It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Creativity is always based on precedence - nothing has ever been truly original, not even the wheel, since a rolling log would be an obvious inspiration
Schizophrenia is never innovative in any sense of truly original delusional thinking - this assertion is backed up by decades of research and treatment of patients
No other corporeal animal imagines invisible beings - even the most intelligent primates may mourn their dead, but they don't worship unseen beings or acknowledge such beings in any known manner or behavioral practice
The nature of learning, for primitive people and for people in general, is empirical observation first, and then consideration and extrapolation of what was observed, followed by association of what was considered and/or extrapolated with what exists within a basis of established knowledge.
Noises in the dark were not new to anyone who lived long enough to have any thoughts that could've been seen as original - and certainly persuasive to any degree - and those sounds were well known by all to be associated with very real predators that, while hidden by the dark, were in no way unseen as a fundamental aspect of their existential nature
I honestly have no idea,
Originally posted by nerbot
All psycologists are nuts.
Originally posted by NorEaster
The origins of belief in unseen intelligent beings predates the origin of the determination that human beings possess such a physical nature as well.
Originally posted by NorEaster
I am looking for the psychological impetus that would have allowed the first human being to both invent and believe in the invention of that first unseen being.
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As people learned about what these bodies really were, it was necessary to shift their beliefs to 'something' out there that can't be seen, but is the force behind these natural elements. So, the invisible man in the sky was born and man made God in his image.
Attribution is the psychological impetus. Why is this happening? Because the Sun god wishes it so...
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by NorEaster
I take issue with being paired with atheists..... I do not take an absolute stance on what I classify as a possibly unanswerable question. This means I do not deny the possibility of the existance of what we ants might call a "god". But, I have not seen directly any compelling 100% undoubtable, cast iron proof to believe there is such.
Would you prefer I just declare belief despite not truly having it? You won't get it if you do. I will not pay lip service simply because it's expected of me.edit on 26-1-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NorEaster
The logical progression that allows the human intellect to go from point A to point B in that situation just plain doesn't exist.
Originally posted by tgidkp
it is a problem of reconciling the idea of spontaneous emergence inside of an inherently deterministic system (human mind).
this can be expressed in two (and only two) distinct ways because there are two (and only two) ways of interpreting reality: SELF and NOT SELF.
option #1: if people are unwilling to acknowledge the personal spontaneous nature of the SELF, they must ascribe the spontaneity to some higher particle. religion.
option #2: if people are unwilling to acknowledge the impersonal spontaneous nature of the NOT SELF, they must ascribe the spontaneity to some lower particle. science.
it is a race to either the top or the bottom. and at each position, you will find some type of "god".
option #3 (the non-option): the only other option is to leave the deterministic system in an undetermined state. agnostic.
the seemingly spontaneous nature of reality is the paradox which powers (in the kinetic sense) the entire system at every level of the system.
once again, noreaster, an excellent question.
Originally posted by nerbot
Originally posted by NorEaster
Creativity is always based on precedence - nothing has ever been truly original, not even the wheel, since a rolling log would be an obvious inspiration
Everything is "truly original". No two things are EVER the same....ever.
Schizophrenia is never innovative in any sense of truly original delusional thinking - this assertion is backed up by decades of research and treatment of patients
Tell that to Van Gogh.
No other corporeal animal imagines invisible beings - even the most intelligent primates may mourn their dead, but they don't worship unseen beings or acknowledge such beings in any known manner or behavioral practice
My cats chase invisible mice. At least I think that's what they see. Could be insects, but they're definately not there.
The nature of learning, for primitive people and for people in general, is empirical observation first, and then consideration and extrapolation of what was observed, followed by association of what was considered and/or extrapolated with what exists within a basis of established knowledge.
Are you saying it isn't possible to learn without sight?
Wow...how come there are so many intelligent blind people around then?
]Noises in the dark were not new to anyone who lived long enough to have any thoughts that could've been seen as original - and certainly persuasive to any degree - and those sounds were well known by all to be associated with very real predators that, while hidden by the dark, were in no way unseen as a fundamental aspect of their existential nature
What exactly does this have to do with Agnostics and Atheists?
I honestly have no idea,
On that, I completely agree. A hypothetical S&F for being right about something.
I know you are trying to make sense, but the way you have put your points forward leads me to believe you have been using a very limited perspective(s).
That's the thing about psychology, and in particular, psychologists...everything has to be labelled and put on a shelf for reference, this only suits those who wish to use those definitions to explain their apparent knowledge to others or for those seeking a definition for peace of mind (ha, ha). I also believe those definitions serve mainly to reassure those who feel the need to make them.
Problem is...we are 7+ billion individuals and the definitions needed to define us are infinate. If the title of your thread was "Agnosticism and Atheism - A Psycological Examination", then it would be fair to say what you do whether anyone thinks you're right or wrong as you would be talking about the mentality of a belief, but you address the individuals instead.
I still feel much of what you say is confused and misguided and should bear more resemblance to general populous instead of personal opinion and "the way it is".
Too much "matter-of-fact" and not enough consideration for individuality or imagination. 5/10
All psycologists are nuts.
Originally posted by NorEaster
You make quite an assumption when you assume that the natural extension - after blaming stuff on the sun god - is to invent a non-corporeal being to blame things on, and I suspect that it is an assumption that you can't really defend.
Originally posted by ganjoa
Great subject. I have a small disconnect on your second and third assertions.
#3 - I think we have far too little knowledge or how the minds of other animals to call a fact in this area. Our understanding is insufficient to validate this assertion unless it is narrowly confined to "as far as we know today".
#2 - No problem with your characterization of Schizo. not being productive. However consider the number of known psychoactive substances available in the environment which may induce "apparently" schizo. behavior for a time.
Even the most primitive man, exposed to the elements could not help but notice there is order to the perceptible universe - it could appear that there is an intelligence at work, thus the creation of an entire mythology. The need for answers to observed phenomena is strong in an inquisitive mind. Add to this the awakening of other senses we have shunned today as part of our civilization process. Man explores all that is around him, it would be inconceiveable that man's interaction with various substances did not affect the development of what we might term today, man's spiritual side. That's my assessment.
ganjoa
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by NorEaster
You make quite an assumption when you assume that the natural extension - after blaming stuff on the sun god - is to invent a non-corporeal being to blame things on, and I suspect that it is an assumption that you can't really defend.
It is an assumption yes. I was giving my opinion.
But I can see how lightening and thunder might be attributed to an invisible god. A weapon or chastisement sent down from the heavens to punish or warn the people. Rains, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, all could be attributed to an invisible god.
Originally posted by NorEaster
A god that was out-of-sight - as in living in the clouds or on a mountain top far away - but that's not the same as the invention of non-corporeal existence.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by NorEaster
A god that was out-of-sight - as in living in the clouds or on a mountain top far away - but that's not the same as the invention of non-corporeal existence.
I'm not sure that modern day Christians (or other religious people) think that their God is non-corporeal. I mean, sure, they don't see him now, but one day, they plan on seeing him in his heaven. Just as they believe heaven is a real place (out of time, out of phase), I think they believe that God is a tangible being on some level. That is an assumption on my part. I guess we'd need some religious folk in here to answer that question... But I think many of them do think that God is living somewhere tucked away in his heaven. Corporeal. Maybe not to the extent that we are, but visible and audible, nonetheless.