News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism is abnormal human behavior

Started by Givemeareason, April 20, 2015, 11:25:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Givemeareason

I am so glad to see this thread is gaining attention.  And I can only assure all of you that I am in no manner a theist of any sort.  I may be a crazy old man but I identify mostly with just being a naturalist. Atheism from my point of view is a prerequisite for being a naturalist.   But not all atheists are naturalists because many still hold supernatural views.  Which clearly indicates that atheism may not be as rational as we like to think.  The idea of a God for me is such a gross oversimplification of reality that I can no longer even imagine it.  But just as surely a religious fundamentalist will see you and I in the same way.  The idea of a reality without God is as unimaginable to them as the reverse is to me.  And all the science and facts you can throw at them will make no difference whatsoever.  I say this from experience.  But from being a naturalist it is also clear that what may appear supernatural today may be perfectly natural tomorrow.  (I hope nobody takes that statement and uses it to justify another new religion)  Hence we have the science of Cosmology which I absolutely love.  So in looking at that we begin to look at infinity.  A popular notion these days is that infinity creates certainty.  Every possibility becomes reality.  So in other words if infinity exists then there has to be another universe just like this but where God actually exists.  So which one are we in?  The one with the God or the one without the god?
I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.

Munch

Okay, let me ask this then, when you say your a naturalist, explain that, because it has many levels to what being a naturalist is. Context would help here.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Givemeareason

Quote from: Munch on April 20, 2015, 03:56:16 PM
Okay, let me ask this then, when you say your a naturalist, explain that, because it has many levels to what being a naturalist is. Context would help here.

Naturalist as opposed to supernaturalist depending on what you are smoking.
I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Givemeareason on April 20, 2015, 04:19:23 PM
Naturalist as opposed to supernaturalist depending on what you are smoking.
I'm a little dense, I guess.  But, to you, what is a 'naturalist'?  If the universe was created in a natural way, then everything is natural.  Then miracles, supernatural and all other words indicating something other than natural are nonsensical. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Givemeareason

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
I'm a little dense, I guess.  But, to you, what is a 'naturalist'?  If the universe was created in a natural way, then everything is natural.  Then miracles, supernatural and all other words indicating something other than natural are nonsensical.

I would not put it that way.  I would say such ideas are just highly speculative and not currently based in reality.

I am struggling with that concept of infinity though.  Having a reality like this in which there actually were a god is beyond my comprehension.  Maybe my problem is trying to grasp how that could even be a possibility.  There are some pretty far out ideas out there on the fringes of Cosmology.

I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.

GSOgymrat

#20
Quote from: Givemeareason on April 20, 2015, 11:25:44 AM
The realization there is no God is not really very profound.  And identifying as an atheist is not either.  It is usually a transient view for most of us on the way to believing something else just as ridiculous.  So the real issue is not god but just us.  And atheists often reach their views not because of rational observation but because we are still looking for something to believe in. The reason we are here is so we can still retain some sense of belonging while behaving just like the religious do.

"Researchers who study the psychology and neuroscience of religion are helping to explain why such beliefs are so enduring. They’re finding that religion may, in fact, be a byproduct of the way our brains work, growing from cognitive tendencies to seek order from chaos, to anthropomorphize our environment and to believe the world around us was created for our use."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

The article you are quoting doesn't support your assertion that atheism "is usually a transient view for most of us on the way to believing something else just as ridiculous," in fact it doesn't support anything you said. I don't understand how you came to your assertions from that article.

By the way, naturalism is the belief if anything exists in our universe, it is part of nature, and has a natural cause or origin, and there is no need for any other explanation.

Givemeareason

Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 20, 2015, 05:26:13 PM
The article you are quoting doesn't support your assertion that atheism "is usually a transient view for most of us on the way to believing something else just as ridiculous," in fact it doesn't support anything you said. I don't understand how you came to your assertions from that article.

By the way, naturalism is the belief is anything exists in our universe, it is part of nature, and has a natural cause or origin, and there is no need for any other explanation.

What I posted was not supposed to be taken as an argument.  The quote was only added to clarify human behavior.  Do you think a naturalist is supposed to stop searching for understanding?  I gather you don't agree that atheism is often transitional?  Why?
I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Givemeareason on April 20, 2015, 04:19:23 PM
Naturalist as opposed to supernaturalist depending on what you are smoking.
You keep ducking the question.  What is a naturalist, to you?????
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Munch

Yeah, much like how atheism isn't a set issue on itself, like you could be atheist but understanding of theism, or you could be anti-theist, or you could be bordering on agnosticism, I'm fairly certain you are not just one set archetype when it comes to naturalism Givemeareason, so for context sake what degree of it are you standing on?
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Givemeareason

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2015, 06:07:22 PM
You keep ducking the question.  What is a naturalist, to you?????

I did not realize you were trying to pin me down.  And I am not sure I want to continue based on the way I perceive your response.  Are you looking for a thoughtful discussion or something else?
I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.

Givemeareason

Quote from: Munch on April 20, 2015, 06:13:36 PM
Yeah, much like how atheism isn't a set issue on itself, like you could be atheist but understanding of theism, or you could be anti-theist, or you could be bordering on agnosticism, I'm fairly certain you are not just one set archetype when it comes to naturalism Givemeareason, so for context sake what degree of it are you standing on?

The simple version... natural vs. supernatural.  I am only a person who ponders things and not some great philosopher.  Is there some controversial concept here that I need to become acquainted with.  I am more interested in exchanging ideas than adhering to doctrines.
I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Givemeareason on April 20, 2015, 06:19:10 PM
I did not realize you were trying to pin me down.  And I am not sure I want to continue based on the way I perceive your response.  Are you looking for a thoughtful discussion or something else?
Yes, I am looking for thoughtful discussion.  But how can I discuss something when I don't know what we are discussing?  I don't know what you think on the subject. 

Let me start.  I don't see a need for god nor evidence that one exists.  I see the entire universe as nature.  It was created with or during the big bang.  But it seems to me that the universe's creation caused the big bang, not the other way around.  Black holes suck in energy, and when a critical amount is gathered, it can break off from that black hole and start another universe.  So, our universe is part of a system that goes on forever.  No, I don't know how it started and will never know that.  That bit of energy that started this universe had all that was needed to create life.  Where it would start would be a matter of math, not chance.  In other words, life would start somewhere, exactly where, who could know?  So, all is natural.  God or the gods are all supernatural, which means they are the stuff of fantasy.  Nothing can be supernatural or other worldly.  God was created by man as an easy way to explain the 'why' or our lives.  And to give the controller of said religion control over the people. 

So, does any of that jive with what you believe?  If not, where do we disagree?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Aletheia

I'm less inclined to see atheism as an abnormal behaviour. We are pattern seeking creatures, tailored by evolution because these tendencies helped our species thrive. In our effort to uncover more patterns in nature we developed an  intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, otherwise known as science. Here, we had a way of studying patterns in depth and following them back to their origins - sometimes from external sources and at other times, from our own personal biases. It also garnered much better results than superficial pattern recognition, in that we were able to develop technology and make accurate predictions about the environment around us.

It is not abnormal at all for pattern recognition beings to be drawn to science, which in turn leads to the rational conclusion that believing in something for which there isn't any evidence for is irrational. Why waste the mental resources on it?

Others who feel overwhelmed by the hard work required in studying science and mastering critical thinking leave themselves no other choice than to cling to whatever explanation they feel is more accurate. It is instinctual for us to demand explanation - our survival has depended on this for millennia. When a person cannot gain a logical explanation for the patterns they see, then they will accept an illogical explanation.

Most people who are uneducated or have had their education derailed by religious indoctrination will accept illogical explanations because they are unaware of the logical explanations. Religious institutions pull from other instincts as well - such as tribal cohesiveness, preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar, and preservation of the sense of self (especially if they consider religion to be a defining characteristic of themselves).

Human beings are multi-faceted creatures influenced by both the rational and irrational. A study like this cannot draw logical conclusions unless you account for the other variables which influence our thoughts and therefore our choices.
Quote from: Jakenessif you believe in the supernatural, you do not understand modern science. Period.

trdsf

Quote from: Givemeareason on April 20, 2015, 11:25:44 AM
"Researchers who study the psychology and neuroscience of religion are helping to explain why such beliefs are so enduring. They’re finding that religion may, in fact, be a byproduct of the way our brains work, growing from cognitive tendencies to seek order from chaos, to anthropomorphize our environment and to believe the world around us was created for our use."

I think this is probably right, or close to it.  Our brains are so good at pattern matching, they even find patterns when there aren't any, and can latch onto a simple pattern and stick with that when the more accurate pattern explaining events is subtler and harder to notice.

And I think that's where religion comes from: it's an early attempt made by our ancestors at explaining the world around them.  It matched simple patterns when the complex ones were harder to spot: Lightning comes from the sky, something made the lightning, there must be something very like me up there only very much more powerful throwing lightning down versus complex interplay of static charges, winds, and ice in a largely stochastic process that to this day is not fully understood.  Which one of those explanations is Og the Caveman more likely to go for?
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Givemeareason

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 20, 2015, 06:39:53 PM
Yes, I am looking for thoughtful discussion.  But how can I discuss something when I don't know what we are discussing?  I don't know what you think on the subject. 

Let me start.  I don't see a need for god nor evidence that one exists.  I see the entire universe as nature.  It was created with or during the big bang.  But it seems to me that the universe's creation caused the big bang, not the other way around.  Black holes suck in energy, and when a critical amount is gathered, it can break off from that black hole and start another universe.  So, our universe is part of a system that goes on forever.  No, I don't know how it started and will never know that.  That bit of energy that started this universe had all that was needed to create life.  Where it would start would be a matter of math, not chance.  In other words, life would start somewhere, exactly where, who could know?  So, all is natural.  God or the gods are all supernatural, which means they are the stuff of fantasy.  Nothing can be supernatural or other worldly.  God was created by man as an easy way to explain the 'why' or our lives.  And to give the controller of said religion control over the people. 

So, does any of that jive with what you believe?  If not, where do we disagree?

Yes, I think we are on the same page up to a point.  But I make a distinction between what I believe and what I might think or speculate on.   We agree down to before the big bang.  The consensus of science is that the big bang did occur.  But it is speculative as to what caused it and I love to entertain the possibilities.  The black hole idea is an excellent one.  So it seems that if that were true universes might come in all different sizes since black holes come in all different sizes.  And then we get into wondering about the boundaries of space and if it exists outside of our universe or could there be universes within our universe and then it gets into string theory which I don't understand and so on.  And as for black holes they such in matter and energy and can even emit energy as well.  I am an old black hole enthuisast.  And as for life I am in awe that it even exists.  It seems so incredibly unnecessary from my tiny point of view.  Which leads me to think this may have happened millions of times before or simultaneously as well (realizing this idea may be flawed since we may also be experiencing it the only time it has happened).  So since life appears so unessential why does it occur and what is happening now as we enter an explosion of knowledge and technology where it appears now possible that we might even create conciousness that is unimaginable???  Why does this appear to be culminating at this point in time?  Seems to sort of detract from existential nihilism from my point of view.  But other than that minor addition we seem in complete agreement.  But what do I know... I am just a biological computer program with very limited data.
I am a Hard Athiest.  I am thought provoking inwardly and outwardly.  I am a nonconforming freethinker.