Topic: Humans evolved religion and spiritual leanings as a way of coping with the awareness of death and no
Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #18,808
Therefore atheists are less evolved than religious people.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| yea | 3 | 38% | |
| nay | 5 | 63% |
Handel !khEOdtKF56 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #310,866
Humans invented religion as a way of understanding what they didn't understand and then proceeded to change it when it wasn't relevant any more.
!hEyBrieeXM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 54 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,867
@previous (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
> Humans invented religion as a way of understanding what they didn't understand and then proceeded to change it when it wasn't relevant any more.
> Humans invented religion as a way of understanding what they didn't understand and then proceeded to change it when it wasn't relevant any more.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,887
@310,866 (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
This is one reason the lower animals are move evolved then humans. They do not have a religion.
This is one reason the lower animals are move evolved then humans. They do not have a religion.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,895
OP has evolved faggotry as a way of coping with life.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #310,896
@310,866 (Handel !khEOdtKF56)
> Humans invented religion as a way of understanding what they didn't understand and then proceeded to change it when it wasn't relevant any more.
QFT
> Humans invented religion as a way of understanding what they didn't understand and then proceeded to change it when it wasn't relevant any more.
QFT
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,021
OP is a god
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,031
The problem with this is that religion has largely been forced on people.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,042
It could be argued that atheism is the default setting. If a person is never taught a religion then they probably won't be religious.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,095
Humans invented religion and spiritual leanings as a way of imposing the will of an elite minority on the ignorant majority.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 23 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,106
@311,042 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
It is the default setting. A foetus doesn't believe in God. No child is born with religious beliefs.
It is the default setting. A foetus doesn't believe in God. No child is born with religious beliefs.
dw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 27 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,108
@311,042 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
i think they would try to find some reasoning behind things and that would probably be some sort of higher power
i think they would try to find some reasoning behind things and that would probably be some sort of higher power
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,109
@311,106 (K)
I don't buy that. I think the human mind is extremely overzealous when it comes to link based explanations. We are obsessed with labels and other bullshit. Sometimes, people can only see the label.
Obviously, these mechanisms evolved for purposes other than sky daddy worship, but I do think they lend a natural leaning for humans to imagine they have the answers when in fact they do not.
I don't buy that. I think the human mind is extremely overzealous when it comes to link based explanations. We are obsessed with labels and other bullshit. Sometimes, people can only see the label.
Obviously, these mechanisms evolved for purposes other than sky daddy worship, but I do think they lend a natural leaning for humans to imagine they have the answers when in fact they do not.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 40 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #311,112
@311,108 (dw)
True, some people might come up with an abstract explanation like a higher power even without outside influence. Religion had to come from somewhere, after all.
Still, that'd depend on a person's personality.
@previous (J)
With some humans, anyway. I'm not sure if everybody is pre-disposed to religious explanations. Some people simply don't care about that stuff.
Maybe there's been a study about it. That'd be interesting.
True, some people might come up with an abstract explanation like a higher power even without outside influence. Religion had to come from somewhere, after all.
Still, that'd depend on a person's personality.
@previous (J)
With some humans, anyway. I'm not sure if everybody is pre-disposed to religious explanations. Some people simply don't care about that stuff.
Maybe there's been a study about it. That'd be interesting.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 20 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,393
@311,109 (J)
Yes, but that doesn't mean a kids are born with religious beliefs or ideas. They need time and experience to form. No child's born believing in God, so they're, by definition, atheists.
Yes, but that doesn't mean a kids are born with religious beliefs or ideas. They need time and experience to form. No child's born believing in God, so they're, by definition, atheists.
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,406
@previous (K)
They cannot be considered atheists because to classify them as such would require a reliable measurement of their thoughts. You cannot measure what an infant is thinking by any reliable means, so your conjecture that all children are atheist is every bit as disprovable and scientifically baseless as any other religious claim.
And they say atheism isn't a religion.
They cannot be considered atheists because to classify them as such would require a reliable measurement of their thoughts. You cannot measure what an infant is thinking by any reliable means, so your conjecture that all children are atheist is every bit as disprovable and scientifically baseless as any other religious claim.
And they say atheism isn't a religion.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,415
@311,042 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
If a person is never taught scientific method they probably won't be scientific. They will probably be "religious".
If a person is never taught scientific method they probably won't be scientific. They will probably be "religious".
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,448
@previous (G)
Why does a person need to be taught scientific method to avoid becoming religious?
Again, some people could come to religion on their own, but I doubt it's the default conclusion that ecverybody reaches without outside infuence. Seems like too big a generalisation to make.
Why does a person need to be taught scientific method to avoid becoming religious?
Again, some people could come to religion on their own, but I doubt it's the default conclusion that ecverybody reaches without outside infuence. Seems like too big a generalisation to make.
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,451
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,452
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
This. It doesn't involve any structured worship or belief in a higher power, ergo it isn't a religion.
This. It doesn't involve any structured worship or belief in a higher power, ergo it isn't a religion.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,538
@311,406 (J)You're right. Let's go back further, then. A zygote is incapable of forming any belief; it lacks belief in God and so is an atheist. We never said "default position in things that are currently capable of thought" (which would be impossible to prove), therefore atheism is the default position.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,546
@311,448 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Because of the evolutionary pattern-making processes we mentioned, in the absence of scientific method, almost uniformly leads people to believe in spirits.
SOURCE: Human action, current and present
Because of the evolutionary pattern-making processes we mentioned, in the absence of scientific method, almost uniformly leads people to believe in spirits.
SOURCE: Human action, current and present
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,547
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,548
@311,546 (G)
Really? Does everybody come to that conclusion? Why would they automatically default to spirits? I'd expect that a person's personality and mindset would have an influence, assuming that there's a default belief seems like a huge generalisation to make.
A lot of it is probably wrapped up in social factors. A lot of people probably believed in spirits/religion simply because the society they were born into did. It'd be hard to find cases where the beliefs of a person who grew up in near-isolation were examined, after all.
I'd really like to see if any sort of study has been done on this, but I'm not sure if one exists.
Really? Does everybody come to that conclusion? Why would they automatically default to spirits? I'd expect that a person's personality and mindset would have an influence, assuming that there's a default belief seems like a huge generalisation to make.
A lot of it is probably wrapped up in social factors. A lot of people probably believed in spirits/religion simply because the society they were born into did. It'd be hard to find cases where the beliefs of a person who grew up in near-isolation were examined, after all.
I'd really like to see if any sort of study has been done on this, but I'm not sure if one exists.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,549
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> almost uniformly
> Does everybody
Do you have to try really hard to be that dumb or does it just come naturally for you?
> almost uniformly
> Does everybody
Do you have to try really hard to be that dumb or does it just come naturally for you?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,551
@previous (G)
Ah, my mistake. I thought there was a chance for some actual interesting discussion there. Never mind.
Ah, my mistake. I thought there was a chance for some actual interesting discussion there. Never mind.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,579
@311,538 (K)
If such a zygote is genetically predestined to develop a propensity toward superstition, your argument is most certainly flawed.
If such a zygote is genetically predestined to develop a propensity toward superstition, your argument is most certainly flawed.
Anonymous D replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #311,582
@311,548 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Why would they automatically default to spirits?
90 or 100 Proof?
> Why would they automatically default to spirits?
90 or 100 Proof?
Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #311,916
@311,538 (K)
WTF? You're presenting me with a hypothetical BELIEF! Either prove conclusively a zygote is incapable of cognitive though or GTFO.
WTF? You're presenting me with a hypothetical BELIEF! Either prove conclusively a zygote is incapable of cognitive though or GTFO.