I actually think that is an interesting point on your side. I also question just how integral god belief may have been to our development as a species. It could be that while literal god belief can be transcended, that there would be no atheist alternatives possible without our ancestors embrace of it. I still think it has value and may for all I know provide those for whom it fits a superior connection to that which inspired the practice.
The idea of a human community with no religion is a non-existent fantasy which doesn’t agree with our observation of human behavior. What we observe is that man is a religious animal. Without religion from their ancestors, people invent religion for themselves and it is often some pretty bad religion. It takes a history of reform to make human beings at least somewhat religiously well behaved.
The quintessential example a human being without culture is easily observed in the human toddler. And what they do is a lot of bizarre random stuff before they learn what to do and what not to do. This tells us exactly what we can expect from human beings without some aspect of culture. It is not some imaginary default behavior but a bunch of bizarre random stuff until we learn what to do and what not to do.
In Finland, some of those without a religion have united under the title ‘freethinkers union’. No use of the word ‘atheist’.
In practice, the activities of the members of the union have been quite aggressive atheism. Religious freedom has both a negative (freedom of not to believe) and a positive (freedom to believe) aspect. The union has driven the negative aspect at the cost of the positive aspect (pr campaigns, aggressive legal attacks, campaigns to get people leave the church). They have tried to get rid of anything with religious connections in contexts where even a small minority of attending people has a non-religious background. This has kept the demands of the union in the media although they represent a small minority of Finns.
1 Like
I think I’ve heard atheists opine that they will know they’ve ‘arrived’ when such a label is not needed at all, and they are referred to as … just … people. Group labels are applied to those seen as somehow special or notable outliers from the accepted norm.
Wouldn’t it seem strange to be known as “he who has never ridden an elephant”. Such a group must surely be a vast majority of us … think of the political power and clout we should have! But, no … not having ever been on an elephant just isn’t “a thing.” For most of our known human history, not believing in any gods is very much “a notable thing”. But one can understand why they should weary of being defined only in the negative of something they have rejected. It must rankle that it is the very thing they have declined to believe in that then becomes the term of demarcation society recognizes them as.
-Non sweet potato eater, Merv [unless they come in chip form - those are good. But the mushy stuff with marshmellow topping … uggghhh. That causes me to self-identify as a sweet a-potatoist. …though I try not to be too militant about it.]
3 Likes
I wouldn’t put it so confidently as all that. For me it is a hypothesis but not a fact. But obviously we’re both just speculating.
This is a prime example when non-believers do something they accuse religion of all the time(well, I’m thinking here the militant type to be precise, clearly not you @MarkD ). That is intolerance and pushing one’s religion on every body around. And even those traits in believers tend to be rarer than portrait by the media, although that just my own experience(ohh, I had few bad ones too). The irony of it…
Lol… Yes, I can see why they find it annoying cause I would be too but until a better word is found… Ohh, I’m talking about atheists, not those-who-never-rode-elephant 
2 Likes
Yeah … and they would reply that better words have already been found! … person … brother … sister … neighbor … son … daughter … friend …
- Afairiest, Merv
1 Like
Ironically, I can’t know what is in other peoples’ heads. There are people who claim they know God exists because of their personal experiences. They may have that knowledge, but I personally haven’t seen independent and verifiable evidence to back that knowledge. I don’t know (i.e. agnostic).
1 Like
That’s how I feel as well.
I would like to claim that I am feel apathy towards the subject, but then my presence here would be hard to explain. On one hand, both Christians and atheists here at BL think it is important to support science. Going a bit further, I also think it is important for there to be a healthy dialog between Christians and atheists since we happen to share the same countries and planet.
3 Likes
That was me as well for the longest time. I just didn’t want to get into it. But when you meet more reflective Christians who communicate honestly about what they think and feel with no manic agenda to convert you, it makes you want to see how much common ground you can find. There are no regulars on these forums I wouldn’t be happy to embrace as a neighbor, yourself most definitely included. Some I feel are friends.
I think that is a healthy outlook. I’ve always thought that for the best chance of success, you need to lead by putting out what you hope to get back. Holding back at first to make sure someone doesn’t confirm your worst fears rarely goes anywhere.
4 Likes
I disagree. There is an evolutionary bias towards variation. The idea of some sort of default is fundamentally flawed because it leads to evolutionary dead ends. And this only increases with the addition of a nervous system and the ability to learn.
I don’t think I’m following you, Mitchell. You disagree that we are dealing in hypotheses rather than facts? I’m not sure what default you have in mind that you think is fundamentally flawed. Can you explain more?
I disagree that we are dealing with equal hypotheses, absent of any evidence. I presented the evidence of behavior in toddlers which supports random behavior rather than a default behavior. Furthermore there is some basic logic inherent in both our functionality and evolutionary origins. We are built to learn and learning requires an impulse to try random things (that is how AI learning programs and evolutionary algorithms work). Otherwise our capacity to learn gains us nothing.
You can get a median hypothesis by mentioning the fact that random behavior implies a probability distribution and a normal (bell curve) probability distribution is the most likely, which means behavior at or around the mean is what you see more often than anything else. And so you could say is bit like a default behavior. And I would agree that doing nothing (in this case thinking nothing) is a rather likely mean behavior.
The only problem is that imagining a pre-religious community is a bit of a chicken or the egg kind of idea. There was never any human community without a cultural inheritance, and the remoteness of a community is irrelevant. There is plenty of examples of both cultural isolation and diversity in religious ideas but there is no example of an absence of religious ideas. So the notion that religion is some sort of contagious contaminant simply will not fly – doesn’t agree with the evidence at all. So the REAL mean/default is the cultural one – the pattern set by ancestors and tradition.
So… back to the suggestion by knor…
For me the principle objection would be in the claim that atheism is a worldview. It is no such thing. It is an answer to a single question and such do not a worldview make. There are many worldviews based on this belief – including some forms of Buddhism. And I would suggest that quite often one can be an atheist with a mostly Christian (or substitute some other religion) worldview – those who haven’t changed the entirety of their thinking according to the decision on that one question.
But I most certainly dispute the definition of atheism as a default position. There is nothing special about negative beliefs. One can just as easily define theism as the lack of a disbelief in gods. But frankly, why anyone would want to skew the average knowledge and experience of their group towards infancy is quite beyond my understanding. Do you think the average atheist knows nothing and hasn’t even thought about such things??? LOL!
1 Like
We are all just people, I can support that idea.
Grouping things is still normal human behavior. We live in a messy world, grouping is a way to get an understandable structure to it. We use all kind of classifications. Cultural heritage, nationality, phenotype, education, profession, religion, political views, hobbies. You can continue the list as much as you like.
Grouping things has both positive and negative consequences. Increasing understanding is a positive consequence. The bad side is that it easily strengthens the ‘us’ vs. ‘others’ thinking.
I belong to sweet potato eaters - but not too often. And to the group of people writing to this platform, occasionally. And I also belong to the group of people who love the idea that there is a discussion platform where people try to understand differing opinions, rather than just attacking against ‘them’.
3 Likes
Probably all members of the union are not ‘militant’ but public image is formed by the activities of the most active members.
‘Militant’ atheism may act as a mirror that helps to understand why so many people avoid too enthusiastic believers. I confess that I was a real nuisance to other people when I was young and Jesus had just come to my life as my Savior. Black-and-white thinking of a young man associated with very little knowledge and a wrong attitude. Did more harm than good by thinking that all who don’t believe as me must be converted. God, have mercy upon me…
2 Likes
Wrong choice of words, sorry. I agree that it is only a small part of a worldview and that atheists do not have a common worldview.
The problem here is that the word ‘a-theism’ is tied to ‘theism’. It’s looking the world from one angle. From this angle, the variety of worldviews are grouped according to the answers to a single question, belief in God or gods.
Sometimes it’s been compared to saying: If atheism is a religion (or worldview) then “not collecting stamps” is a hobby. There is some truth to that, but if collecting stamps were as common as the tendency to believe in a God or gods, then those who choose differently do become much more definable as a group, even if defined by the negative or ostensible absence of something.
It occurs to me that this might also be an apt comparison: Is black a color? A complete absence of all wavelengths of light surely is not just another “color” like any other crayon in the box. And yet, … there it is … a crayon with its very own label and use - and that is missed if it were gone.
1 Like
You say you think it has all ceased? Does this mean that you recognize that it once did happen?
As for being a Christian, what is a Christian? Someone who trying to follow the teachings of Christ?
Note, Jesus condemned the man’s declaration who called Jesus, “good teacher,” by saying, “no one is good but God.” But on the other hand, Jesus did not rebuke those who bowed down to worship him either. Now Jesus never demanded worship, but he did not rebuke those who did worship him either.
So, what do you believe and who or what do you follow? For the Bible speaks of miracles, eternal life,eternal judgement, etc. While most humans, well, we pick and choose what to believe, even when it comes from God’s word.
But poor little me, I will not judge God’s word according to my wisdom, but instead must rely upon God’s word to instruct me in all things.
What is the basis of reality if it is not the basis of origins?
While either there is evidence for God or there is not?
Warning, never has been nor will be evidence for the god who conforms to our understanding and desires.
But, if you seek evidence for the God outlined in the Bible you will either find it or you will not?
While the God of the Bible has promised all of us:
What do you have in mind when you use the word “reality”? I have in mind something like “whatever in fact is out there”. To look for something more basic than that, which can therefore support it, seems like an impossible mission to me.
But I’m not one of those who demands evidence for God. In fact I already believe there is something real which gives rise to god belief and that it is something quite valuable. The only hitch is, I don’t think that what gives rise to and supports god belief is what you think of as God. I don’t try to characterize who God is, in fact I don’t think of it as person-like exactly. Not a creator, not a parent, not a teacher and not a ruler. Just a partner whose fulfillment is the best shot I have at finding my own. I admit I sometimes think I may be missing out on something for not personifying God more than I do. But my sense is that my partner doesn’t care about that and feels acknowledged still.
Since I have not sought meaning in the Bible all my life, I have not imbued that book with the significance which it has for you. I have no doubt that in the right hands it can provide a framework for making a good life full of meaning. In its absence I’ve gone ahead and found a way that I’m not dissatisfied with. Good luck to you in yours.