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.

 

I'm not quite an Atheist, but....

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I just made my way through Richard Dawkin's book "The God Delusion", and I was surprised to discover that I completely agree with the man on a good 95% of what he stated in the book. Granted, he is soft on a few assertions concerning the Darwinian developmental aspects of the human construction of an interactive god, but on the whole, his arguments are very compelling and quite reasoned. However, he did drop the ball completely - by omission, which has been the way of every theorist I've taken a look at, to be perfectly fair here - when the opportunity arose for him to detail the possible ways that the very first human being reached past any logical linkage between what it knew to be real via normal corporeal sensory perception and what it ultimately embraced as real without a shred of empirical data. It seems like the least of requirement if Dawkins is to be considered correct in his assertion that belief in the supernatural is indeed an evolutionary tic that enlightened humanity fights on a normal basis, that he must at least offer a suggestion as to how that initial leap of logic must've occurred.

Now, remember that if the human being evolved from primates, then it began with the same incapacity for inventing the non-corporeal realm and intelligent inhabitants that all other primates are known for, and yet the human brain not only accepts the imperceptible as real, this meme is the default assumption (if Dawkins is correct) that the reasonable human being must resist as infantile.

Dawkins does a good job of detailing several plausible scenarios that explain how such a dualistic view could've progressed into theological assumptions and especially religiosity, but the initial burst of raw creativity - when the very first human being embraced the seemingly impossible notion of invisible, imperceptible, intelligent, and human-esque existence that resided exclusively within an invisible, imperceptible, and yet ubiquitous realm - was simply not a place where he wanted to go. He even seemed to be lining it up in his sights in chapter 10 "A Much Needed Gap", but then faltered during his "Binker" segment, only to wander off from there into other psychological needs that an already established invisible partner/friend/body guard would obviously address.

I have to admit that I was disappointed by how he handled the difficult issue of initial assumption in this matter, and I was wondering if any other Atheist author has ever successfully managed to lay out the clear and obvious developmental linkage that brought the primitive human brain (and associated mind) from the stage where it shared the same perceptions as the rest of Earth's inhabitants to where it is now; with a good 80% of the human race believing in some sort of transcendent continuation of the human personality after the death of the body.

Anyone have a name that I can research. An atheist who's nailed that tricky issue, and has put that argument into a published form. It seems as if you can't nail that issue down, then you haven't got the sort of fundamental information required to debunk the concept of the "spiritual" realm.

Anyone?
edit on 12/24/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Reply to post by NorEaster
 


Good post. I think you made a tiny mistake though, one that a lot of creationist like to make on purpose. Humans did not evolve from the other primates currently living, we share a common ancestry with them. As far as the spiritual realm that is pretty much undebunkable with science because there is no one size fits all meaning of it. However, I could point you in the direction of a people who have debunked prayer, astrology, and a number of other metaphysical beliefs.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by NorEaster
 


Good post. I think you made a tiny mistake though, one that a lot of creationist like to make on purpose. Humans did not evolve from the other primates currently living, we share a common ancestry with them. As far as the spiritual realm that is pretty much undebunkable with science because there is no one size fits all meaning of it. However, I could point you in the direction of a people who have debunked prayer, astrology, and a number of other metaphysical beliefs.
 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Meh....that other stuff's child's play for any competent thinker. Most of that stuff were established as societal programming tools of the ancients elites. Especially Astrology. The linkage is crystal clear with that, and with most other occult "sciences".

I'm not a creationist by any stretch. Like I said, I agree with Dawkins on most of what he believes. I still have that one initial leap-of-logic issue that no one seems to be able to address. I mean, it's pretty difficult to imagine such a complete left turn coming from that first primitive corporeal brain, and to date, it stands in front of atheism (well, only strict atheism that dismisses the dualistic nature of the human being as being a primitive construct) like a buzz saw in the doorway.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
"I have to admit that I was disappointed by how he handled the difficult issue of initial assumption in this matter, and I was wondering if any other Atheist author has ever successfully managed to lay out the clear and obvious developmental linkage that brought the primitive human brain (and associated mind) from the stage where it shared the same perceptions as the rest of Earth's inhabitants to where it is now; with a good 80% of the human race believing in some sort of transcendent continuation of the human personality after the death of the body."

good questions, and I empathize with you completly on the whole 'not quite an athiest' perspective. Unfortunatly I don't have a name for you, but perhaps have a theory I've kicked around for many years. Before I get into it though, its not exactly possible to say that we as humans are alone in our beliefs of a higher power or continuity after death as we only can communicate on a basic level with some animals and can't get into philisophical debates with any that i am currently aware of. Taking that assumption aside I imagine the beginnings of religion starting with dreams. That is too much to get into, and maybe one day I'll compile a thread on that aspect of the theory, but needless to say we are an artistic and creative race.
I think that long ago, in perhaps a small tribe of humans, or our near ancestors a child's parents died, and the child looked to one of the other adults and asked 'where did they go?' not knowing how to answer such a question an adult used his/her creativity to fill in the gaps and make their leaving easier for the child, the child grew up and shared this invintion, and it evolved, realitively benignly until a charismatic was born and saw the power of belief and used it to his/her advantage. No proof, but my understanding of the human psyce tells me its very plausible. cheers!



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


i dont like scientific sentences very much so sorry if i m out of ur means bc i surely missed to read some of it, but hopefully my point fits there somwhere

if u mean existence objectively, then what matter is not what u come from but always what is superior to u

what u come from matter to understand better ur always limits never u as an objective reality

so the issue with our comparaison to animals we were here, is what it cant say a word about our objective existence that we become now
animals are clearly living through absolute superiorities objectively perceived while we as conscious about being free are never looking to what is objective as superior but through ourselves subjective wills, this is the issue that say how we exist less then animals in absolute terms perspective
from what are we existing when u r not leaning on any objective existence that justify it



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Good Post.

I thought Sigmund Freud's The Future of an illusion (pdf) was a decent attempt.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Hey NorEaster, Nice thread as usual


If you are interested, take a look at a book called Supernatural by Graham Hancock. It's quite a meaty book (about 750 pages), but it's only that long because he is very thorough when drawing his conclusions. I'm not quite sure if it's what you're after, but it's worth checking out if you able to get your hands on it.

He starts with discussing the similarities in cave paintings around the world, and then moves on to religion and other aspects which would breach ATS T&C, but you get the idea. I really do recommend it. Here is an excerpt from the back cover:


The evolution of modern humans has taken more than five million years but until less than 50,000 years ago we had no art, no religion, no sophisticated symbolism, no creative and innovative thinking, and quite possibly no language. Then, a dramatic and electrifying change overtook our ancestors in every part of the globe, and all the skills and qualities that we value most highly in ourselves today appeared suddenly, already fully formed, as though bestowed on us by hidden powers. Scientists describe this change as “the greatest riddle in human history”.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Good Post.

I thought Sigmund Freud's The Future of an illusion (pdf) was a decent attempt.


Thanks for the link. I didn't know that Freud addressed this. I look forward to digging into it.

Happy Birthday of the Unconquered Sun!



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dyllels
Hey NorEaster, Nice thread as usual


If you are interested, take a look at a book called Supernatural by Graham Hancock. It's quite a meaty book (about 750 pages), but it's only that long because he is very thorough when drawing his conclusions. I'm not quite sure if it's what you're after, but it's worth checking out if you able to get your hands on it.

He starts with discussing the similarities in cave paintings around the world, and then moves on to religion and other aspects which would breach ATS T&C, but you get the idea. I really do recommend it. Here is an excerpt from the back cover:


The evolution of modern humans has taken more than five million years but until less than 50,000 years ago we had no art, no religion, no sophisticated symbolism, no creative and innovative thinking, and quite possibly no language. Then, a dramatic and electrifying change overtook our ancestors in every part of the globe, and all the skills and qualities that we value most highly in ourselves today appeared suddenly, already fully formed, as though bestowed on us by hidden powers. Scientists describe this change as “the greatest riddle in human history”.


Interesting. I'll put it on my list. I'm trying hard to debunk my own theory, and this one issue of plausible linkage is a critical part of that effort. If I can't find that linkage, I'll have to concede that the non-corporeal is a plausible reality, and from there, the rest of my theory concerning the true nature of humankind's place within the whole of physical existence becomes better reinforced. And for me, that's not necessarily good news - especially if the theory is actually not valid. Frankly, I'd rather the theory is debunked if it's not true, but so far, no one's put a dent in it. Kinda makes me a bit uneasy at times.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
What is your theory on the true nature of humankind's place within the whole of physical existence?



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
I'm sure you are aware that one of Dawkin's main cohort's, reversed his thought's on these matters shortly before he died.
I myself believe in a Creator, to me Dawkin's is incorrect to say he knows this or that, because in reality he knows nothing. He is only making assumptions, he can prove nothing.

I on the other hand can prove Creation, think not, first deni yourself, not possible since you are right there.

Plus you would have to study, Tibetan Yoga, The Torah, then you would realize, at the Godhead there is no such thing as Good, bad, male, female, in that state you would not even comprehend Earth as such.

I would not dwell on not believing, but believe, we are all made of star dust, be happy be a light in the darkness for those who are truly lost.

I am my Fathers Son I have friend's in very high place's, as do you.


edit on 25-12-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
What is your theory on the true nature of humankind's place within the whole of physical existence?




New around here?

It's pretty comprehensive and involves a new look at the basics of physical existence (basically taking the notion of particle physics as actually being a case of improper human perception translation), and then applying that foundation to a thorough examination of virtually everything that humankind has traditionally embraced as real - from evolution to esoteric theology - and letting the whole damn parade fight itself for logical viability. It takes a lot of discipline to not dismiss anything out-of-hand, but once the dust clears, the theory ends up being pretty airtight in the sense that the internal logic holds firm and the direct (as well as some very impressive inference) linkage simply stinks of common sense plausibility.

The only bitch is that to allow everything that links together to remain properly linked together, you have to accept some net possibilities that - at first glance - seem ludicrous. That said, once you allow for the very distinct possibility that there isn't really a structural divide between realms of perception (corporeal and whatever the non-corporeal actually can logically be comprised of) the whole damn thing simply opens up as the direct result of very simple physical ramification development. Not difficult, but cripplingly counterintuitive for those who've deeply internalized what has become traditional wisdom in this theater of debate.

You notice that I didn't bother to toss out the bullet points of what the theory suggests in net assertion, but that's only because of how inane the thing sounds if you haven't actually walked through the entire examination and dealt with the smaller - and much more intuitive - structural tenets. Traditional wisdom can't reconcile any of it, but then that's not necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, traditional wisdom has us accepting a lot that makes no sense with what we each encounter from day to day - ageless, limitless, time-inverting, and structureless things that demand that we abandon the very reality that allows for our own existence and progressive development - so how can upending the contradictory tenets of traditional truth be anything but a step or two forward, but I digress.

If you're actually interested, send me a U2U, and I'll send you some links where the premise is laid out in excruciating detail. I don't know. If anyone can debunk it, I'd love to see it happen. Not because I don't believe it, but because the premise and the clear linkage to everything that's been embraced as real seems too damn obvious for it to have survived in obscurity for such a long time. Hell, something has to be wrong with it. I hate to think that all the geniuses that have been sweating over this issue for centuries have been so inept as to miss what seems to be so completely natural and spelled right out in front of them.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I choose to live by Faith by belief, not by sight. I was once told that "there are no Atheists in fox holes." I fought that to be true in 2006 as I lay bleeding from a severe gunshot wound. My deluded thoughts and feelings of unbelief and distorted thoughts of suffocation quickly changed. Proof is a subjective thing when it boils down to it. For me, faith is like the wind. I can't see it, but I can see what it does and I can feel it. That is enough for me.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by NorEaster
 
I'm sure you are aware that one of Dawkin's main cohort's, reversed his thought's on these matters shortly before he died.


Not really relevant to this thread discussion, and frankly, what one man does or doesn't do as he's facing the end of his life has no impact on the truth of physical reality in one way or another. We're all free to embrace what we believe to be true.


I myself believe in a Creator, to me Dawkin's is incorrect to say he knows this or that, because in reality he knows nothing. He is only making assumptions, he can prove nothing.

I on the other hand can prove Creation, think not, first deni yourself, not possible since you are right there.


I've actually been able to logically (and via direct linkage to what's been well established as being clearly representative of what must be true about physical existence) prove that a Creator was not employed during the initial rise of physical development - from the initial emergence of physical existence to the eventual emergence of what constitutes human consciousness - even though I have my own reasons for believing that an intelligent creator being did initiate our own reality confine with a specific agenda, even as the development process mimics the original in all but one key aspect - which would make no sense without the benefit of the associated informational context, so I won't waste the space here with it.


Plus you would have to study, Tibetan Yoga, The Torah, then you would realize, at the Godhead there is no such thing as Good, bad, male, female, in that state you would not even comprehend Earth as such.


Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If these disciplines give you strength and confidence as you develop the eternal "you", then they are staple for you to embrace and cherish. I have no problem with anyone's devotion to that which will make them stronger and ultimately more free to pursue the community that awaits them upon corporeal death. That said, what I've taken on has no discipline structure or devotional requirements. I'm dealing with the substructure of physical existence, and what the human being offers to the whole by way of the unique expression that it is. I don't have a dog in the fight between one theology, philosophy, or hybrid manifestation of either, and whatever else there is that's actively vying for body count.


I would not dwell on not believing, but believe, we are all made of star dust, be happy be a light in the darkness for those who are truly lost.

I am my Fathers Son I have friend's in very high place's, as do you.


That's a nice though - the be a happy light thought - and I think that we'd all be well served to respond to existence in that manner. My concern is for the millions and millions who are actively oppressed by what they embrace as truth, either by cultural default or actively employed childhood programming. Knowledge of the staples of physical reality might be a liberating tool for those people. Not everyone is viscerally capable of believing as you do, and why would it be appropriate to declare them "lost" simply because they can't love the same target that you've decided to love? I love my wife, but I don't demand that everyone love her in the same manner as I do. Religiosity is perverse in that regard.

Fine...love your interpretation of God, and here's to a happy and fulfilled life as a devoted acolyte to whatever you've embraced as divine. But don't imagine that anyone else must feel as you feel. And certainly not as a prerequisite for anything other than inclusion within your specific community of devotees. To demand such a thing is incredibly evil, and completely counter to the larger tenets of "spiritual development" regardless of what theology you've chosen to represent with your service and devotion.

The only people that are lost are those who suffer under the dictates of their own view of reality. Not everyone fits into the prefab slots that theologies and religions and philosophies provide. Those people deserve to be strong and confidently fulfilled too, and only by developing strength and confidence from instant to instant can anyone emerge strong and confident from this corporeal development process. No one has the right or mandate to deny anyone that fundamental opportunity. Either actively, or by cultural default.
edit on 12/26/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mickd1337
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Proof is a subjective thing when it boils down to it.


um.....no, that's simply not true. Perception is a subjective thing. Experience is a subjective thing. Proof is hard to acquire because it's not a subjective thing. You're a believer type person. Good. I'm glad that your particular experience carried you through your gunshot ordeal.

By the way, that atheists/foxholes quote was just one guy's opinion. Okay, maybe there are a few guys who've been credited with it.


The precise origin of the phrase is uncertain. Various sources credit Lieutenant Colonel William J. Clear (or Cleary), or Lieutenant Colonel William Casey, but the phrase is most often attributed to journalist Ernie Pyle.

It has also been attributed to U.S. Military Chaplain William T. Cummings in a field sermon during the Battle of Bataan in 1942.

source - en.wikipedia.org...


Still, it's like the axiom "Early to be and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise." I nice quote, but by no means universal as a fundamental truism.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
HA, Ha you crack me up, quit whining if you don't believe, it makes no matter in the greater scheme of things anyhow.
Everyone that live dies, what matters is how you live, feel.

edit on 26-12-2011 by googolplex because: er



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
HA, Ha you crack me up, quit whining if you don't believe, it makes no matter in the greater scheme of things anyhow.
Everyone that live dies, what matters is how you live, feel.


No one's whining. Not here anyway. My concern for the prospects of others isn't a weakness. It's the only strength I possess. Doesn't your god promote compassion and concern for the fortunes of others? And if not, then why would you ever want to bother with such a sick animal?

Everyone does die. It's a necessary transition in the human development process. You can't enter a space without leaving a space, and corporeal death is the leaving of this space; one foot past the threshold into the final space that humans rule as an epitome expression of eternal existence. Sadly, too many human beings enter that space in search of a paradise kingdom, only to be led off by just one of many humans (either similarly deluded or outright predatory in intent) to carefully crafted and managed constructs designed to take advantage of the subjective nature of post-corporeal human perception. And for any of countless reasons - admittedly some benevolent and some relatively benign - each construct inhales its percentage of the faithful and actively seeking, with greeters that rival the greasy con men that used to prey on star-struck teenage runaways at the LA Greyhound bus terminal in downtown LA, giving the new arrivals the angels, mahatmas and personal Jesuses that they've been programmed by "spiritual leaders" to expect. Still, regardless of the specifics of one's ultimate post-corporeal perception destination, why isn't it better for the newly arrived to have the capacity to actively choose their community, based on knowledge as opposed to the tender mercies of the first illusion to confront them upon the trauma of their death transition event?

I could simply be grateful that I know better than to embrace those distortions and outright lies, and smile as folks like you go skipping off to whatever the hell is lying in wait for you. But I can't stop feeling a responsibility to challenge the traditional wisdoms, especially when they've stopped even pretending to be anything but the contemptible faith prisons that they've always been. There is no such thing as a "sinner". That man-made label has imprisoned countless millions and opened the door to unspeakable abuses on both sides of the divide. Same with the label "enlightened", as well as its slightly less secular sibling "holy". Leading those preening jackasses to who knows what, as they stride confidently through that tunnel and into the light where the rest of forever waits smiling.

Like I said, you play it your way, and good for you if it all works out exactly as you planned. My concern is for those who dread the punishment that they've been taught to expect. No one deserves that twisted narrative to be the "truth that faith reveals". I, for one, am disgusted with the aggressive effort to cripple, damage, and ultimately destroy those folks who simply can't embrace what they honestly see as a ludicrous notion. If my active opposition to that effort condemns me to "Hell", then so much for that hell when I get there. And so much for the malignant "god" that tried to confine me there. From what I've learned, ripping that hell, and that god, to shreds will leave me plenty of time to get a nap in before dinner. Seriously, you think you're the only one that believes what he knows to be true? The only difference is that I don't require a bit of faith, and I don't require a god to come to my rescue.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I know that Freud has already been mentioned, but I think he can be one of the most valuable thinkers for addressing this question, so I'll give him another mention.

-Future of an Illusion is definitely a good one--possibly the best--for addressing religion through Freud.
-The final essay in "Totem and Taboo" is also quite interesting and could provide some valuable input on the subject.
-The second chapter of "Civilization and its Discontents" is also strongly related to religion. I think it addresses some of the ideas from Future of an Illusion in greater detail.

I have to say, though, that my favorite--and, in my opinion, the best--explanation of the development of religion as a social phenomenon is Émile Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life." He was something of an armchair anthropologist, but his scholarly work is well-researched and, in my opinion, quite good.
edit on 30-12-2011 by backwardluminary because: typo



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
1. initial leap of logic must've occurred- it was the initial step of progress (that is logic) that started the process not the result

2. Now, remember that if the human being evolved from primates- ¿?¿? maybe humans de-evolved into primates.

3. the initial burst of raw creativity - when the very first human being embraced the seemingly impossible notion of invisible, imperceptible, intelligent, and human-esque existence that resided exclusively within an invisible-
hmmm.....I am I am

4. 80% of the human race believing in some sort of transcendent continuation of the human personality-
is that not self awareness you speak of ?¿?¿

10. God is what I want to be......like him.....not for the power....but to know what he figured out if he created us so as to know himself....(ultimate truth of all faiths).....what is the lesson.....not the analogy of it...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Agnostic?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join