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.

 

Agnostics and Atheists - A Psychological Examination....

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Apparently humans tend to want to explain things. Maybe the first explanation to death, weather, disease, earthquakes, and what not did not even have to do with religion as we know it. Eventually though they became pretty fantastical, there were probably so many crazy stories. Now at this point in human history, I see no reason to make the assumption that god exists. He could very well exist, I just don't see any reason to make the assertion.

We imagined imaginary figures, so It is only a matter of time before another intelligent species will. There is probably religion throughout the universe. At any rate, none of them have the specific details right. Does not mean there is no god. I would hate to think there was this omnipotent being responsible for all this though. What a #ty existence in that case.

I have a feeling the first religions "god" figure was probably the sun.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marulo
Apparently humans tend to want to explain things. Maybe the first explanation to death, weather, disease, earthquakes, and what not did not even have to do with religion as we know it. Eventually though they became pretty fantastical, there were probably so many crazy stories. Now at this point in human history, I see no reason to make the assumption that god exists. He could very well exist, I just don't see any reason to make the assertion.

We imagined imaginary figures, so It is only a matter of time before another intelligent species will. There is probably religion throughout the universe. At any rate, none of them have the specific details right. Does not mean there is no god. I would hate to think there was this omnipotent being responsible for all this though. What a #ty existence in that case.

I have a feeling the first religions "god" figure was probably the sun.


I'm going give you the benefit of considering that you didn't read my earlier posts where I addressed this exact same claim - the "explanation" theory - and not get irritated by the fact that at least 3 other posters beat you to this breakthrough in anthropological insight. And in this one 4-page thread, no less.

Please reread what I already offered to those brilliant minds, and see if that doesn't address your assertions. Now, I am not saying that traditional religion's description of God is necessarily true, and to be honest, I think it's not true at all, but the question is not about the existence of God. Its about the psychological mechanism that allowed the very first (as in none before) human being to invent and embrace the very concept of imperceptible intelligent existence. The question has NOTHING to do with whether that invisible being is a god or a demon or what the hell it is. Just the very notion of there being something there that (for the sake of this very specific thread topic) is not and cannot be there at all. Keep in mind, that the very first person had no one to ever suggest such a concept to him or her. This person completely invented the concept, and I have a real hard time understanding how that person was able to do this.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Thank you for seeing the very enormous problem with the view that the noncorporeal realm does not and cannot exist. I have been vetting tons of related implications and ramifications, and while it can be frustrating, it's moments like this - when someone articulates what I'm dealing with in such an effective manner - that take my blood pressure back down to normal levels again.

Yes, this invention meme has crippling logic issues, at least from my own point of view, but I acknowledge that I am perfectly capable of not seeing a valid aspect of an issue that seems pretty cut and dried. I'm still hoping that someone can lay out a completely plausible notion that allows such an incompatible premise to emerge within the human brain from a conceptual void. If they can, it'll be a significant accomplshment.


edit on 2/1/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


Again, the real issue is conceptual linkage between what is and what can't possibly be. For the sake of this specific topic, the existence of the unseen, imperceptible, non-corporeal realm has been dismissed as fabrication. It does not exist - period. Now, the exercise is to explain how such a notion - that this nonexistent realm does exist - itself, came into existence.

The DNA issue is moot because DNA information is the result of natural selection and species development. Yes, behavior and initial brain mapping is inherited, but as instructive information within the DNA strand, it doesn't simply emerge without precedence or initiation of some sort. To suggest that it does is to suggest that some factory is churning out human DNA strands and selling them to the OEM plant for insertion into the cells during final assembly where little babies are gurgling along an assembly line, as Stork Deliveries Ltd carriers are backed up to loading docks for customer order shipping. Of course, that's not what you're suggesting.

You need to back up quite a bit from where you're looking, and go to the very first person to ever imagine something that could not be imagined the moment before that person first imagined it. And the reason that no one could have imagined such a thing before that person did is because - for the sake of this thread topic - that thing does not exist and therefore cannot announce or suggest that it does exist.

It also could not have been mistaken for being what it's not by that first person to ever conceive of it as he or she looked at, or heard, or felt something else entirely. This is because it not only doesn't exist at all, it doesn't share any perceivable traits with anything that this human would have already known to exist - so cognitive association would have been impossible. If anything (but not within this thread, due to the topic's specific terms) that person, experiencing a true non-corporeal being, would have associated it with something other than what it really is, since that person's brain would've reached for what it already knew to explain what it was seeing to itself. It would have taken some instruction - either direct or through aggressive implication - to force that first human mind to eventually allow for the existence of what would had to have been seen(?) as completely unique, novel, and - at first - literally impossible. Hell, even today, when most people "see" their first "ghost", they initially don't believe that they actually saw what they saw. Imagine the person who's never had the informational background that alerts them to the possibility of such a thing. Where would they ever get the initial concept to attach to whatever it was? And if it simply wasn't (as is the premise of this thread) then where the hell did they come up with the ability to both perceive what doesn't exist and invent an explanation for the nature of what it is that they didn't even actually perceive?

So far, I'm still without a plausible explanation.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
A "non-corporeal entity" is too ambiguous to just assume it had to have precedence. What exactly had to have precedence. Obviously being "non-corporeal" is a "non-material" representation of something. So what is that something? Typically, what we imagine as existing in another realm are personified versions of some thing. Meaning the "non-corporeal" entity exists in our imagination as a figure with eyes, nose, .... essentially all the faculties of a human face. A god(s) is (are) written as a supernatural being that transcends matter itself, and can take any form. These are basically descriptions of complete barrenness that happens to contain an enormous facility for explanation. Meaning, by our conventions of language, we have created an idealistic version of a god with no physical or natural features. Descriptions that have no meaning, other than being written in a syntactically correct manner.

However, the realms we invent in our .s, the ones that we envision (ocular representation rather than epistle), are populated by one or many "human-like" gods, but with no distinct feature other than of the blurred components of a face (perhaps various fragments of the humans and other animals of the locale). I don't know of anybody who actually can picture transcendence of matter, because its not in our capacity to do so (and there is no reason any such thought should ever exist)

edit on 1-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by NorEaster
 
A "non-corporeal entity" is too ambiguous to just assume it had to have precedence. What exactly had to have precedence. Obviously being "non-corporeal" is a "non-material" representation of something. So what is that something? Typically, what we imagine as existing in another realm are personified versions of some thing. Meaning the "non-corporeal" entity exists in our imagination as a figure with eyes, nose, .... essentially all the faculties of a human face. A god(s) is (are) written as a supernatural being that transcends matter itself, and can take any form. These are basically descriptions of complete barrenness that happens to contain an enormous facility for explanation. Meaning, by our conventions of language, we have created an idealistic version of a god with no physical or natural features. Descriptions that have no meaning, other than being written in a syntactically correct manner.

However, the realms we invent in our .s, the ones that we envision (ocular representation rather than epistle), are populated by one or many "human-like" gods, but with no distinct feature other than of the blurred components of a face (perhaps various fragments of the humans and other animals of the locale). I don't know of anybody who actually can picture transcendence of matter, because its not in our capacity to do so (and there is no reason any such thought should ever exist)

edit on 1-2-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)


While I appreciate your overview of the way that the human mind conceptualizes the unseen that it imagines to exist within an unseen realm, with yor clarification that we don't actually "see" this unseen version of intelligent presence, the question I actually posed has nothing at all to do with what you've sought to clarify here. You've already assumed, with your post, that the human mind had no need to learn how to conceptualize the unseen as being existent, and this starts you out farther down that specific intellectual development road than where the question actually sits. The question sits back where that specific road starts, and tries to figure out how that road started in the first place. You're already way down that road. Hell, from where I am with this question, I can't even see your taillights anymore.

I am having the hardest time understanding why so very few people who have bothered to comment have such a difficult time with being able to understand the question being posed. So far I've launched three of these kinds of detailed query threads and each one has caused nothing but confusion on this board. Confusion and attempts to hijack each thread by people trying to sell an agenda of their own. I'm not so sure that anyone actually reads anyone else's posts on this board. The indications seem to suggest that most of you people don't.
edit on 2/2/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join