Is Atheism Unscientific?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by th.w.heller, Oct 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Just want to point out that I had said single-celled organism rather than single organism. Not sure if you had made a typo or are just talking about something else.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    I'm not talking about toddlers and I don't think we have any among us. As for the adolescents we do have, I expect them to weigh the arguments and other evidence on all sides of an issue and make up their own minds. They can't do that if the people on one side of the argument go off in a pout so the kids only hear the other side.
    Obviously we have a choice since no one signed a contract when they joined this forum. But communities work best when the elders in age, education and experience assume the responsibility of teaching the young. I would like the other elders here to do their part.
    You guys get so far out there that sometimes I have no idea what you're talking about. I go out of my way to teach and use all the teaching tools and techniques I have learned and developed in professional life. Since I'm not a career scientist and my degree is not even in one of the sciences I'm hardly an advocate for exalting scientists to a Brahmin caste. (As I've said elsewhere, I refuse to dignify the term "computer science" since software development in America is a medieval guild craft, not even engineering.)
    You only caught part of the error. Science can only prove a hypothesis false, not true. Since the language of science is dreadful for communicating with laymen, I use the language of the court system you seem also to appreciate, and define a theory as a hypothesis that has been proven "true beyond a reasonable doubt." Only mathematical theories can be proven true because they deal exclusively with abstractions, not the physical universe. And I suppose we could say that the "theories" of detectives can be proven true, because they only deal with a single instance of an event or condition and do not attempt to predict the future behavior of the natural universe, as scientific theories do.
    That's the Random House dictionary's definition. Other sources expand on it: a believer, adherent or advocate of a doctrine or set of principles, as "anarchist"; a person characterized by a particular trait, as "romanticist." I don't see why "religionist" isn't a perfectly reasonable noun to substitute for the generic phrase "religious person" when we're not singling out Jews, Buddhists or the Baha'i. I agree that in this context I give it the connotation that a religionist is a person who applies the doctrine of his religion to all facets of life including the interpretation of science, but geeze, isn't that how religion was supposed to work? You don't get to turn it on and off at your whim?
    Wiz, I applaud your understanding of the nature of science, which includes its inability to prove its theories. However. . . .

    * * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

    I very much object to your tone. We all get to let off steam once in a while, but please try to avoid violating the forum rule against personal insults. This discussion has been remarkably polite, given the topic. Please don't lower its quality.
    Please forgive me. As I pointed out, I'm not a career scientist. I was not aware of that subtle distinction. From what I can find about that distinction, it is only made in the discipline of physics, but cosmology is as much physics as it is mathematics and philosophy, so I should respect it. I definitely mean to call the natural universe an isolated system, not a closed one. If it turns out that there are forces acting on the natural universe that transcend the natural laws we have identified, it will simply mean that the natural universe still has a few wrinkles we haven't ironed out yet--an assertion which no scientist will challenge--not that there is a supernatural universe directing dark energy (or whatever) at us. Besides, the religionists don't restrict their hypotheses to the receipt of supernatural energy. Their model of reality features humanoid creatures dropping in on us, in addition to giant turtles, winged serpents, and a host of things made of solid supernatural matter.
    Wait wait wait wait. The biblical doctrine of divine creation does not argue against the theory of evolution. The leaders of almost every major Christian congregation, including the Pope, accept evolution--as well as myriad leaders of non-Christian congregations. Only in the USA is there a significant population of allegedly "educated" citizens who deny evolution: the Religious Redneck Retard Revival. That's not a worldwide phenomenon. The Creation Science Museum is, after all, in Kentucky, the proud home of Mammy Yokum.

    The doctrine of divine creation argues against the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Unlike evolution, abiogenesis is not supported by a mountain of evidence, to put it mildly. The evidence for it is very weak, and tends to be in the form of reasoning rather than observation: Since the universe was at one instant a point mass of infinite temperature, and it's unreasonable to expect life to have existed at that instant, then when life finally appeared at some time in the next twelve billion years, it had to have arisen from non-life.

    That's not the kind of evidence that would be allowed in an undergraduate thesis. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory, much less a canonical theory.

    The doctrine of divine creation contradicts the premise that the natural universe is an isolated system, but it does not contradict the theory of evolution.
    Let's stay on topic, shall we? No less a scholar of science than our colleague Walter Wagner insists that there is rather a lot of evidence for the existence of a normal human being known as Jesus. Just none for the walking on water or the resurrection.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I appreciate you reinforcing the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, but we have to admit that even scientists use the words a little too loosely. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Once again, everybody: Please be respectful. There's no cause for insults.
    Oh come on dude. Even though Christianity is an evangelical religion, not all people who consider themselves Christians practice evangelism, not always even on their own children. Besides, as I noted earlier, the roots of religion lie in what Jung calls "archetypes," instinctive beliefs that are hard-wired into our synapses by the accidents of evolution such as genetic bottlenecks and survival behaviors that no longer serve a purpose. "Brainwashing" is not the proper word for the cultivation of motifs that are already there.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wizard Registered Senior Member

    if kids were not introduced to organized religion, they might have come up with their own ideas about god. but organized religion enforces specific ideas and makes it very very difficult to filter out. now if they were correct, i wouldn't mind. but they're not. some ideas are even contradictory. so i find it irritating when religious ideas are allowed to be forced on helpless kids as if they were fact.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Saquist Banned Banned

    I'm SORRY...I didn't catch the "single-celled" organism part.

    I know. I remember what you'ved told me before. This is similar to my disain of attitudes that begin with "the bible says so'. No explanation is the same as the pouting you describe yet all must yeild to reason.

    Yes, obviously you are correct but science has a greater "obligation" aswell. That obligation is teach the facts and not contempt. I do not see science as a social system. Perhaps one day atheist will have the voice of a nation and those people (we'll say for now) just happen to rely solely on scientific explanations. Imagine what we are creating here today. A nation of scientific individuals or scientificly taught individuals that will breed the disdain science as a society, has right now.

    The question with atheism isn't, "is it scientific", it's, is it moral? At current I can't say that it is. We're breeding hate of differences instead of similiarities. We're creating culture clashes and there maybe a heavy price such as the past has exemplified. I site the Crusades, Martin Luther and Lord Calvin, Hitler, Albania, Communist China and Russia's famed Iron Curtain that falls once again.

    We know what mankind is. After 6,000 plus years of history it is not hyperbolie to call us war-like. Scientific knowledge has not changed that nor could it. With religion in the forefront of politics as it currently is the future does not bold well for it. Let not science be that instrument or flag that will be mared in blood. Let it be blameless.

    And that is why I cannot bregrudge the atheist. For all intents and purposes it does seem that evolution has to some degree escaped reasonable doubt. I make my case against evolution based on reasonable doubt but it's up to the "jury", you and everyone else to come to a verdict. I refuse to insert my own personal feelings as justification.

    I honestly don't know, I can't speak for all religions, I lack the exposure. I wasn't raised to think strictly religiously or scientificly. I was told to make a choice and I did. The religious are viewed as ignorant and for all that they appear to be, they often, very often, are. But if I cannot blame the atheist for the lack of religious knowledge I also cannot blame the theist for the lack of scientific knowledge. Teaching from an objective position thus becomes that much more important.

    P.S What I didn't quote of your post was most informative.
  8. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    How is the lack of belief in an unproven deity immoral? Are you assuming that morality comes from God, and therefore those who do not believe in God have no moral foundation?

    You realize that this argument has been made and shot down thousands of times over the years, and is in no way accurate, right?
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Actually...I was not making such a comment.
    I believe the post was self explaining.

    But if you were to ask me if atheist are moral or not: I would say no.
    You see, most theist are barely moral themselves and they have a foundation, they just don't use it.

    But what foundation does an atheist have? An every fluctuating mudslide of principles? I haven't even heard of that much. I've never heard of any principle foundations asocieted with atheism and that is because there are no priniciple associated with it. They can not all be generalized under one totality. They apparently make all of their own decisions on what is moral and what is not.

    Problem with that is...

    Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.

    ..that morality is social standard by definition. Christians have social standards of behavior, muslims, hindi, etc, but atheist litteraly means "against God". Where as all the other divisions do define a social behavior atheism does not. Athesit do not congregate to discuss these things and thus have very little in common with one another, other than, being against God.

    Atheist adopt their moral code from their enviorment. It just so happens that all morals in the world are religious in nature, so the morality that an atheist agrees to is religion. It's odd though. Atheism would not exist (from my perspective of course) if it were not for fear of God. If man really had evolved his warlike instincts I think would still be apparent. Assuming catastrophe in the time of early man created the concept of God over all the Earth, then it would have had to have been a global event for pinpointing the begining of religion is impossible.

    (Animals have no concept of worship.
    The begining of civilization and religion are litterally hand in hand indistinguishable.)

    So fear in a nonexistant creature allowed man to...settle from transient hunter-gatherers to farmers and herdsman giving birth to science and thus atheism? Is that irony?

    Remove whatever event that caused global fear of an all powerful Form. Do we still get the civilized world? I think that without this preoccupation man would take far longer to civilize. Perhaps even prone to extinction. Who knows.
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Apparently you have not been reading the myriad other threads on this website about atheism. We are free from the constraints of fairy-tale creatures with their bizarre "commandments" ("have no other god before me"--might as well start out by explaining that he's vain, selfish and short-tempered, traits which his followers dutifully mimic), their inscrutable "covenants" (the Jews are supposed to humbly endure the Exile, the destruction of the Temple several times, the Diaspora, the Holocaust and their current isolation in the Mideast because that vain, selfish, short-tempered god is angry at them for being normal flesh-and-blood mortals who can't quite live up to the Covenant), and their impossible-to-understand "codes" (kill infidels and 72 virgins await you in Paradise--or was that 72 Virginians in Potomac). So we are free to concentrate on the real world and to put our energy into helping humanity. The most important thing for our species is the maintenance of civilization and that's what we can devote ourselves to if we're strong enough. That means, at a bare minimum, that we can't kill other people (as Jung pointed out, "the wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in history"), and that we have to give back to civilization at least as much as we take from it (the defining motto of communism, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," is often blamed on atheists, but it is a quote from the Bible and that fairy-tale economic system is one of the regrettable offshoots of Christianity.)
    Where do you religious types come up with this weird shit??? As the Linguistics Moderator, it's up to me to break the news to you that you really fucked that one up abysmally. "Atheism" is from Greek a-, "without," and theos, "god." It doesn't mean "against god"; it means "without gods." If the rest of your scholarship is as incompetent as your inability to find the URL for, it's no wonder that you take comfort in the compulsive ignorance called "religion," which relieves you of the responsibility for checking your own alleged facts. We cannot be "against gods" because gods are imaginary. It would be as silly as being "against" Miss Piggy or Luke Skywalker.
    Is that right? Let's see, just looking at one particular family of religions, the Abrahamic ones (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), I see that in the name of their imaginary god they have obliterated three entire civilizations out of the six that sprang up on this planet. (Egypt, Inca and Olmec/Maya/Aztec). There's nothing very "moral" about destroying half of the world's cultures, complete with their philosophies, traditions, ways of looking at life and solving problems, even their artistic motifs. In fact, destroying a civilization is the most unforgivable sin that can be committed, so Abrahamic religion gets an F-minus right there. But as if that weren't enough, the litany of sins committed by Abrahamists "because their god is on their side" is enough to make one vomit: shall we start with the institutionalization of slavery? Yes I know that other people have done some of these things too, but the point is that there's no compelling reason to state that religion has a copyright on morality when religious people can flush their morals down the toilet whenever they become inconvenient. Besides, no one else has ever destroyed an entire civilization. Genghis Khan is the only warrior who ever came close to the body count of the Abrahamists, but he was scrupulous about not destroying any cultures; the Mongols and Mughals simply took over the administration of the civilizations they conquered.
    I don't "fear" your stupid imaginary gods any more than I fear Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or the Monsters Under My Bed. However, every time I look at the headlines in my newspaper these days I feel a sense of fear of your religions--as well as a hefty dose of pure revulsion.
    You really need to read more, dude. Just some of the posts on this website would be helpful. The origin of religion is in pre-programmed synapses in our brains that we're born with. It is an instinct to believe in the supernatural, just like it is an instinct to love your family, or to flee from a large animal with both eyes in front of his face. It's what Carl Jung calls a collection of archetypes, and he did a very good job of "pinpointing the beginning of religion." Well no one can actually calculate the precise date of its origin, but like all instincts it was passed down in our DNA from a common ancestor. It could be that belief in the supernatural was a survival behavior in an era whose dangers we can't imagine today, so the people who didn't have the instinct died off. Or it could just be an accidental genetic bottleneck like Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam--an individual with that gene, by luck, was the one whose descendants survived a famine or other catastrophe so we're all his or her children.

    An archetype is a behavior or other motif that exists in all societies in all eras, a component of what Jung calls "the collective unconscious." Pull your nose out of the Bible for a couple of days and try reading something a little deeper and a little more useful. We'll help you with the big words if you still can't find
    Oh geeze dude, how badly can one person embarrass himself in a single post??? Mesopotamia, the first civilization (literally "the building of cities") was founded in the Middle East around 8000BCE. The other five civilizations (Egypt, China, India, Olmec and Inca) followed later, with Olmec and Inca being quite recent, no earlier than 1000BCE. The Neolithic people (people who lived permanently in farming villages) who came before them, and the Mesolithic people (nomadic hunter-gatherers) who came before them had well-established religions. We know this because there were Neolithic and Mesolithic people in Africa, Australia and the Americas, "uncontaminated" by contact with outsiders, in historic times. Explorers, missionaries and conquerors wrote about them at length and described their cultures and their belief systems. Before that, the Romans and Greeks wrote about the Stone Age people they encountered when they arrived in Europe. When civilization reached Scandinavia a few centuries after that, the Norsemen wrote about the neighboring Finnic tribes. There's no shortage of data about the religions of Stone Age people.
    The only catalyst I find for the Agricultural Revolution was the self-domestication of the dog. Humans had been living in small extended-family clans of nomads for hundreds of thousands of years (millions, depending on how you define "human"). They hated other clans because they were perceived as intruders on their precious hunting and gathering territory. Suddenly around 12,000BCE a few brave, curious, tolerant and gregarious wolves decided to move into a human camp because humans leave so much perfectly good food lying on the ground and also because wolf and human hunting skills combined can bring down much more game than either could separately. Humans learned to live in harmony and cooperation with "people" they couldn't even talk to. It must have got them thinking that maybe it would be possible to live in harmony and cooperation with other people. Bingo, a mere two thousand years later they got together with a couple of other clans and became a large enough tribe to establish a village with cultivated crops and domesticated food animals. The first surplus food came into existence and everything else followed naturally due to the division of labor and economies of scale that occur naturally in larger communities.

    There's no reason to suspect that this first Paradigm Shift, from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, had anything to do with gods. Unless you're dyslexic and think that dog = god.
    You are so dead wrong about so many of the things upon which your reasoning is based, that it completely falls apart. Your hypothesis doesn't hold one drop of water. Come back when you've had a few more years of education, okay? Take a class in Jung for non-psychology majors and it will help you understand the origin of religion. Take a class in economics for non-business majors and it will help you understand the origin of civilization.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  11. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    I don't. Please elaborate.
    I am an atheist, and always have been.

    I've also spent a good portion of my life volunteering at homeless shelters, soup kitchens, old age homes; with the boy scouts and school teaching; soon I may begin helping grow a more effective farming method for subsistance farmers in Zimbabwe; I have spent my entire life trying to better understand suffering so that I can help teach others how to lessen the suffering in their own lives, and understand when is is needed, or unavoidable.

    I love every single living thing, and I feel great sorrow for the pain they endure. I despise abuse of others, and adore empathy and caring. I love when people love, and joy when people joy.

    Nothing is better in life than when people work together for the betterment of everyone.

    I am amoral?
  12. Saquist Banned Banned

    Do you represent all atheist?

    This is all well and good as principles, ethics of truth. They are not morals, ethics of behavior.

    I associated atheism with the simmilar prefix of asymmetrical, which in my field does mean against symmetry. The difference is neglible.

    Asymmetry is the absence of, or a violation of, a symmetry.
    You presume far too much. I did look up both words before I used it. Against is an appropriate synonym.
    My appologies though I have clearly offended you. This was not my intention.

    I do not believe I asserted religion and morals were inseperable. That would not be logical. This portion of your post is predicated on a belief system that is not shared and without that common frame of reference the definition of "moral" could never have consensus.

    I know it is your intention to indict. I would only point out that none of the religions of which you speak (in the immediate quote) do not have my endorsement. I am a non violent individual, stictly against war even in self defense. I also do not use profanity, engage in sexual relations out side of mariage, nor can I have any political ambitions.

    Intresting. I do not find this mates well with the evolutionary perspective at all. As usual it is vague. When I seeded this response I could not have anticipated this. You don't find the complete lack of similar behavior in any other animal at all exclusive? Fascinating.

    Perhaps I have errored. I meant religion and society. The components of civilization, religion, language, behavior, customs, no specific origin can be determined. As far as other publications I have read. I have indeed read many and I have quotes of certain individuals from they're perspective there is no definiable begining. You seem to have varified that if how ever long-winded.

    Intresting. So you believe Carl Jungs "very good job of "pinpointing the beginning of religion." would not have any impact on developing society?
    What would this initial "religion" look like? You believe it is genetic but have you "poin-pointed" such a gene?

    Don't give those speculation weight Fragglerocker. I consider them indefinitely irrelevant as you will never know with any certainty what the mile stones of the past truely contain. Speculation is all anyone can do.
    As for me this served more to learn about you. You above all others here have always held my attention.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  13. Saquist Banned Banned

    I spoke in generalities, river-wind. Not by the virtue of labels.
    For an atheist there is litterally nothing as a foundation of moral behavior with the variable exception of what ever host society he/she feeds from and is forced to adapt to by law.

    One can not judge all atheist by there own moral code because no such code exist.

    Amorality is the absence of the concept of morality.

    Atheism lacks the concept of morality, it is not to say that athist are all ammoral. It just happens to commonly be the case. A sterotype if you will.
  14. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    This was not the point. If *Athieism* is not moral, then atheists cannot be moral, unless they adopt the morality of a religion (according to your post). I am an example of that not being true (I hope), therefore your claim is false.
    This is not true. People living together, and people having empathy as an emotion are perfectly effective foundations for morality.
    I have shown this to be false.
    "(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. "
    "Lacking symmetry between two or more like parts;"
    "1870–75; a- (6) + symmetric"

    a- (6):
    var. of an- 1 before a consonant, meaning “not,” “without”: amoral; atonal; achromatic.

    asymmetry means without symmetry. "against symmetry" is not correct English.
    Why do you think this is the case? I might agree that atheism lacks a codified doctrine defining morality, due merely to the lack of any codified doctrines.

    The sort of behaviors Fraggle is referring to shows up in a number of other species.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  15. Saquist Banned Banned

    You are an individual. Do you or do you not represent all atheist?
    Unless you do the sterotype is appropriate.

    None of which is indicative or defined by atheism.

    You have not defined a culture for atheist in parallel to other known cultures.

    It's not precise. In away it's the product of the society of the engineering field. We (my contemporaries) frequently describe asymmetry as two sides that are dissimilar and against equality. To me this also describes imperfect aswell. I think in terms of symmetry, equal to both sides like anti-symmetry.

    The difference is neglible.
    violation: abuse, break, breaking, contravention, encroachment, illegality, infraction, infringement, misbehavior, misdemeanor, negligence, nonobservance, offense, rupture, transgressing, transgression, trespass,

    all of which describes an "act" against. Against is appropriate.

    Atheism's entire purpose seems to be exemplified best by Fragglerocker. Many if not all have the same attitude. That is unfortunant. Thus, because of consistent and numerous display, I would venture to call it (atheism) an emotional reaction against indoctrinal religions of all sorts. At it's best, non compliance to traditional religious preasures, at it's worse, contempt & hate.

    To discribe atheist as "hateful" would propperly describe just about all atheist. It's a well understood sterotype. Atheism being identified as "hate" is where the problem of morality comes into the picture. Along with hate Atheist are consistently prejudice, arrogant, insulting against everyone, they rarely listen and consider themselves the superior over all religious individuals which is the entire world, regardless of education.
    This behavior is so consistent of atheistic values that it could never be identified with anyone's definition of Moral Code or ethics in general because it is intrinsicly selfish. I would put forth that ethics is the application of behavior acceptable to others.

    This is a huge public relations problem with atheism. If it were merely to mean "without god" then that definition has been dashed to pieces time after time by reputable scientist who take it upon themselves to speak for the whole and also teach this culture, a culture of contempt by prejudicially refering to all others as ignorant, blind, etc. That is hate.
    No matter what your defense is by use of English definition the behavior of atheist have established "against" long, long ago.

    (Individually, River-wind you are the most moderate individual I've met on the form. So consistent you have been in this that this description does not at all define you at all. That is just the sort of public relations atheist need.)

    Would you like to tell me which ones?
    I couldn't possibly guess.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  16. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    I understand what you are trying to get at. Atheism is amoral not in the sense that it's adherents lack morals, but that atheism itself does not promote it's own dogmatic moral code.

    I agree.
    That's because atheists don't have their own culture. They exist through all cultures and times.
    Not in English. "Against" implies an adversarial aspect to the property in question; an active attempt to avoid symmetry suggestive of an awareness. "Dissimilar" or "asymmetrical" are passive descriptions of a state of being - they simply suggest that two things or two halves of one thing are not the same.
    Given that such behavior is a common reaction anytime someone is forced to do something against their will, I'd say the described behavior is a symptom of the religious pressure placed on people, rather than the nature of atheism.
    As an atheist, one who spends time with other atheists on a daily basis, your claim is wrong. We are not hateful. We are frustrated at being called names all the time by people who don't take the time to understand our position.
    Given the history of of humanity, this accusation is laughable at best. The atheists are the prejudiced, arrogant, and insulting ones? Would you care to back that up?
    How is not believing in a God selfish?
    I don't define religious people by the television preachers and child-molesting priests, please don't define atheists by the loud-mouthed and boastful scientists alone.
    Thank you. I will endeavor to live up to this description - getting frustrated is easy, but it rarely helps anyone.

    I personally don't like pompous, rude, or selfish behavior very much and tend to avoid people who engage in it often; I tend to spend time with people who are selfless and who give of themselves to others. IME most are apathetic towards theism, and tend to simply label themselves with whatever religion is the most popular in that area. Of the rest, about half are theists, and half are atheists. It seems to me that religious affiliation or a belief in the supernatural is disconnected completely from how a person treats others.
    The archeological evidence for the first religious burials, with neanderthal bodies curled in a certain way, and with tools and food buried with the individual, suggests that spiritual thought stemmed directly from dealing with the death of a loved one.

    If this person was my mother, but now this person is unmoving; their eyes open, but cold, their body rotting, what happened? What is different between yesterday and today? Where did the personality, that which made the body into the person, go?

    Thus, the idea of the soul emerges.

    Given the complex nature of discussing spirituality with others who speak our own language (let alone across languages), trying to discuss such an abstract concept with animals would be an exercise in futility. Not necessarily because animals lack spirituality, but because of the language barrier.

    So instead I look for behavior that is suggestive of even a rudimentary form of this question. certainly humans are the most cognitively powerful species on Earth, so even if spirituality was innate, and if animal possessed some measure of it, it would like be in a much less developed form.

    Elephants are a great example, however, of an animal that shows all the behavioral hallmarks of rudimentary spirituality. They have a well defined social structure which includes both tribal and familial lineages. They engage in inter-elephant relationships in a very close fashion, and have very visible emotional reactions to the pain of other members of their family groups.

    Elephants recognize the bones of other elephants, and react differently when confronted with the bones of deceased family members (presumably identified by the location in which the deceased individual died), and I have seen film of a herd holding back from a female elephant skeleton ( a full year after her death) to allow the that elephant's calf to interact with it alone. The now adolescent elephant treated the skeleton with a gentle reverence, even grasping at the tusks in the same way it had it's mother's before she died - a behavior the elephant had not shown since it's mother's death.

    The group the approached the bones, first greeting the bones one by one, the picking them up and carrying them a distance, rolling them on the ground and tossing them about.

    This behavior is reported a lot, and I would say could very well be a rudimentary funeral ceremony, as it certainly isn't the behavior they show when presented with the bones of an antelope.

    Chimps and bonobos also have hallmark behaviors of being able to comprehend "that which is not here", though I am not familiar with any funeral rights within family groups. Given the carnivorous nature, and the existence of cannibalism within both groups, it may be harder for us to recognize any if they did exist. Most modern cultures view cannibalistic funerary cervices to be atrocities even when humans do it.
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2009
  17. wizard Registered Senior Member

    lol fraggle's starting to feel my frustration
  18. Saquist Banned Banned



    ...and now you understand.

    I agree and disagree.
    It is a symptom, but it's still describes the nature of atheism, especially as it started or as so some believe it got it's start. "against the bible" -"against God". It's not logical. Begin from truth not from malice. This I would respect.

    It is not a claim River-wind. It is plainly apparent, whenever the discussion comes up on any forum. You cannot hide behind your own moderate perspective. I can supply you quote after quote of insult and hate not just from this forum but from others and from reptuable scientist and philosophers over time all of which atheism sees as the height of they're ideology. You're in the minority. Just as my reasonings on the bible are minorities in Christianity.

    Don't give the history of humanity. We know religion is flawed. Adding the comparison doesn't make atheism anymore right. It's still ....wrong. Wrong to be prejudice, hateful, and insulting.

    Their words, not mine.

    As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: “Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I’m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.”~Hoyle

    “This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”~W.*R. Thompson

    Regarding the Chicago Confrence 1984:
    Science, the official journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reported the mood: “Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension . . . the proceedings were at times unruly and even acrimonious.”

    Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”

    “Is religion best understood as an infectious disease of the mind?”—Biologist Richard Dawkins.

    You are not responsible for your morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and physics.’ Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe ‘there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.’

    Regarding the Rising Comtempt of Evolutionist:

    ...the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to admit: “It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their proponents were (and are) profound and able students.”

    Richard keeps it coming...

    “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."[/I]

    ....And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism.”

    ~ Hoyle
    “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth [and this concern] has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century.”

    If I keep searching the CD i'm sure I could keep going.

    Review Wizards prevoius post, Rank prejudice, hostility, insult. Also on this list. Sarkus, Ophilite and many many others. This isn't the signs of annomolies this is the signals of system ammoral behavior displayed not by a few but the majority. This is why the term "Angry Atheist" was coined because of the highly likely probability of explities, insults and hositilities.

    Fragglerocker mentioned Communism in relation to attempts to remove religion from certain countries. Russia is the most prominent. Nazi Germany. Albania claimed to be the first atheist state and the oppression was rampant and lethal. Every time Atheism has been implemented as a part of national policy it has caused adverse effects on that population. Force is clearly not how any philosophy should be applied.

    Let's not go there that's a whole different set of quotes.
    But surfice to say it's not. Not as an ideal but in the behavior....I wonder.

    To define religion by it's hypocrites is only observance. It's true.
    Likewise the same as atheist. They only comfort is those few exceptions to the rule.



    I will give this further thought. But why God? A soul perhaps...but why God?

    But we've given animals language and have gotten no sense of spirituality from them. And apes do express mourning.

    But spirituality is more than this. It is recognizing life greater than your own.
    Not conteplating your own moratality.
    My question would be, why start with the soul, why has the immortality of the sould saturated every religious thinking even Chrisitianty where it has no support in scripture. Mourning and spirituality being linked? This is highly over simplifing to the point of no direct link.

    A funeral aswell is about mourning.
    To define religion answer to the question of death... I undersand this.
    But I have a hard time believing it. It's not crazy...not from a litteral perspective I suppose.
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2009
  19. wizard Registered Senior Member

    saquist, some atheists are angry because there is a large group of people that would prefer tradition over practicality without justification. and they are willing to ignore and lie to get people to believe what they want. you are one of them.

    you also like to argue over pointless things. why are you trying to tell US what OUR position is? it's like me telling a pastor he's not a christian because he doesn't follow the bible word for word. it's both stupid and a waste of time. atheism is the lack in belief of god. if you don't want to accept that, then i'll just label "lack in the belief of god" as asdf. there, now you can shut up.
  20. thinking Banned Banned

    but what does any deity matter ?

    has any deity made Humanity more important than he/she ?

  21. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Saquist, certainly some atheists are angry, and I can understand why they feel that way.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Saquist Banned Banned

    You also argue over pointless things. You are often more wrong than right and you defy correction. Your view is the only view that you value and any perspective to the countrary is an offense you. You are dependent on propaganda. Your socials skills are primitive and barely rudimentary, hostile, repetive, abrasive...the perfect example of what do, diametricaly opposed to logic and clear thinking and and even diplomacy.

    I'm sorry but, you opened yourself to this criticism. But it's far more fair than you were to me. I would rather there be a world full of only people like river-wind than there to even be one like you. Unfortantly he is unique, and you are not.

    You left of your own accord. You returned of your own accord. What you hear and observe is subject to your wavering whim and not my concern.

    I understand aswell. Along with a complete log of Atheist attitudes I also have a very long and complete list of Christendoms action through history. Atheist have not been the only ones to suffer Christendom's foul behavior. But you won't find me endorsing or defending either. Wrong is wrong.
  23. wizard Registered Senior Member

    says the person who couldn't refute a single thing i've said...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page