He posted a cite against my assertion that people are born atheists. Even if we have a natural capacity for fantasy, (which I’m sure we do, myths are strong and we like fiction), that doesn’t mean we’re natural theists.
The point I made about imagination was in response to his cite. Did you get the order of events mixed up?
I was snippy because I’ve perused Lib’s laughable Aesthetic Jesus circle-jerks and the depth and breadth and length of his self-delusion were annoying. 
I don’t have this need, and it sounds like you don’t either. Those who don’t are happy to say your question is a big mystery and leave it at that, since a rational examination of this deity does nothing to satisfy the need for something to be out there.
It’s Jor-el’s all the way down.
I don’t know. Perhaps as infants our god need is satisfied by our parents, who are actually there feed us, make us feel good, and remove our poop, which makes them several orders of magnitude realer than any god people believe in subsequently. When our parents prove not to be real gods, those who have this god belief gene (which my family seems to be lacking ) transfer allegiance to god the father who is going to actively avoid disappointing us since he doesn’t exist.
Which makes me recall a really disturbing article in the Times Magazine last Sunday about a bunch of Japanese men who carry around life size pillows with pillow cases where a life size picture of an under-age manga girl is printed. And by carry around I mean everywhere, even to restaurants. They have the advantage of not getting headaches, rejecting the man, or talking back.
One thing I don’t get is how people can continue to call themselves Christian (or whatever) when they ignore huge parts of their holy books.
The old testament is a vile, nasty, hate filled, primitive tome that many Christians completely ignore, except for the one or two mild statements that they happen to like.
They ignore some of Jesus statesments (like returning as a lion rather than lamb, or whatever it is) and only acknowledge the happy go lucky hippy stuff of peace and love.
How can a book that says, “hate those who are different, burn their homes and take their virgin women, kill those who don’t accept what you say and slaughter their children”, but then says, “love your neighbor, respect your parents, turn the other cheek”, be seen as relevant to 21st century humans.
Sure, the Bible is interesting as a historical document but not as a roadmap to modern life. People who believe it may not be clinically crazy, but they are self dilluded and willfully ignorant.
It would probably be more accurate to say that God satisfies our need for stability and safety and passel-o-other-things. Presuming that we have a need for god because we wish our daddies really could make the bad things stop is kind of like saying we are all born with an inherent ***need ***for body-pillows with under-age manga girls printed on them because we like the idea of a woman that doesn’t get headaches, reject their man, or talk back.
I was referring to this quote:
What I don’t understand is, since he is obviously happy with:
“God just came out of nowhere”
“God has always been”
“The nature of God is impossible for humans to comprehend”
Why the need to introduce god as a complicating factor at all, how can one accept those explanations, but not simply accept:
“The universe just came out of nowhere”
“The universe has always been”
“The nature of the universe is impossible for humans to comprehend”
While I still wouldn’t approve, I could understand making up God as an explanation a lot better if it actually explained something.
Parents, and thus god, is just a personification of the provider of safety and security. We clearly don’t all need god - I don’t. I’d guess that needing manga pillows must be inborn somehow, since I sure as hell can’t figure out why someone would choose to do that, with the scorn it brings.
But there is no “reliable” evidence for the existence of god, either. There’s no difference between the evidence provided for the non-supernatural things and god. While it may be enough for the the individual, that doesn’t mean the evidence is “reliable.” Reliability, in the modern world, involves scientific testing and meeting certain standards, etc. Neither a unicorn nor a god meet those standards that we hold everything else to. Do YOU believe that unicorns exist (not the man-made ones…the ones of whimsical folklore)? If someone reports that they really, truly, honestly saw a unicorn walking down the street, do you believe that to be true because the evidence was good enough for them?
As sort of a twist on this, I believe one aspect of religion that appeals to many - at least in the US - is that it is one of the few remaining areas in which overt discrimination is tolerated. I’m not saying this is the MAIN appeal for MOST believers, but I think the identification of the “other” and a desire to imagine oneself as part of an oppressed minority have broader appeal than many folk might admit.
What she said. I always appreciate your thoughtful explanations of your faith, poly, but just because you choose to attribute an experience to a particular supernatural cause does not make it so.
There is no scientific evidence for gods. Anecdotes, Bibles and the like are not evidence. Scientific evidence is not the same as legal evidence where you can just present anything you want and let a jury decide. It’s not scientific evidence unless it actually demonstrates something reliable.
I guess qauntum physics is out then. Never know where those pesky particles are going to be.
I don’t think this is the case at all, and simply by looking at humanity one can see that some sort of predilection for faith (or claims of faith) is innate to most humans. 95% of the world’s population believes in a higher power of some sort.
However, I’d contend that the default state of humanity is immaterial. Ignorance is also the default state of humanity, and I don’t think it’s wholly unfair to suggest that the two are somewhat linked.
I didn’t mean to suggest it’s the default state for human cultures, which is what all current humans live in. It’s the default state for a human raised in isolation. Do children raised by animals in the wild have a religion?
Didn’t Frederick II try something similar to see what language children unexposed to communication would learn? I imagine those kids didn’t have an innate theology.
Children raised by animals in the wild tend to have little or no higher brain activity of any sort, though they retain higher brain function, IIRC. You’d no more call them atheists than you would scholars or philosophers, since they wouldn’t stop to ponder the nature of the universe or why they existed or anything more complex than “where food?”
IMHO, the label atheist indicates that one has considered and then rejected the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being. If it just never comes up, you’re not an atheist.
Quantum physics doesn’t try to tell you where the particles will be.
Atheism is defined only as an absence of theistic belief. No considered rejection of theism is necessary to the definition. It’s not necessary to have even heard of such a thing as a god. Animals, rocks and trees and babies are all atheistic.
Au contraire.
That definition is incorrect. The academic definition is simply an absence of theism. There are actually two different subsets of atheism. “weak atheism” is an absence of theistic belief without a positive assertion or belief that gods do NOT exist. A positive assertion that gods definitely do NOT exist is called “strong atheism.” The majority of atheists are not strong atheists. Even Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist. Atheism does not require any considered rejection of theism, or even any knowledge that such a thing exists.
I has a cite.