in their ability to comprehend or express emotions.

Your god/logic brain non-science has the relationship inverted.

Quote:

Intelligence is randomness built into the control part.

So the more random a person's brain is the more logical they are?

Wait, what? How did we get here? We were just talking about alien brain take over and autism, and you took a sharp right-turn on non-sequitur lane to get us to this.

You've completely failed to support this claim. This seems to be the base of your outlook on atheism--that it is derived from sort of faith in the non-belief of something. This is false. I require no faith to maintain my skepticism. The failure to present a cogent case for the existence of gods is why gods are not amongst the things in which I believe. If they had been as convincing as say electricity or gravity, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The arguments to believe have, however, been unconvincing.

It means that if you associate religion with all sorts of normal human experiences, you start to give the religion the same validity as the events themselves. I.e. - A feeling of community in a church is real, so a person will convince themselves that the experience of community comes from the religion. They may even reject that others can achieve the same or greater community esteem under non-religious settings.

you would have noticed that we are studying other animals

Well, if you watched the video, you would have noticed that we are studying other animals to see to what degree these mirror neurons are wired into other species. So far mammals have been studied. Once we learn more about what creatures have them, we can talk about the common ancestry that gave rise to them. Prior to that point, my only speculation is that creatures with a greater empathic capacity worked better in groups.

In terms of humans, it could have been what gave rise to the ability to use and create tools.

Quote:

Not a very good example of indoctrination, was he ?

Well, a piece of a myth is hardly a good example of anything.

It seems then that the point of this myth is that it was proven to Thomas, and so that should be good enough for you!

Quote:

I said, Many of the early church leaders came from atheism and brought excellent minds with them. The early christian church came from atheists who had become disenchanted with the Greek/Roman religion. They were atheists.

This does not make them atheists, and again violates what we agreed atheists were.

Can you provide a secular historical source to substantiate this claim?

If I am, then it's a proper noun, hence **** For Brains.

Expansion of Christianity in specific was due to imperialism from Rome.

The number of generations was less important when you can simply do it in one generation in a land you invade at penalty of the sword (pro-tip: Kill pappy just in case).

you note standardization, and this was precisely due to the method of indoctrination of the time: spoken word. The common man was not privy to an education and texts were not congruent or accessible for others to read, investigate, or criticize.

Quote:

A trend towards atheism pulls religions apart, intelligence would dictate they grow together.

How?

Given how much I've had to correct you on matters of Christian mythology,

Not even among the religious of the world do we see a person create independently a religion that already exists.

I'll check back on you in a couple months and see if you're ready to get serious on the topic again.