How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2701  Postby romansh » Jan 15, 2019 5:24 am

Hermit wrote:
archibald wrote:I do not in principle have much of a problem with atheism being described as either an ideology, a worldview or a belief system.

What, apart from a lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural entity, is the common denominator of 'atheist ideology'? Show your work with reference to the following atheists:

Karl Marx
Ayn Rand
Simone de Beauvoir
Jeremy Bentham
Arthur Schopenhauer
Peter Boghossian
Max Stirner
Albert Camus
David Hume
Steven Hawking
Umberto Eco
Lucretius

Once you have identified one or more common denominators of 'atheist ideology', you will need to demonstrate that it/they are not present in 'theist ideology'.

Essay due on the 31st of February 3019. Don't be late.


Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists? A quick Google search did not provide a list. People DeGrasse Tyson do not describe themselves as atheist, preferring the label agnostic. Now of course agnostics might have a world view (ideology) along the lines do not accept something as possibly true without 'sufficient' evidence.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2700

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2702  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jan 15, 2019 5:31 am

Fenrir wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually Cito, I’ve developed a high tolerance to being treated rudely, I just won’t put up with being told I’m lying. And I’m not exactly complaining about ideology; my whole aim is to reveal the role of ideology In origin narratives, especially of human beings.


Well, if you could do that, wouldn't it be a feather in your cap!? I already asked you why you're trying to keep the human origins narrative separate from, say, the astrophysics narrative. I can't make that separation, so I'd like to know on what basis you're doing so. I suspect it's because you lack the mathematics facility to discuss astrophysics. Who knows what you suspect?


It’s true that I lack the mathematics facility to discuss astrophysics. I know that it supports highly precise predictions, such as enabled the New Horizons spacecraft to fly by a planetesimal way out in the Kuiper Belt. By contrast, the subject matter of evolution doesn’t support predictions at all. And origin stories told in the name of evolution are at least as subject to ideological influence as are human history stories. But whereas historians know a lot about such influences on their stories, people telling origin stories in the name of evolution tend to dress themselves with the authority of astrophysics.


The red is entirely a product of your bias and ignorance. Tiktaalik and Xanthopan are two well known organisms which come readily to mind.


You could have got me even better had you pointed out that in another topic, I explicitly claimed as a prediction, that dinosaurs will be found to have been descended from flying creatures. If that were ever found to be true and me still alive, to be sure I would claim it as a successful prediction for Creationists. How could I then claim that evolution doesn’t support predictions, especially seeing that Tiktaalik as a missing link between fish and land animals, has actually been found, whereas palaeontologists have been splitting Permian and Triassic rocks for a couple of centuries, without finding a dinosaur-like critter with wings?

I need to Um, clarfy. A missing link between fish and amphibians had to have existed, assuming that historically, every generation was recognisably the same as its parentage, and that there were fish before there were amphibians. So Tiktaalik could be predicted through a kind of interpolation; a prediction that something would be found in the future about what had already happened.

The Xanthopan case was a bit different, it was a prediction that a moth would be found proving a current functionality; a particular symbiosis between plant and insect. When successful, it helped to establish Darwin as a good observer, appreciator of how nature works and logical thinker. Though it didn’t have anything directly to do with evolution.

So, to regroup: Evolution doesn’t support prediction about what will happen to nature in the future. That’s not because the theory of evolution is wrong; it’s because nature is involved in radically unpredictable creation in which we are embedded. The natural product of human technology is now evolving so quickly that this unpredictability is visible at the scale of a human life.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1063
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2703  Postby Fenrir » Jan 15, 2019 5:40 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Well, if you could do that, wouldn't it be a feather in your cap!? I already asked you why you're trying to keep the human origins narrative separate from, say, the astrophysics narrative. I can't make that separation, so I'd like to know on what basis you're doing so. I suspect it's because you lack the mathematics facility to discuss astrophysics. Who knows what you suspect?


It’s true that I lack the mathematics facility to discuss astrophysics. I know that it supports highly precise predictions, such as enabled the New Horizons spacecraft to fly by a planetesimal way out in the Kuiper Belt. By contrast, the subject matter of evolution doesn’t support predictions at all. And origin stories told in the name of evolution are at least as subject to ideological influence as are human history stories. But whereas historians know a lot about such influences on their stories, people telling origin stories in the name of evolution tend to dress themselves with the authority of astrophysics.


The red is entirely a product of your bias and ignorance. Tiktaalik and Xanthopan are two well known organisms which come readily to mind.


You could have got me even better had you pointed out that in another topic, I explicitly claimed as a prediction, that dinosaurs will be found to have been descended from flying creatures. If that were ever found to be true and me still alive, to be sure I would claim it as a successful prediction for Creationists. How could I then claim that evolution doesn’t support predictions, especially seeing that Tiktaalik as a missing link between fish and land animals, has actually been found, whereas palaeontologists have been splitting Permian and Triassic rocks for a couple of centuries, without finding a dinosaur-like critter with wings?

I need to Um, clarfy. A missing link between fish and amphibians had to have existed, assuming that historically, every generation was recognisably the same as its parentage, and that there were fish before there were amphibians. So Tiktaalik could be predicted through a kind of interpolation; a prediction that something would be found in the future about what had already happened.

The Xanthopan case was a bit different, it was a prediction that a moth would be found proving a current functionality; a particular symbiosis between plant and insect. When successful, it helped to establish Darwin as a good observer, appreciator of how nature works and logical thinker. Though it didn’t have anything directly to do with evolution.

So, to regroup: Evolution doesn’t support prediction about what will happen to nature in the future. That’s not because the theory of evolution is wrong; it’s because nature is involved in radically unpredictable creation in which we are embedded. The natural product of human technology is now evolving so quickly that this unpredictability is visible at the scale of a human life.


I accept your apology.

Now look up "contingent" and "stochastic" before you continue down the "I don't know what will happen tomorrow so something something god!" route.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3362
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2704  Postby Hermit » Jan 15, 2019 5:50 am

romansh wrote:Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists?

I don't know, but my guess is that very few atheists claim to know that supernatural entities do not exist. Also, I don't much care. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive.

Image
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2477
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2705  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jan 15, 2019 6:04 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:By contrast, the subject matter of evolution doesn’t support predictions at all.


Actually, you're completely wrong about that, but the deep lack of scientific sophistication into which you substitute your preference for playing with words is going to make it difficult to discuss the point with you. Relationships of genomes of various organisms from different phyla on down to families and genera are predictable emerging from the classification schemes that preceded molecular genetics. I don't expect you to discuss this rationally. Nevertheless, your error is amply pointed out to you by Fenrir.

If you resent the authority of people with scientific training, by all means go your own way in ignorance and write stories and poetry to entertain your vanities.

I don’t think I have given you grounds for assuming I don’t have “scientific training” myself. I have a four year engineering degree from a top university in my country and an MSc from another. Apart from my industry experience, I had 26 years full time university teaching experience. In the coming semester I have contracts to deliver courses at two universities. While officially retired I have done language edits on many journal articles and theses from PhD level down in a wide range of Science and engineering areas. So although there are surely a number of posters here with better science education than mine, I’m in the mix.

Cito di Pense wrote:[
Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s not about choice. It’s about outcomes of struggle or competition.


Your error here is to inject your teleology into the term 'competition', which in biological terms is not literally a game with rules that someone designed to serve the game play; you project your own sensibilities into concepts of 'winners' and 'losers'. Again, you're just flattering your own vanities. This is particularly true of your view of human beings, and your judgements assume (and perhaps even require) that human beings are special in some way, even though you may recognize that our species is subject to extinction exactly as any other. Perhaps your view is that the universe is going to be disappointed if we 'fail' the competition to survive. The jury's still out, N.B., and there's no sense in which humans have won more than one round of a very long 'competition'. The biosphere and the food chain can break down almost completely, as it did at the close of the Permian, and humans had nothing to do with that. Everybody has to eat, and humans will eat just about anything, including each other, when times get tough.

You are rambling there, Cito.
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I argued that “[the] appearance of new functionality can be called ‘creation’ and creativity is a property in the first instance, of large biomes.”


You never argue anything, but you're hell on wheels flattering your own vanity. You make lots of assertions though, for example, that "the appearance of new functionality can be called 'creation'". Call it 'creation' if you like, because your priority is for creation, and so you are fashioning your assertions to serve your pre-determined conclusion.

I gave an example of new functionality, as the human capacity for speech. Creation is the appearance of something new.

Cito di Pense wrote: You believe you're doing something different, but you still have all your work ahead of you to set up the appearance of new functionality as the product of an unfolding design process.

I tried to explain before, that that the word “design” is freighted with an unhelpful assumptions.
Cito di Pense wrote: As an avowed Christian, you're beholden in your beliefs to a creator, despite your discomfiture that naming your creator is an 'impiety'.

There’s no “despite”.
Cito di Pense wrote: The whole problem with proselytizing this point of view to me and others who enjoin your assertions in this thread is that a person cannot force himself to believe what you do simply because you claim you have 'argued' for it. That's a strategy fit for selling to a bunch of hayseeds. You lack respect for your audience, but you've made that much very clear.

How much respect are you showing to me Cito? Where have I indulged in ad hominem? Let’s just stick to discussion of the phenomena.
Last edited by Jayjay4547 on Jan 15, 2019 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1063
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2706  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 15, 2019 6:24 am

romansh wrote:
Hermit wrote:
archibald wrote:I do not in principle have much of a problem with atheism being described as either an ideology, a worldview or a belief system.

What, apart from a lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural entity, is the common denominator of 'atheist ideology'? Show your work with reference to the following atheists:

Karl Marx
Ayn Rand
Simone de Beauvoir
Jeremy Bentham
Arthur Schopenhauer
Peter Boghossian
Max Stirner
Albert Camus
David Hume
Steven Hawking
Umberto Eco
Lucretius

Once you have identified one or more common denominators of 'atheist ideology', you will need to demonstrate that it/they are not present in 'theist ideology'.

Essay due on the 31st of February 3019. Don't be late.


Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists? A quick Google search did not provide a list. People DeGrasse Tyson do not describe themselves as atheist, preferring the label agnostic. Now of course agnostics might have a world view (ideology) along the lines do not accept something as possibly true without 'sufficient' evidence.

How Tyson defines agnosticism is functionally the same as how Hermit, myself and others would describe atheism. Imo Tyson wants to avoid atheism because of the negative reputation it has in the US.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30076
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2707  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 15, 2019 6:27 am

Jayjay continues to fail to provide a rigorous definition of atheist ideology. This is point 1.
Jayjay continues to fail to present evidence that said ideology has influenced, much less 'messed up' ToE. Point 2.
Jayjay continues to demonstrate he has hasn't a clue as to how evolution works. Point 3.
Jayjay continues to pretend his insistence, dismissal etc. should carry weight and constitute valid rebuttals. Point 4.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30076
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2708  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 15, 2019 8:24 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I argued that “[the] appearance of new functionality can be called ‘creation’ and creativity is a property in the first instance, of large biomes.”


You never argue anything, but you're hell on wheels flattering your own vanity. You make lots of assertions though, for example, that "the appearance of new functionality can be called 'creation'". Call it 'creation' if you like, because your priority is for creation, and so you are fashioning your assertions to serve your pre-determined conclusion.


I gave an example of new functionality, as the human capacity for speech. Creation is the appearance of something new.


You're adapting terminology from engineering (innovation, new) to processes not demonstrated to be other than natural, and by means of which you appear to be assuming design. I don't accept such terminology because it quite evidently assumes its conclusion of design. You continue to describe physiology and anatomy using engineering metaphors, such as functionality. From whose perspective are we to evaluate this functionality? Yours, with your vast engineering expertise about which you have just boasted emptily? Is this functionality in relation to some purpose? The term can be used with neutral connotation; to clear the air, simply declare that you are using the term without connotation of design.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I tried to explain before, that that the word “design” is freighted with an unhelpful assumptions.


Well, trying to smuggle in design by stealth is not working for you, Jayjay. I suggest you stop denying that this is what you're doing. The metaphor of functionality paired with your use of the term creative makes clear what you are up to. You lack respect for your audience, or you would stop repeating tedious prevarications like this. What you're doing is a pile of fundamentally dishonest shit. That what fundamentalism is, Jayjay: It's fundamentally dishonest shit.

Again, you're treating biological competition as some kind of game, and assuming rules that have been injected for the purpose of having a game to play.

The part you leave out is how and why you value this perspective; my guess is that it's because you're injecting religion into it. Try not to insist that you're right because you're right.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t think I have given you grounds for assuming I don’t have “scientific training” myself. I have a four year engineering degree from a top university in my country and an MSc from another. Apart from my industry experience, I had 29 years full time university teaching experience. In the coming semester I have contracts to deliver courses at two universities. While officially retired I have done language edits on many journal articles and theses from PhD level down in a wide range of Science and engineering areas. So although there are surely a number of posters here with better science education than mine, I’m in the mix.


You're practicing in a field (biology) in which you have no demonstrated competence. You haven't demonstrated competence in engineering, here, either, so I can treat your latest testimonial as nothing but another story you're telling. The point is that, if you don't have professional expertise in biology, you probably shouldn't assume your engineering expertise, if you possess it, is of any value in pursuing arguments in biology that are really the domain of biology experts. In fact, you've slathered your attempts to comment on biology with banal engineering metaphors, and it makes you look like another blowhard who treats his expertise in one field as a license to portray himself as a know-it-all. It's not uncommon to see this, but it's fucking idiotic.

Your purported credentials are no good, here. The reception of your argument is going to be gauged on how good an argument it is.

Jayjay4547 wrote:How much respect are you showing to me Cito?


For what do you demand respect, Jayay? Some purported expertise in engineering you have never demonstrated to me? Your so-called arguments are idiotic and metaphorical. You haven't shown much expertise in creating appropriate metaphor, either.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Let’s just stick to discussion of the phenomena.


As soon as you desist from injecting your pathetically stupid design metaphors into the discussion of phenomena that are not obviously other than naturally-occurring, we can begin to discuss these phenomena rationally. Until then, I'll treat your discourse as idiotic proselytizing for a theistic viewpoint. I need violate no terms of the user agreement to tell you exactly what I think of your approaches to both science and apologetics.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You are rambling there, Cito.


If you don't have a more cogent response than that, I'll just assume you were blown away by my knowledge of earth history. I'd feel bad if you weren't matching me ramble for ramble on the topic of sweat glands.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2709  Postby zoon » Jan 15, 2019 4:41 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:..
zoon wrote: If you are happy that belief in God doesn’t require us to suppose there is any discernible purpose or goal in his creation, then what is your problem with the standard theory of evolution by natural selection? You could continue to believe in god and admire the wonders of the natural world without needing to be continually embroiled in arguments with hard science?


What hard science would that be? Le'ts take this Smithsonian article https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 1xo4mme.99 that I’ve been trying to start a discussion on.

It starts with a hard science discovery about the truly hairless places on the human skin, by Sarah Millar, professor in a School of Medicine. That’s hard science. Then it goes on to review some earlier proposals for why the human skin is so different from that of other primates (and indeed from other large African mammals). Those hypotheses are scattershot, but with the common theme of privileging within-species explanations. That’s not hard science.

Yes, Professor Millar and her team have furthered our knowledge of the mechanisms in mammalian bodies which control the growth of hair. These discoveries do not have any direct bearing on the theory of evolution by natural selection, because they are about what mammalian bodies are like now, they are not about the process by which mammalian bodies became as they are. It’s an explanation which does not compete with the theory of evolution by natural selection, because it explains something different. The discovery that a protein Dkk2 inhibits hair growth in mice tells us nothing about how or why mice came to have that protein.

The article makes clear that the discovery of the control protein tells us more about how bodies work now, but it doesn’t tell us anything about the further “big question” of why our bodies became hairless. Quoting from the article:
With a greater understanding of how skin is rendered hairless, the big question remaining is why humans became almost entirely hairless apes.


In the article, 5 possible reasons why humans evolved to be hairless are mentioned: the aquatic ape theory (which isn’t taken seriously my most researchers), thermoregulation (sweating), communication of emotions, not harbouring lice, and not getting singed by fire. At the end of the article, it’s made clear that Professor Millar is happy that at least 3 of those possible explanations are entirely compatible with the discoveries she and her team have made. Quoting from the article:
Millar says that it’s unlikely that her work will help us directly figure out whether humans are swimming apes, sweaty monkeys or blushing primates.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3118

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2710  Postby zoon » Jan 15, 2019 5:31 pm

Hermit wrote:
romansh wrote:Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists?

I don't know, but my guess is that very few atheists claim to know that supernatural entities do not exist. Also, I don't much care. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive.

Image

I agree that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, provided that atheism has not been firmly defined as believing there is no god (i.e. as gnostic atheism in your diagram). This is one of the reasons why I prefer the other definition, that of lacking belief in god(s). If I lack belief in gods, that doesn't stop me from also having a working belief that there aren't any, while if I'm committed to the view that there are no gods, then I've cut myself off from the agnostic line that we can't in the end prove the matter one way or the other.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3118

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2711  Postby romansh » Jan 15, 2019 6:40 pm

Hermit wrote:
romansh wrote:Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists?

I don't know, but my guess is that very few atheists claim to know that supernatural entities do not exist. Also, I don't much care. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive.

Image

Theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive either.

But you avoid my point. Atheism within the term can have the ideology that no God exists. So when we say atheism is not an ideology we should have a caveat.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2700

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2712  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 15, 2019 8:44 pm

romansh wrote:
Hermit wrote:
romansh wrote:Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists?

I don't know, but my guess is that very few atheists claim to know that supernatural entities do not exist. Also, I don't much care. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive.


...But you avoid my point. Atheism within the term can have the ideology that no God exists. So when we say atheism is not an ideology we should have a caveat.


One can argue with some force and cite evidence that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves or copying stories by even more primitive and ignorant story-tellers. What's the alternative hypothesis? That the goat-roasters actually witnessed really-o, truly-o supernatural events, or received genuine messages from the Cosmic Consciousnessness, and just didn't keep good enough records to settle the question? Well, har har har.

It boggles my mind that modern, presumably educated and intelligent people exposed to history, psychology, and anthropology can misuse the notion of ideology to preserve their positioning as sophisticated agnostic atheists. What's an ideology is the commitment to agnosticism because one cannot perform experiments to show that gods don't exist, a facile rejection of the knowledge they do possess, in favor of rejecting arguments that emerge from someplace where someone has thought through the problem more effectively.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2713  Postby romansh » Jan 15, 2019 8:54 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
One can argue with some force and cite evidence that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves or copying stories by even more primitive and ignorant story-tellers.


And this is a world view ideology that you and I share ...

It might be argued believing that certain beliefs (like a belief in Abrahamic gods) is false and that state and religion should be separate as a consequence, and that this is not an ideology. Fair enough.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2700

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2714  Postby Hermit » Jan 15, 2019 8:58 pm

romansh wrote:
Hermit wrote:
romansh wrote:Just curious amongst your list ... are there any strong or positive atheists?

I don't know, but my guess is that very few atheists claim to know that supernatural entities do not exist. Also, I don't much care. (A)gnosticism and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive.

Image

Theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive either.

But you avoid my point. Atheism within the term can have the ideology that no God exists. So when we say atheism is not an ideology we should have a caveat.

Learn to read.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2477
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2715  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 15, 2019 8:59 pm

romansh wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
One can argue with some force and cite evidence that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves or copying stories by even more primitive and ignorant story-tellers.


And this is a world view ideology that you and I share ...

It might be argued believing that certain beliefs (like a belief in Abrahamic gods) is false and that state and religion should be separate as a consequence, and that this is not an ideology. Fair enough.


Well, no, we don't share whatever ideology ("world view") you think we share. I don't have the same lack of confidence in reason and observation that you seem to be evincing, here, so that I am never tempted to say "everything is a world view". Sure, by your lights, I may be exposing an ideology, but you make no attempt to articulate it as such, so your assertion can be ignored, except maybe to point out how it's just a dipshit attempt to join me to your point of view.

All I said was that one can point to the evidence that gods are nothing but stories and draw gnostic conclusions from that, because the status of ancient religions as pre-scientific is not in question, until you manage to question it effectively.

You don't have to adopt a position of gnostic atheism if you don't want to. However, the door is always open to the thoughtful and curious in possession of half a thimble-full of common sense about social pressure.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2716  Postby romansh » Jan 15, 2019 9:27 pm

Hermit wrote: Learn to read.

Learn to explain yourself
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2700

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2717  Postby romansh » Jan 15, 2019 9:31 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, no, we don't share whatever ideology ("world view") you think we share. I don't have the same lack of confidence in reason and observation that you seem to be evincing, here, so that I am never tempted to say "everything is a world view". Sure, by your lights, I may be exposing an ideology, but you make no attempt to articulate it as such, so your assertion can be ignored, except maybe to point out how it's just a dipshit attempt to join me to your point of view.

All I said was that one can point to the evidence that gods are nothing but stories and draw gnostic conclusions from that, because the status of ancient religions as pre-scientific is not in question, until you manage to question it effectively.

You don't have to adopt a position of gnostic atheism if you don't want to. However, the door is always open to the thoughtful and curious in possession of half a thimble-full of common sense about social pressure.

Do you think that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves ...

If this is not part of your world view, then yes you are right.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2700

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2718  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 15, 2019 9:49 pm

romansh wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, no, we don't share whatever ideology ("world view") you think we share. I don't have the same lack of confidence in reason and observation that you seem to be evincing, here, so that I am never tempted to say "everything is a world view". Sure, by your lights, I may be exposing an ideology, but you make no attempt to articulate it as such, so your assertion can be ignored, except maybe to point out how it's just a dipshit attempt to join me to your point of view.

All I said was that one can point to the evidence that gods are nothing but stories and draw gnostic conclusions from that, because the status of ancient religions as pre-scientific is not in question, until you manage to question it effectively.

You don't have to adopt a position of gnostic atheism if you don't want to. However, the door is always open to the thoughtful and curious in possession of half a thimble-full of common sense about social pressure.

Do you think that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves ...

If this is not part of your world view, then yes you are right.


Primitive, pre-scientific humans developed written religions. It's a fact, bub, and not an opinion. What this means is that they were telling stories and not documenting scientific observations of godlike-entities. It's a trivially obvious fact that you can discover from any number of sources available to you, unless you are confused by alternative woo theories for the origins of human religion, something I would by no means put past you.

Do you claim the facts are contested? What else do you think is signified by ancient religious rituals? Do you, for example, contest the age of scriptures in historical archives? Do you perhaps harbor an allegiance to von Däniken-style interpretations of the history of human religion? If you do, please make your argument plainly, instead of playing word games about what the term ideology denotes.

When you look at Hermit's diagram of all the different kinds of theism and atheism, the dexcriptions use the term 'god'. What can you imagine is denoted by such a term? Do you really insist that it can denote something besides the characters in stories? When people "believe in" a "god", what do you purport they're doing that affects what kind of theists they are? None of them are much bothering to say what they denote by the object of their "beliefs". It's just what they use to account themselves theists. I'd say the same thing to Jayjay, if he were asking me your questions. Do you want to get in the boat with him?
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 15, 2019 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2719  Postby romansh » Jan 15, 2019 10:05 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
romansh wrote:
Do you think that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves ...


Primitive, pre-scientific humans developed written religions. It's a fact, bub, and not an opinion. What this means is that they were telling stories and not documenting scientific observations of godlike-entities. It's a trivially obvious fact that you can discover from any number of sources available to you, unless you are confused by alternative woo theories for the origins of human religion, something I would by no means put past you.

Do you claim the facts are contested? What else do you think is signified by ancient religious rituals? Do you, for example, contest the age of scriptures in historical archives? Do you perhaps harbor an allegiance to von Däniken-style interpretations of the history of human religion? If you do, please make your argument plainly, instead of playing word games about what the term ideology denotes.

Can I take this as a yes to my question?

if so we share the same world view here.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2700

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#2720  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 15, 2019 10:13 pm

romansh wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
romansh wrote:
Do you think that gods are the invention of pre-scientific people, observing that the earliest written religions were concocted by pre-scientific people who surely were either inventing the stories themselves ...


Primitive, pre-scientific humans developed written religions. It's a fact, bub, and not an opinion. What this means is that they were telling stories and not documenting scientific observations of godlike-entities. It's a trivially obvious fact that you can discover from any number of sources available to you, unless you are confused by alternative woo theories for the origins of human religion, something I would by no means put past you.

Do you claim the facts are contested? What else do you think is signified by ancient religious rituals? Do you, for example, contest the age of scriptures in historical archives? Do you perhaps harbor an allegiance to von Däniken-style interpretations of the history of human religion? If you do, please make your argument plainly, instead of playing word games about what the term ideology denotes.

Can I take this as a yes to my question?

if so we share the same world view here.


Your world view is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. We do not share the same world view, regardless of how desperate you are to attribute my remarks to a "world view". Not even close.

Up-thread you were at pains to say this:

So when we say atheism is not an ideology we should have a caveat.


Please stick your caveat somewhere it will be safe and warm and waiting for some philosopher to give you a cavity search.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests