Why is atheism seen as such a threat?

[Molly]

It is arrogant as Hell, Chris, to ask those of us on THIS side of the looking glass to step through to your side, to graciously, respectfully and KNOWLEDGABLY discuss the parables of what we percieve as 'the talking toaster' (and tut-tut that we seem less than nimble at it), while your own concession to meeting in the middle is to stand exactly where you already are, and congratulate yourself on being open-minded.

[Chris in KW]

You do not see evolution and Christianity as necessarily contradictory.

In light of the specific subject proposed-- exploration of an evolutionary source of mans wanton invention of deities-- that's a very VERY cheap copout.

Sorry, thought you were referring to something else. If you want to discuss "evolutionary source of mans wanton invention of deities", I guess we can do that. Btw, I enjoy your use of the word "wanton", but it doesn't really add credibility to the statement.

First, if you want to discuss that statement, enlarge on it a little. I assume that what you mean is that religion is a manmade tool to oppress and achieve dominance by the religious leaders. And, you know what? I agree that religion has served exactly that purpose for much of history. As I've said before, I'm not a huge fan of religion. Where it's used to oppress and dominate, I actively oppose it.

I accept that evolution is a real, active force in the world. I don't think that means I have to accept that God is a manmade invention driven by evolutionary forces. I think God exists, even though many religions that attempt (more or less sincerely) to understand God, are faulty.

Basically, your assumption is that religion MUST BE bad (as opposed to my assumption that religion CAN BE bad). I think that's because you can't accept that it can be positive.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Chris in KW

[Molly]

Are you interested in discussing with me the Darwinian/neurological implications of the universality of 'deity' in human cultures-- or, in accepting diety/divinity as something real, does your brain reject that conversation as specious nonsense from the getgo?

Your assumption is incorrect. (Well, a whole bunch of 'em are, but that one in particular misses by a mile.)

Spirituality-- reverence-- ritualization---deification is a universal human trait, whether praying to prey animals, elevation of saviour leaders to divine status, belief in fairies and corn gods and harvest gods, or just a sense of thankfulness for a fine sunset.... humans appear to be universally predisposed to worship of some sort or another. Universality strongly, strongly suggests that it is inborn, not learned behaviour.

Since it appears strongly to be nature rather than nurture in origin, the exploration is the source and nature of that neurological quirk.

In essence, the question is 'How, and thus why are we driven to invent gods?'

Edited February 5, 2009 by Molly

[Molly]

Basically, your assumption is that religion MUST BE bad (as opposed to my assumption that religion CAN BE bad). I think that's because you can't accept that it can be positive.

Where EVER did I say, or even imply, that religion must be bad?

(I wonder how many folks commenting here have volunteered as many hours to a church as I have!)

Edited February 5, 2009 by Molly

[Chris in KW]

Spirituality-- reverence-- ritualization---deification is a universal human trait, whether praying to prey animals, elevation of saviour leaders to divine status, belief in fairies and corn gods and harvest gods, or just a sense of thankfulness for a fine sunset.... humans appear to be universally predisposed to worship of some sort or another. Universality strongly, strongly suggests that it is inborn, not learned behaviour.

Since it appears strongly to be nature rather than nurture in origin, the exploration is the source and nature of that neurological quirk.

In essence, the question is 'How, and thus why are we driven to invent gods?'

Again with the fairies! Still, I think we're doing better. We're actually starting to look at assumptions, not just stereotypes.

Ok, you've made a good statement. So go on - what's the link between Darwinian evolution and this "neurological quirk"? What is it about "survival of the fittest" that leads to this universal human trait, as you've called it?

Are you saying that because lots of different cultures have tried to come up with a concept of God/gods/deification means that it's neurological/inborn/innate? Isn't it just as fair to say that because it's a universal human trait, it's based on some inherent trait of the universe (ie, the existence of god)?

[Molly]

LOL

Well, you are still one assumption behind. Or ahead. In any case, divergent, before we get to the actual question at hand.

(Which further makes my point about the difficulty of finding common ground on which to base a serious conversation.)

I could tell you that presupposing deity has been the fall-back position in absence of information, time after time after time, only to have the real mechanisms later exposed, so it commands little respect among investigators.... and it would be the truth.

The greater truth, though, in this situation is that in order to answer whether your presupposition has any basis in fact, we must first investigate, based on mine, because yours precludes functional investigation.

If we find the the motive, the means and the method by which man creates gods ... then we may or may not be any wiser about whether GOD created man to be that creater of gods.

[Molly]

As to the question of the evolutionary source of the god-seeking imperative, I actually visited that in another thread a couple of weeks ago.... I have two broad suspicions on it.

The first is that it is a side-effect of basic heirarchical socialization, enabling man to live in mutually supportive groups. Such group living requires each to understand and acknowledge his social role, recognizing and demonstrating authourity over lower-status members, and respect for the authourity of stronger members. Our socialization is full of instinctive emotional prompts-- liking babies, fearing dangerous folk, gratitude when we recieve a kindness-- but if socialization instincts run just slightly beyond themselves, then we can anthropomorhize all sorts of things-- creatures, inanimate objects, natural events-- and respond emotionally to them, as we would if they an element of our social heirarchy.... feel grateful for food we've found, show respect for a tree, fear thunder --- take random events personally on an emotional level, as though they were an act or an aspect of an associate.

The second is that it is a side effect of self-awareness, and something of a coping strategy. To anthropomorphize uncontrollable events provides a means to delude ourselves into a sense of control over them, through force, negotiation, finding favor, etc. A sense of control is soothing.

I'd be willing to bet that both play a role.

[cybercoma]

I admit to nothing of the sort. I said I'm not an expert NOT that I know "very little".

In your last two posts you've ignored my main point and focussed on some phrase that you didn't like. Come on ToadBrother, you're better than that!

My point ws that the atheist/christian non-discussion is characterized by un-necessary polarization on both sides, and that personally, I don't see evolution and Christianity as necessarily contradictory.

Christianity (read: organized religion) doesn't stand for anything because it claims to have all the answers on one hand, then moves the goalposts with the other.

[cybercoma]

Excellent points. Of course, if you ask 1000 Christians, you'll probably get 1000 slightly (or very) different viewpoints about what is important in Christianity. Again, if you ask 1000 atheists, you'll find that they also have different views, as well as different grounds for their beliefs.

Very true, but the point is that the atheists are not subscribing to a set of beliefs that claim to be divinely inspired unerring truth. An atheist is free to say they don't know and search for the truth. But, why would those who believe have so many different viewpoints? If the creator has divinely inspired the religion, then why so many interpretations? If a God clearly exists, wouldn't it make its will known in a manner that isn't open to so much interpretation? Something that is so easily changed by people, interpretations and meetings, could not possibly be divinely inspired. A God that has an active role in this world would make its will known, free from the misunderstandings of people. So, atheists should have different viewpoints, but the religious, were there any truth to their claims, should be united.

[ToadBrother]

Are you saying that because lots of different cultures have tried to come up with a concept of God/gods/deification means that it's neurological/inborn/innate? Isn't it just as fair to say that because it's a universal human trait, it's based on some inherent trait of the universe (ie, the existence of god)?

What does this even mean? And why is belief in deities and/or the supernatural explainable this way, but, say, tool-use isn't?

[cybercoma]

A billion years is but a second to God.

How do you know?

You see I believe that evolution was God's tool for creating man as he did in Genesis.

Evolution is not creation. That huge error aside, how do you know?

God did this so that we would be better able to understand His great works in order to better serve Him.

How do you know?

Time and space to God is not the same as we see and measure it.

How do you know?

[Pliny]

In essence, the question is 'How, and thus why are we driven to invent gods?'

In simplicity, we seek to understand - everything. Since we don't we provide answers.

[cybercoma]

I think God exists, even though many religions that attempt (more or less sincerely) to understand God, are faulty.

Basically, your assumption is that religion MUST BE bad (as opposed to my assumption that religion CAN BE bad). I think that's because you can't accept that it can be positive.

I think you're mistaking personal deistic conviction with theism and belief in an organized religion. People that have a personal belief in God are not a problem, especially when their belief is deistic (God created the universe and stepped away from it because his creation must be perfect and a perfect creation needs no intervention or direction). When it becomes packaged and organized in such a manner that it influences politics and society, creates a set of rules and limitations, and does all of this by appealing to something that is untouchable to debate or reason, religion becomes a problem. When people organize and try to tell other people how to live their life based on some abstract notion of an entity that exists beyond rational understanding, I have a problem with that. People here misinterpret the atheists approach against organization and activism by religion, as against personal belief in a deity. Atheis activism is not about that. It's about the discrimination faced by persons who do not believe in such things. It's about atheists being labeled immoral destroyers of society that are stupid for not having a belief in God. Even in this thread, atheism has been blamed for drug-abuse, homosexuality and prostitution. It has been said that people are required to believe in God to find peace in death. None of these things are true, yet the stereotypes and prejudices are still out there. Personal belief in God is not a problem. Organized social manipulation that ostracizes those who don't believe is the problem.

[cybercoma]

In essence, the question is 'How, and thus why are we driven to invent gods?'

The universe is vast, complicated and chaotic. Gods, religion, theism and spirituality of all sorts are created to help us understand that world when we don't have any real answers. The human mind is incapable of understanding the infinite complexity of the universe, so we break it into chunks to help us. God's chunk gets smaller and smaller as science and reason continues to unravel the mysteries.

[Chris in KW]

As to the question of the evolutionary source of the god-seeking imperative, I actually visited that in another thread a couple of weeks ago.... I have two broad suspicions on it.

The first is that it is a side-effect of basic heirarchical socialization, enabling man to live in mutually supportive groups. Such group living requires each to understand and acknowledge his social role, recognizing and demonstrating authourity over lower-status members, and respect for the authourity of stronger members. Our socialization is full of instinctive emotional prompts-- liking babies, fearing dangerous folk, gratitude when we recieve a kindness-- but if socialization instincts run just slightly beyond themselves, then we can anthropomorhize all sorts of things-- creatures, inanimate objects, natural events-- and respond emotionally to them, as we would if they an element of our social heirarchy.... feel grateful for food we've found, show respect for a tree, fear thunder --- take random events personally on an emotional level, as though they were an act or an aspect of an associate.

The second is that it is a side effect of self-awareness, and something of a coping strategy. To anthropomorphize uncontrollable events provides a means to delude ourselves into a sense of control over them, through force, negotiation, finding favor, etc. A sense of control is soothing.

I'd be willing to bet that both play a role.

Finally! This is an argument that I, as a Christian, can respect. It's based on careful thought, and it's logical. I'm not going to carry on the debate (though we could probably add a new thread and carry it on for months if we wanted to).

But I do want to respond to all the people who have said "What's the point of debate between Christians and Atheists?"

I would say that, if it's good debate, it makes us all better. Many of the catastrophes of world history have been caused by stupid group think. At least lets make a habit of examining our assumptions, ESPECIALLY when they're about closely-held beliefs such as faith (or UNfaith).

Of course, when the debate is of the Mr Canada type, it just makes us all stupider.

[sharkman]

Religion can basically be defined as man trying to reach God, or be acceptable to God. Through rules and religious laws, man tries to live a "holy" life to earn eternal life. Shunning all manner of evil and disciplining oneself to be sinless for God.

Which, of course, means you have to be pretty much perfect, keeping all 10 of the Commandments for your lifetime, or face the consequences. It's not easy, but many around the world make valiant efforts, hoping that the good will outweigh the evil in their lives, that it will be enough to earn Heaven's reward.

(This is not what God intended for us when he sent his son to shake things up.)

It relies on an intellectual based approach, using mind over matter if you will. Of course, this is why discussions like this appear all over. An attempt to understand this god thing intellectually, when it doesn't make sense. There's no tangible proof. Where's the logic in that? Surely if religion is right you can prove it to me.

Religion tries to convert someone through intellect, to persuade them of its merits. As if the person will believe if only one can with logic and reason show them how it's the better way to live. As if. Religion is boring. At worst it's like a big world wide sales crusade, with excited sales staff preying on emotions to manipulate sales. What's the point? If the "product" needs to be marketed and forced on people, is it really worth changing your life for? I don't think so.

[GostHacked]

Good, so Melanie is against Sharia Law in Canada. Finally a socialist with a brain. Thank you.

I don't think anyone on this board or on this thread wants to see Sharia Law in Canada. Even the Jews lost their courts in Canada because of it.

Oleg Bach - keep posting the way you do. Consider me a fan of yours in some way. Others may not get what you are trying to say, but it paints a nice picture every time you post. I for one, appreciate your posts!!

[Pliny]

Oleg Bach - keep posting the way you do. Consider me a fan of yours in some way. Others may not get what you are trying to say, but it paints a nice picture every time you post. I for one, appreciate your posts!!

Ditto