Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Bubonic]

What are your views on Atheism?

Are they admiration, disgust, pity, fear, indifference, curiosity, or something else?

Do you shut yourself off to Atheist rhetoric, or do you find there is more then ample justification supporting this worldview?

Is faithlessness necessarily connected to immorality? Many make that connection, are they wrong?

Would you find a Godless world one not worth living in? Or is the vast complexity of life more then enough to keep you in awe of everything, and the concept of a Godless world with no afterlife encourages you to live your life to the fullest?

Personally I'd be interested in answers, and debate to these and more. Hopefully people will make a concerted effort to keep things respectful and on topic.

For those defending atheism, don't get condescending. For those defending faith, try not to get to emotionally driven, and take it as an opportunity to challenge yourself and your faith.

[Bubonic]

So any change of opinion in the last 3 years?
Have any atheist reconsidered their position on cosmology, and have any of the pious lost faith?

Science presumably has moved forward since then, and I know some of the Hypsters were extremely well versed in it so has anything come up to substantiate the adherence to the dismissal of theological cosmology?

Looking over what the thread became the title and opening post are more or less relevant apart from the demand for civility and respect for others.

Stephen Hawking's 2 cents http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...e-is-no-heaven

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Bubonic

What are your views on Atheism?

Atheism is not a religion, it's not really a belief system. You live your life like anybody else; you give to charity if you are compelled to; you live honestly, and you can do good in the world.

Some atheists I have met, base their belief on demeaning the religious values of others, and I am opposed to that. The same if an insecure religious nut did the same to an atheist.

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

Some atheists I have met, base their belief on demeaning the religious values of others, and I am opposed to that. The same if an insecure religious nut did the same to an atheist.

That sounds nice.

But what if the “religious values” endorse discrimination against women or gays… or the teaching of superstition in public school science classes? It gets trickier when you actually spell out what the “religious values” are.

[Midnyte_Sun]

Originally Posted by Dr.

That sounds nice.

But what if the “religious values” endorse discrimination against women or gays… or the teaching of superstition in public school science classes? It gets trickier when you actually spell out what the “religious values” are.

Like I said, there are jerks and fanatics in every belief system, including atheists.

I can't recall meeting anybody who was of devout Jewish, Christian, or Muslim background that discriminated against gays or women. Real adherents of those faiths don't judge other people and generally just stay away from those they deem living a lifestyle that is contrary to their own. That's how all religions should be.

Generalizing won't do anybody any good.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Midnyte_Sun

Like I said, there are jerks and fanatics in every belief system, including atheists.

The difference is that those jerks are following doctrine.

Killing people who disagree with you, gays are evil, women are there to serve men, it's all in the Bible. Which means those jerks now have it in writing.

This is why religion is a bad thing. Because then it gives the jerks power to exercise their jerkiness.

[boywonder13]

Originally Posted by Bubonic

What are your views on Atheism?

Are they admiration, disgust, pity, fear, indifference, curiosity, or something else?

Do you shut yourself off to Atheist rhetoric, or do you find there is more then ample justification supporting this worldview?

Is faithlessness necessarily connected to immorality? Many make that connection, are they wrong?

Would you find a Godless world one not worth living in? Or is the vast complexity of life more then enough to keep you in awe of everything, and the concept of a Godless world with no afterlife encourages you to live your life to the fullest?

Personally I'd be interested in answers, and debate to these and more. Hopefully people will make a concerted effort to keep things respectful and on topic.

For those defending atheism, don't get condescending. For those defending faith, try not to get to emotionally driven, and take it as an opportunity to challenge yourself and your faith.

Here is my two cents as a Christian to answering the OP. My views of atheism are apathetic, and indifferent. Whether someone is atheist or not does not effect my opinion of them, in fact my two best friends are atheist (actually most of mine are, that or agnostic). Nor does the apparent rise of "adherents" or media attention. I've read and watched several presentations by the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, etc), so I can't reall tsay if shut myself off. Since i am highly interested in theology, church, and biblical history, I have found many of their statements underwhelming and incorrect, and just downright ignorant of the Christian position. The only worrying thing about some of the outgrowths of atheism is people taking things like Da Vinci Code as history, or promoting some "Science vs. Faith" false dichotomy, which all goes to show that many of these "free thinkers" are not as free thinking (whatever that even means) as they tout themselves to be just and are just like the negative outgrowths of Christianity . I wouldn't say faithless = immoral, and from what I know the Bible agrees with that statement, that (all) humans are given a sense of right and wrong. Would i find a godless world not worth living in? Good question

[Bill]

Originally Posted by boywonder13

Here is my two cents as a Christian to answering the OP. My views of atheism are apathetic, and indifferent. Whether someone is atheist or not does not effect my opinion of them, in fact my two best friends are atheist (actually most of mine are, that or agnostic). Nor does the apparent rise of "adherents" or media attention. I've read and watched several presentations by the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, etc), so I can't reall tsay if shut myself off. Since i am highly interested in theology, church, and biblical history, I have found many of their statements underwhelming and incorrect, and just downright ignorant of the Christian position. The only worrying thing about some of the outgrowths of atheism is people taking things like Da Vinci Code as history, or promoting some "Science vs. Faith" false dichotomy, which all goes to show that many of these "free thinkers" are not as free thinking (whatever that even means) as they tout themselves to be just and are just like the negative outgrowths of Christianity . I wouldn't say faithless = immoral, and from what I know the Bible agrees with that statement, that (all) humans are given a sense of right and wrong. Would i find a godless world not worth living in? Good question

Free thinking is simply not approaching evidence with a preconceived notion or a predetermined conclusion. I feel it is almost impossible where humans are concerned as there is always some type of prejudice involved, and no matter how little it may seem, it may taint the conclusion.

I don't think that the Science vs. Faith dichotomy is false, at least depending upon the faith. People tend to rationalize the issues with faith to accommodate Science, but that trivializes the intent of the particular faith involved to such a degree that it is no longer exclusive to the culture that spawned it, and more to do with the preconceptions of the individual who is attempting to reconcile their faith with the findings of Science.

[Calvin]

I used to be agnostic, but then I realized I was just being agnostic because it was really easy to sit on the fence and pretend that you're doing it because you're open minded. After a while it just started to feel like as much of a logical fallacy as being specifically religious. I think if you don't see any proof or evidence of religion being correct, then the only intelligent and logical choice to make at that point is to be an athiest.

I don't buy all the "athiesm is a religion itself!" crap either. It's the default option. If you don't willfully choose to believe in something supernatural like a god, then your default setting is being an athiest. It's being logically sound, Occam's Razor and all that, it's not a belief system in the way that religion is.

I don't have a problem with people being religious, and I think for the right people, it can just so happen to be a positive influence (though for many it can be an influence that causes them to do bad things as they use it for justification of immorality and malice, and for many it's an influence that causes them to be annoying as hell in their fervor), but even if you see it as a completely positive thing, you have to admit that it's basically illogical, and irrational, based on the evidence you as a human being are privy to (which is none, at least physicially, scientifically, or even historically in any verifiable way).

[cryptic name]

Originally Posted by Calvin

I used to be agnostic, but then I realized I was just being agnostic because it was really easy to sit on the fence and pretend that you're doing it because you're open minded. After a while it just started to feel like as much of a logical fallacy as being specifically religious. I think if you don't see any proof or evidence of religion being correct, then the only intelligent and logical choice to make at that point is to be an athiest.

I don't buy all the "athiesm is a religion itself!" crap either. It's the default option. If you don't willfully choose to believe in something supernatural like a god, then your default setting is being an athiest. It's being logically sound, Occam's Razor and all that, it's not a belief system in the way that religion is.

I don't have a problem with people being religious, and I think for the right people, it can just so happen to be a positive influence (though for many it can be an influence that causes them to do bad things as they use it for justification of immorality and malice, and for many it's an influence that causes them to be annoying as hell in their fervor), but even if you see it as a completely positive thing, you have to admit that it's basically illogical, and irrational, based on the evidence you as a human being are privy to (which is none, at least physicially, scientifically, or even historically in any verifiable way).

I don't know about that. Atheism is a firm stance, which doesn't seem that logical at all because...how could you possibly know? same issue i have with any religious belief.

[Nevincer]

Originally Posted by Calvin

I used to be agnostic, but then I realized I was just being agnostic because it was really easy to sit on the fence and pretend that you're doing it because you're open minded. After a while it just started to feel like as much of a logical fallacy as being specifically religious. I think if you don't see any proof or evidence of religion being correct, then the only intelligent and logical choice to make at that point is to be an athiest.

I don't buy all the "athiesm is a religion itself!" crap either. It's the default option. If you don't willfully choose to believe in something supernatural like a god, then your default setting is being an athiest. It's being logically sound, Occam's Razor and all that, it's not a belief system in the way that religion is.

I don't have a problem with people being religious, and I think for the right people, it can just so happen to be a positive influence (though for many it can be an influence that causes them to do bad things as they use it for justification of immorality and malice, and for many it's an influence that causes them to be annoying as hell in their fervor), but even if you see it as a completely positive thing, you have to admit that it's basically illogical, and irrational, based on the evidence you as a human being are privy to (which is none, at least physicially, scientifically, or even historically in any verifiable way).

I know this was posted all the way at the beginning of the thread but this fully reflects my views on the whole debacle. Great post!

[chaseter]

But atheism has become a religion. Money is being spent to try and convert others to that viewpoint. There are atheist bilboards. I have seen people preaching how there is no god. I have seen people handing out pamphlets on my college campus. Atheism is becoming organized.

I just find it ironic that it has become a movement. I don't like theists or atheists that try and shove their view point down other people's throats or try and convert other people. I have no problem with either side when they keep those beliefs to themselves and I would say the majority of theists and atheists are tolerant and level headed. I am of course speaking in terms of this generation's theists.

Atheism is not the default setting. Otherwise religion would have never been invented. It is human to have beliefs in something more than itself. I would agree that atheism is probably the more rational setting but I wouldn't say it is the default setting that an outside influence has to turn on to activate it. It may even be a product of our id. Who knows.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by chaseter

But atheism has become a religion. Money is being spent to try and convert others to that viewpoint. There are atheist bilboards. I have seen people preaching how there is no god. I have seen people handing out pamphlets on my college campus. Atheism is becoming organized.

I just find it ironic that it has become a movement. I don't like theists or atheists that try and shove their view point down other people's throats or try and convert other people. I have no problem with either side when they keep those beliefs to themselves and I would say the majority of theists and atheists are tolerant and level headed. I am of course speaking in terms of this generation's theists.

Atheism is not the default setting. Otherwise religion would have never been invented. It is human to have beliefs in something more than itself. I would agree that atheism is probably the more rational setting but I wouldn't say it is the default setting that an outside influence has to turn on to activate it. It may even be a product of our id. Who knows.

Originally Posted by chaseter

But atheism has become a religion. Money is being spent to try and convert others to that viewpoint. There are atheist bilboards. I have seen people preaching how there is no god. I have seen people handing out pamphlets on my college campus. Atheism is becoming organized.

I just find it ironic that it has become a movement. I don't like theists or atheists that try and shove their view point down other people's throats or try and convert other people. I have no problem with either side when they keep those beliefs to themselves and I would say the majority of theists and atheists are tolerant and level headed. I am of course speaking in terms of this generation's theists.

Atheism is not the default setting. Otherwise religion would have never been invented. It is human to have beliefs in something more than itself. I would agree that atheism is probably the more rational setting but I wouldn't say it is the default setting that an outside influence has to turn on to activate it. It may even be a product of our id. Who knows.

It is the default setting, if you were a human and nobody told you about religion, then you would be an athiest. You don't have to discover or be told about athiesm to be an athiest, you're one by default until someone tells you about religion. As there's no physician evidence of religion in life, unless someone told you about religion, you'd have no reason to think of it or believe it.

And the people that turn athiesm into a "religion" are simply just a**holes. I frankly don't personally know any athiests that try to turn it into a movement, though I do hear of them. It's stupid to make it a movement, by its very nature it shouldn't be a movement. You don't have to know or study anything (or even know of the term "athiest") to be an athiest, it's simply a logical lack of believing in something supernatural or irrational. That's it. With religion, you have to know the tenets of the religion, you have to know who the players in the religion are, what they did, what they stand for, what you're supposed to do to be in good favor with the religion, you have to believe in things told to you that you can't find any physical proof for. That's completely different than athiesm, and it makes sense for religion to be a movement (though I find it annoying as a movement nonetheless). Athiesm is simply not doing or believing that stuff, because you feel there's no logical reason to. It shouldn't technically be able to be a movement, nor is it a any sort of outside the box thinking. Like I said it's the default mode. Whether one knew it or not, if you didn't have an outside person tell you about religion, you would just logically not think about religion and you'd be an athiest, even if nobody ever talked to you about what athiesm is either. Do you know any relgions that work that way? Could you accidentally believe in christianity if nobody ever told you about it, or you never read about it? No, of course not. But you would certainly be an athiest if nobody ever told you about religion/athiesm.

[Bubonic]

Originally Posted by Calvin

It is the default setting, if you were a human and nobody told you about religion, then you would be an athiest. You don't have to discover or be told about athiesm to be an athiest, you're one by default until someone tells you about religion. As there's no physician evidence of religion in life, unless someone told you about religion, you'd have no reason to think of it or believe it.

That depends on how you define religion.
Take my animism example. The earliest of people had no religion, but they had a reverence for nature, they were small roaming groups that nothing but their intrinsic knowledge of life. They understood the "circle of life" and everything had a sort of religious aspect to it. The water, the land, the birds, the mammals even rocks had a sort of divinity to them, and I can't say that even though there was no actual God or gods that this could really be considered atheism.

Originally Posted by Calvin

And the people that turn athiesm into a "religion" are simply just a**holes. I frankly don't personally know any athiests that try to turn it into a movement, though I do hear of them. It's stupid to make it a movement, by its very nature it shouldn't be a movement. You don't have to know or study anything (or even know of the term "athiest") to be an athiest, it's simply a logical lack of believing in something supernatural or irrational. That's it. With religion, you have to know the tenets of the religion, you have to know who the players in the religion are, what they did, what they stand for, what you're supposed to do to be in good favor with the religion, you have to believe in things told to you that you can't find any physical proof for. That's completely different than athiesm, and it makes sense for religion to be a movement (though I find it annoying as a movement nonetheless). Athiesm is simply not doing or believing that stuff, because you feel there's no logical reason to. It shouldn't technically be able to be a movement, nor is it a any sort of outside the box thinking. Like I said it's the default mode. Whether one knew it or not, if you didn't have an outside person tell you about religion, you would just logically not think about religion and you'd be an athiest, even if nobody ever talked to you about what athiesm is either. Do you know any relgions that work that way? Could you accidentally believe in christianity if nobody ever told you about it, or you never read about it? No, of course not. But you would certainly be an athiest if nobody ever told you about religion/athiesm.

The ones that are turning it into a movement do so out of a fear for the irrationality that goes with blind faith. It's a pipe dream though, the very nature of religion preserves religion.
The only people that "convert" to atheism were moderates to begin with, the more extreme factions will never raise their children to be anything else but what they are, religion is a living organism, and like any living organism its driving force is to get itself into the next generation, to spread and multiply.


So if it's all tl;dr I'm not convinced atheism is the default.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by Bubonic

That depends on how you define religion.
Take my animism example. The earliest of people had no religion, but they had a reverence for nature, they were small roaming groups that nothing but their intrinsic knowledge of life. They understood the "circle of life" and everything had a sort of religious aspect to it. The water, the land, the birds, the mammals even rocks had a sort of divinity to them, and I can't say that even though there was no actual God or gods that this could really be considered atheism.



The ones that are turning it into a movement do so out of a fear for the irrationality that goes with blind faith. It's a pipe dream though, the very nature of religion preserves religion.
The only people that "convert" to atheism were moderates to begin with, the more extreme factions will never raise their children to be anything else but what they are, religion is a living organism, and like any living organism its driving force is to get itself into the next generation, to spread and multiply.


So if it's all tl;dr I'm not convinced atheism is the default.

To be honest, that thing you described earlier sounds like athiesm to me. Having a "reverence" for the physical things around you that sustain your life doesn't sound like a religion to me at all, it just sounds like common sense and an appreciation for living, and the things that you use to survive.

I agree that people are trying to turn athiesm into a movement for that reason, but I think that really has nothing to do with athiesm itself. There's nothing about athiesm that requires it being spread around (most religions do have principles that encourage you to spread the word), so I think it's just a misuse of athiesm, and those people would probably start a movement over anything else if they didn't have athiesm. They're probably just movement lovin' people.

But yeah, I'm glad you used "convert" in parenthesis. I'd never actually met, or read about anyone talking about athiesm before I started to come to those conclusions on my own. In fact, my parents were religious, though not enough to make me want to be rebellious towards it. It was a bit boring, but I didn't mind it. But, the point here is that as they were fairly passive in their religious ferver, especially as they got older, and I stopped having it driven into me by an outside influence, my brain logically started to revert to the default logical position, which was seeing that there wasn't any logical or physical evidence for the existence of a diety, and I simply stopped believing in it.

[Bubonic]

Originally Posted by Calvin

To be honest, that thing you described earlier sounds like athiesm to me. Having a "reverence" for the physical things around you that sustain your life doesn't sound like a religion to me at all, it just sounds like common sense and an appreciation for living, and the things that you use to survive.

It really comes down to semantics at that point. Belief and religion are ambiguous terms. The reverence paleolithic people had for nature had a "divine" shade to it, everything was magic to them, sort of like everything seems magical to a child. An atheist usually wont make communion with the animal which sustains his life, whereas the early animist would make it an almost spiritual exchange. I'd need to dust off some of my old anthro books to really disambiguate what it is I'm trying to convey.

Originally Posted by Calvin

I agree that people are trying to turn athiesm into a movement for that reason, but I think that really has nothing to do with athiesm itself. There's nothing about athiesm that requires it being spread around (most religions do have principles that encourage you to spread the word), so I think it's just a misuse of athiesm, and those people would probably start a movement over anything else if they didn't have athiesm. They're probably just movement lovin' people.

Your right, nothing about atheism necessitates collective action, that is why organizing athiest has been likened to herding cats. But because the world of atheist is ultimately controlled by people who aren't atheist they've recently realized that if they are to have a hope to live in the world they want for themselves that they need to get organized.

Originally Posted by Calvin

But yeah, I'm glad you used "convert" in parenthesis. I'd never actually met, or read about anyone talking about athiesm before I started to come to those conclusions on my own. In fact, my parents were religious, though not enough to make me want to be rebellious towards it. It was a bit boring, but I didn't mind it. But, the point here is that as they were fairly passive in their religious ferver, especially as they got older, and I stopped having it driven into me by an outside influence, my brain logically started to revert to the default logical position, which was seeing that there wasn't any logical or physical evidence for the existence of a diety, and I simply stopped believing in it.

Passivity is usually the key which opens the door to atheism in children of the moderately religious. If I was born in a family which convinced me of the infallibility of wtv religion they believed before I could think for myself then I'd be an ardent Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, et cetera.

This is the reason why some atheist believe that the indoctrination of children to religion is a form of child abuse because that removes the freedom of choice from them.

Originally Posted by Shemtov

I am surprised by the fact that this thread managed to survive up to 250 posts much less have enough posts to be thread managed. I am confident This new part won't make it to 250.

It depends on whether or not discussion degenerates into hostility.
But why is it that you are surprised that it initially survived? It concerns the very framework of our lives when you think about it, and there is a lot of room for the exchange of ideas and inevitably for some will cause introspection.

If you look through the first thread you'll see a lot of interesting things, and for me I wondered where people stood now, 3 years after the first.

I assume you are Jewish? Jewish people are very pious and I can understand why a thread about atheism could seem moot, but why not give it a chance?

[Dr.]

Originally Posted by chaseter

But atheism has become a religion. Money is being spent to try and convert others to that viewpoint. There are atheist bilboards. I have seen people preaching how there is no god. I have seen people handing out pamphlets on my college campus. Atheism is becoming organized.

Defending or championing a point of view doesn’t denote a religion. Ad money spent trying to persuade you to drink Coke or save the whales doesn’t mean that Coke or the World Wildlife Fund are religious institutions.

If I happen to think that astrology is silly, I might be moved to say so publicly, to try to get folks to appreciate my point of view. To those who happen to disagree, there are many epithets that might be directed my way. But it would be a bizarre convolution of language if my anti-astrology efforts were called a form of astrology.

[Aesop Rocks]

Atheism is a pretty big eh in my book.

[chaseter]

Religion has been around since the beginning of man. Either it is not the default setting or there are actual deities.

I agree...not all atheists are part of the popular movement but you can't deny it isn't happening. Atheism is becoming a religion.

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Religion has been around since the beginning of man. Either it is not the default setting or there are actual deities.

What a dumb thing to say. So when man finally evolved enough to be considered a man, the first thing out of his mouth was "Praise the lord!" No, socially, and probably due to fear, man gradually thought of the idea of a god or gods in order to comfort them against the harsh realities of nature. It's a human tendency to come up with ideas that comfort us in times of hardship (which early human life certainly was). I mean, if some kid thought up a magical invisible friend that he hung out with in order to comfort him because he parents beat him and he didn't have any friends, we'd probably think he was developing some psychotic issues caused by his hardship. But what he's doing isn't really any different than what early man was doing when they came up with religion.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by Calvin

What a dumb thing to say. So when man finally evolved enough to be considered a man, the first thing out of his mouth was "Praise the lord!" No, socially, and probably due to fear, man gradually thought of the idea of a god or gods in order to comfort them against the harsh realities of nature. It's a human tendency to come up with ideas that comfort us in times of hardship (which early human life certainly was). I mean, if some kid thought up a magical invisible friend that he hung out with in order to comfort him because he parents beat him and he didn't have any friends, we'd probably think he was developing some psychotic issues caused by his hardship. But what he's doing isn't really any different than what early man was doing when they came up with religion.

Once again, if atheism is the default setting on human beings then religion would have never been invented. We would have no imaginations. Our minds would solely be wired for logical and rational thinking.

But for some reason we as humans are wired to have an imagination and hope. We have these things because it is beneficial to our species and it is an evolved trait. It's scientifically proven that people in a hospital have greater recovery rates if they are given hope. If you tell a cancer patient that they are going to die because there is no hope then they likely won't live as long as a comparable patient who is told that there is hope. So what's the first thing that man hopes for as a human being? That there is more to life than what we see in front of us.

So no, I don't think it is a dumb thing to say that atheism is the default setting when man automatically reverts to it. If you want to continue with that line of thinking then that means that religion is an adapted trait and would therefore make that theist a better survivor than the atheist as you have even mentioned that belief in something more is beneficial. So wouldn't it be logical for you to be a theist?

[Calvin]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Once again, if atheism is the default setting on human beings then religion would have never been invented. We would have no imaginations. Our minds would solely be wired for logical and rational thinking.

But for some reason we as humans are wired to have an imagination and hope. We have these things because it is beneficial to our species and it is an evolved trait. It's scientifically proven that people in a hospital have greater recovery rates if they are given hope. If you tell a cancer patient that they are going to die because there is no hope then they likely won't live as long as a comparable patient who is told that there is hope. So what's the first thing that man hopes for as a human being? That there is more to life than what we see in front of us.

So no, I don't think it is a dumb thing to say that atheism is the default setting when man automatically reverts to it. If you want to continue with that line of thinking then that means that religion is an adapted trait and would therefore make that theist a better survivor than the atheist as you have even mentioned that belief in something more is beneficial. So wouldn't it be logical for you to be a theist?

What the hell does having an imagination have to do with not being religious? The bridge you're using to make your point doesn't make any sense at all. You can not believe in religious stuff initially and still have an imagination (by your logic nobody that is an athiest could ever produce art or entertainment? Or even engage in creative thinking? Huh?). And you can also still be talked into believing in religion even if athiesm is your natural and logical default mindset. There are plenty of people that don't want or need things that I've had to sell in the past. Their default stance would certainly be "I don't need or want that thing" but I sure as hell have been able to convince them otherwise.

As for religion making you a better survivor, that was my whole point, it DID. Back when we needed it to. When we were a struggling species, it provided comfort from the harsh realities of nature, and it provided societal advantages of consolidating groups. Like I said, it was a defense and survival mechanism created by our minds, just like the example of little Johnny or whatever creating an imaginary friend to survive an abusive childhood (rather than killing himself if he didn't have that comfort). That doesn't make it real though, nor does it negate the fact that athiesm is the default logically. Our brains do illogical things, some of it for survival and comfort, but that doesn't make it logical in the sense of the universe, it just makes it a logical leap into illogical thinking in order to survive. Of course, now that we're not starving cavemen, it's not really that necessary, though many people still cling to it for comfort, and many people still believe it despite there being no physician evidence, or really any logical reason to believe it, because the concept has been around so long and it's so ingrained in society.

Edited to add, upon rereading your post, are you saying athiesm IS the default setting? Because in that case I agree with you. I'm having trouble telling which side of the fence you're on about that actually, as your post seems to be arguing for one thing but then concluding with the opposite.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by Calvin

Edited to add, upon rereading your post, are you saying athiesm IS the default setting? Because in that case I agree with you. I'm having trouble telling which side of the fence you're on about that actually, as your post seems to be arguing for one thing but then concluding with the opposite.

No I don't think it is the default because as you and I both agree it has been beneficial for the species. So overtime, that adaptation becomes part of that species through evolution, the evolution of the brain. That's like saying that birds have feathers because that is their default. They didn't at one time and they might not in the future. But for a long, long time, birds have had feathers and man has had religion. It's just the current default.

[Oddzball]

Originally Posted by chaseter

Once again, if atheism is the default setting on human beings then religion would have never been invented. We would have no imaginations. Our minds would solely be wired for logical and rational thinking.

But for some reason we as humans are wired to have an imagination and hope. We have these things because it is beneficial to our species and it is an evolved trait. It's scientifically proven that people in a hospital have greater recovery rates if they are given hope. If you tell a cancer patient that they are going to die because there is no hope then they likely won't live as long as a comparable patient who is told that there is hope. So what's the first thing that man hopes for as a human being? That there is more to life than what we see in front of us.

So no, I don't think it is a dumb thing to say that atheism is the default setting when man automatically reverts to it. If you want to continue with that line of thinking then that means that religion is an adapted trait and would therefore make that theist a better survivor than the atheist as you have even mentioned that belief in something more is beneficial. So wouldn't it be logical for you to be a theist?

No, there would be charismatic crazies and con men to come along Ugk the neanderthal cannot disprove thunder and lightning aren't supernatural phenomena.