Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:28 pm
@Intrepid,
Oh, don't be so pissy. It was an observation, not an attempt to oust you.

What is not at all apparent is that i am offended--i'm not. I was just pointing out, as i and others have done several times in this thread, that the thread is not about belief or who is right or wrong--it is about the experience of being an atheist, and usually, theists would have nothing to contribute on that topic.

However, if you are more comfortable being in a snit, help yourself.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:43 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
I kind of like the 'Secular Humanist' label:

Me too, for the same reasons as you do. But I'm not sure the "secular humanist" label would scare Squinney's friends any less scared than the "atheist" label does.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:48 pm
@squinney,
Maybe Sam Harris is anti theist...
I don't know, as I haven't read him.
failures art
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:49 pm
@ossobuco,
That's Hitchens.

A
R
T
ossobuco
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:51 pm
@failures art,
Hitchens I have read, from time to time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:52 pm
@Thomas,
Years ago, O'George made a contention that Secular Humanists (TM) constituted another form of religion, and inferentially charged all secular humanists and atheists with hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 12:53 pm
@ossobuco,
One of the things which obscures this issue is that there is a small, but loud contingent of atheists who are, in fact, anti-theists. I suspect that many people of faith form their opinions of atheists based upon the very vocal minority. Most of the atheists i have know are not of that anti-theist type.
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Aug, 2010 01:08 pm
@hingehead,
I suppose you must mean hinge that if one declares oneself to be a secular humanist all those fine characteristics adhere to one in the same way that **** adheres to blankets.

Twas a good laugh though I must admit.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  2  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 06:59 pm
Interesting article.... An atheistic psychologist is inspired by his mother's death to study the evolutionary benefit of religion. The article seems a little scattered, but it's an interesting read.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&sc=fb&cc=fp

I chopped up the article a lot!
Quote:
In the history of the world, every culture in every location at every point in time has developed some supernatural belief system. And when a human behavior is so universal, scientists often argue that it must be an evolutionary adaptation.

"I've always said that I don't believe in God, but I don't really believe in atheists either," Bering says. "Everybody experiences the illusion that God — or some type of supernatural agent — is watching them or is concerned about what they do in their sort of private everyday moral lives."Through the lens of evolution then, a belief in God serves a very important purpose: Religious belief set us on the path to modern life by stopping cheaters and promoting the social good.

Today we live in a world where perfect strangers are incredibly nice to each other on a regular basis. All day long, strangers open doors for each other, repair each other's bodies and cars and washing machines. They swap money for food and food for money. In short: they cooperate.

The question is: How did we get to be so cooperative?

It doesn't make sense because there's often tension between the interests of the group and the interests of the individual. Today, if you cheat — if you decide to pass on paying Uncle Sam or if you steal a car — there are systems in place that will track you down and punish you. And this threat of punishment keeps you on the straight and narrow. But imagine if you lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

In those early human communities when someone did something wrong, someone else in the small human group would have to punish them. But as Johnson points out, punishing itself is often dangerous because the person being punished probably won't like it.

"That person has a family; that person has a memory and is going to develop a grudge," Johnson says. "So there are going to be potentially quite disruptive consequences of people taking the law into their own hands."

On the other hand, Johnson says, if there are Gods or a God who must be obeyed, these strains are reduced. After all, the punisher isn't a vigilante; he's simply enforcing God's law. So the argument goes that as our human ancestors spread around the world in bands, keeping together for food and protection, groups with a religious belief system survived better because they worked better together.

Of course there are plenty of criticisms of these ideas. For example one premise of this argument is that religious belief is beneficial because it helped us to cooperate. But a small group of academics argue that religious beliefs have ultimately been more harmful than helpful, because those religious beliefs inspire people to go to war.

And then there are the people who say that cooperation doesn't come from God — that cooperation evolved from our need to take care of family or show potential mates that we were a good choice. The theories are endless.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 07:15 pm
@Setanta,
Yes, I agree that that is what a large part of the response to atheists is about, and me too, re those I know.

People also seem to learn "what an atheist is" from dictionaries and religion and/or philosophy classes, and share this rigid definition, re atheists being anti-belief in god or gods.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 07:20 pm
@littlek,
An interesting take. I don't know that he nails it, but he has a few good ideas.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 07:24 pm
@littlek,
But my first thought is.... helps us cooperate? what about millennia of religious wars, tortures of "heretics"?

I posit that cooperation happens, when it does, with or without religion, essentially unrelated, although religion may be assigned as a motivator.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 07:27 pm
I think he's speaking about that initial evolutionary edge - not so much our more recent religious history.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 07:42 pm
@littlek,
Yes, I see he thinks that. God as a proxy.

Mmmmm.

I think a lot of gods started out representing functions of nature, not indeed relevant to human behavior.
Well, this is not my expertise..
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 07:48 pm
All religions have constituted all the beliefs and sins of human kind. My simple mind tells me that there are too many errors, omissions, and mistakes about all religions that requires one to follow others who are deemed holy.

My observation of human history tells me religion hasn't worked, and concluded being an atheist simplifies my life - even though I'm reminded by my siblings that "it's not too late," and they want to see me in heaven with them.

In a world where most of my friends and family belong to one religion or another, it's not worth the effort to constantly argue about the merits of religion.

I'm married to a buddhist, and she makes me happy.

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Mon 30 Aug, 2010 09:02 pm
@littlek,
I liked the experiment where children were tempted to cheat, and the experimenters recorded if they resisted the temptation, depending on whether they didnt believe they were watched, they were watched, or weren't watched but believed they were.

Two details in the evolutionary part of Mr. Bering's story suggests to me that Mr. Bering didn't do his homework.

(1) It isn't enough to hypothesize that religion might be an evolutionary adaptation. You also have to ask, an adaptation of and for whom? For example, every human culture has the common cold, just as every human culture has religion. And although it's true that the common cold is an evolutionary adaptation, it belongs, not to humans, but to the bacteria that spread it. If Mr. Bering had done his homework, he would have looked at beneficiaries of religion other than believers.

(2) Even without religion, there are perfectly good Darwinistic explanations for cooperation if the cooperators are close relatives, or if they are likely to meet frequently so that cooperators can reciprocate to each other (or retaliate against leeches). Our ancestors have spent most of their evolutionary past in small hordes, where both conditions were usually true. A genetic rule like "always initiate cooperation, and always reciprocate it" would have worked with or without religion. Since our ancestors left this environment, our genes simply haven't had enough time to adapt and turn mean again.

Both insights are fairly old. For example, Matt Ridley's Origins of Virtue (1998) discusses them at length. I find it suspicious that Mr. Bering isn't even mentioning them, let alone discussing them. My overall impression is that he's on firm ground with the nuts and bolts of his psychological experiments, but not with the big-picture stuff.
spendius
 
  0  
Tue 31 Aug, 2010 07:08 am
Thomas would be better off reading Sir James Frazer's The Golden Bough instead of the pop-science he seems to chase after and which is tailored for a certain market which seeks self fulfilling justifications dressed up as science.

I read that Mr Ridley was calling for smaller scale societies and more local control. Which is a joke and nowhere more so than in places like New York. I'm not sure what "more local control" actually means.

The North American aboriginals lived in small scale societies.

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Tue 31 Aug, 2010 09:06 am
@Thomas,
Yeah, that's what I meant to say...
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 31 Aug, 2010 05:14 pm
@ossobuco,
Good grief!!
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Tue 31 Aug, 2010 06:52 pm
Imagine if atheists threw paint at those signs outside churches:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/508885-another-atheist-billboard-vandalized
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 80
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.57 seconds on 03/11/2025 at 12:13:29