Evolutionary psychology and problems with the atheists argument
First off this isn't an argument thread. This is merely a criticism of how atheists deal with religion and awaring them on a very good theory that can help them get rid of this problem.
**seems people are reading only half of this and completely missing the fact that I am an atheist myself**
Very brief summary of evolutionary psychology:
Evolutionary psychology is simply a way of identifying the reason for certain cognitive processes from an evolutionary stand point.
Proponents of this state that religion has some pretty big evolutionary benefits (more so in the past, when we were more "primitive", than now).
If you're familiar with many theories in human behavior, you'll notice that there's not a single one that can be attributed to simply social or inherited factors; it's always both. We would be claiming the exact same thing for religion/spiritualism.
Obviously you can see why I might have some problems with a lot of atheist's. Atheists typically tend to resort to questioning the intelligence of religious/spiritual followers. But to be honest, atheists don't really have any strong scientific back up either. We have some good arguments, of course, but they're usually the result of religion not fitting in very well with current society. But society can go through an incredible change and religion will still be there. It's happened before and it'll happen again.
In other words, no matter how much logical merit an athiests argument may have, it'll be just as useless as a theological argument unless we can come up with scientific proof. Evolutionary psychology can help make substantial progress in this respect.
Now I'm not in the business of debating, I follow this theory strictly on the scientific merit that it has. In fact, I've read a lot more on other topics of evolutionary psychology than I have in the subject of religion. My reason for making this thread is because I grew tired of the hypocrisy that atheists have been spewing out.
I really recommend you practice what you preach and educate yourselves. I think this will largely move from being a debate to us actually understanding that atheism isn't something we chose because we're super smart. Both inheritance (or in our case non-inheritance), as well as social factors, play a huge role in our decision not to believe.
I'm really in no place to teach evolutionary psychology. But if you have any simple questions you think I can answer then I will try my best. If you want to argue the theory, consider doing some research of your own. I kept the explanation of it extremely brief so I'm expecting people to have some problems with it, obviously.
But if you're already aware of the theory and well educated on it then I'd love to hear what you think about it. Whether it's negative or not.
Seriously cliffs are going to be pretty impossible to make. But I reread it before I submited it and it was actually a quick read. Think the spacings make it look worse than it is.
I'm an atheist and agree that religion has evolutionary benefits as far as things like group cohesion etc go. Nothing new. In fact, this shows how religion is just an evolutionary construct.
If i read one more time that atheists have no evidence God does not exist, i will probably throw up. The onus is on you dear Christian (if indeed you are one). You make the claim, you provide proof. That's how it works when you grow up. The fact that you and other theists make these arguments, gives plenty of reason for atheists to question your intelligence. Your approach is laughable sir.
Ramana Maharshi "Who Am I?"
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj "I Am That"
Sri Siddharameshwar Maharaj "Master Key to Self-Realization"
Read their words, find out who you really are, have no preference, be happy.
If i read one more time that atheists have no evidence God does not exist, i will probably throw up. The onus is on you dear Christian (if indeed you are one). You make the claim, you provide proof. That's how it works when you grow up. The fact that you and other theists make these arguments, gives plenty of reason for atheists to question your intelligence. Your approach is laughable sir.
I am an atheist. My claim is that we do have proof. I am saying that simply using religions faults against them is not enough to prove that god does not exist.
I am an atheist. My claim is that we do have proof. I am saying that simply using religions faults against them is not enough to prove that god does not exist.
Why do you need to prove God does not exist? You are trying to disprove something that has no proof to begin with. I will say the atheist position is usually just as ignorant and arrogant as the theist. Atheists and theists are more often than not, two sides of the same coin.
Ramana Maharshi "Who Am I?"
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj "I Am That"
Sri Siddharameshwar Maharaj "Master Key to Self-Realization"
Read their words, find out who you really are, have no preference, be happy.
Why do you need to prove God does not exist? You are trying to disprove something that has no proof to begin with. I will say the atheist position is usually just as ignorant and arrogant as the theist. Atheists and theists are more often than not, two sides of the same coin.
I'm not trying to disprove god. I'm simply saying that for the atheists I describe to have credible arguments, they would have to offer more than they currently have. Then I go on to mention that after they educate themselves, it really wouldn't make sense for them to argue anymore.
I realize now that I've done a pretty poor job of explaining myself, and my excuse is that it's finals week...and I was pretty drowsy while typing this.
It's a basic rule in logic. If it wasn't, then we'd be forced to believe in every magical creature.
But there's not proof that there isn't a God either. Essentially, this argument is going to go anywhere. The normal/default isn't that there is no God because the world doesn't have defaults. If your saying something is fact, then you have to have proof to back it up. That's a basic rule in logic. If it wasn't, then we'd be forced to believe in every magical creature.
I'm up pretty late because I was reading a chapter from a book written by Matthew Alper. I just finished reading this and it would have been extremely helpful in my explanation.
"As most atheistic ideologies are based in the mere denial of God’s existence, I would like to stress that no philosophy can be justifiably upheld without possessing some underlying logic through which to substantiate its basic principles. Without such a logic, what is referred to as a philosophy is really nothing more than just another groundless belief system, founded in emotion rather than reason. As I see it, this is the essential problem faced by today’s atheist movement. Rather than possessing an inherent wisdom of its own, the atheist movement relies on the logical shortcomings of those faiths it seeks to contest. And though it’s true that no religion has ever been able to defend its precepts with reason, no legitimate philosophy can stand on gainsay alone. The contradicting of one belief system does not validate the tenets of another. Establishing that something is not white, for instance, does not necessitate its beings black. Analogously, finding fault in the convictions of every world religion does not constitute proof that there is no God. Consequently, if we are ever to advance a viable atheism, it must possess its own rational, its own logical foundation, something I believe the new science of 'biotheology' provides."
But there's not proof that there isn't a God either. Essentially, this argument is going to go anywhere. The normal/default isn't that there is no God because the world doesn't have defaults. If your saying something is fact, then you have to have proof to back it up. That's a basic rule in logic. If it wasn't, then we'd be forced to believe in every magical creature.
There is also no proof that leprechauns don't exist. The default is that something doesn't exist, until it's shown to exist. My line doesn't follow your argument.
There is also no proof that leprechauns don't exist. The default is that something doesn't exist, until it's shown to exist. My line doesn't follow your argument.
It does you just don't see it. Everything we know absolutely with 100% certainty is backed by facts right? Well there are no facts backing the atheist side either. Therefore, if you're going to "preach" either side of the argument it becomes irrelevant to say who is left with the burden of truth because neither can substantiate their claims to begin with.
Also on a side note, leprechauns are completely unrelated to God. God and Jesus were written about with first hand accounts and the miracles they performed dealt with real people. Leprechauns are/were not.
Your line of "default" is severely broken in logic, and is an extremely close minded way of looking at the universe.
you base your only proof for atheism on evolution being a fact. It's on its way out if you've been paying attention to it. They will fight hard, but its all just PR now. So what would become of this entire field of evolutionary psychology if we finally accept that evolution did not and could not happen?
So far it just seems like its a blind assumption you are willing to make. Taking it for granted as is expected
Fun fact, the journal "Nature" was created to promote evolution by some atheists a ways back. funny.
Evolution: The History of an Idea
By Peter J. Bowler
Is there no limit to what people will believe if it is prefaced by the phrase,
“Scientists say …” ?
I dont think either of them are right. The same way you dont have to support obama or romney, you dont have to have a jesus or darwin fish on your car.
I believe we live in a fractal and self similar universe. I didnt really realize it until relatively recently, but there is alot of very legitimate science to back it up. I've always felt this way, since I was really young I recognized the similarity of molecular and astrophysical scales, and I noticed the similarity of bare trees and the branching blood vessels in the lungs,etc,etc,etc. I went through most of my life awing at the beauty and seeming coincidence...brainwashed by ideas of chaos. I wasnt religious, though I was as a child, so I just assumed the false dichotomy that if it isnt jesus, then it must be darwinian evolution...ignoring my instincts because "science said". Well science once said the earth was flat. If something doesnt make sense, maybe its because we havent ****ing figured it out! A choice between Jesus and ONE contemporary scientific theory? No thanks.
Nature is not constructed on euclidean geometry, it is constructed on fractal geometry. I likewise lean more toward the idea of fractal evolution.
Here:
This guy was apparently cloning stem cells 45 years ago. Bruce Lipton, says alot of cool stuff.
He's got a Phd in developmental biology, was a medical school professor, and researched at Stanford.
edit: he starts discussing "the awareness of a cell" by the end of vid 2 (they're only 6mins long)
by vid 6 he starts discussing fractals.
Here is Benoit Mandelbrot (on TED), he is known as the father of fractal geometry. The creator, as far as we know, was Gaston Julia. But because it was the early 1900's, his work was purely theoretical as there were no computers that could plot the amazingly detailed set.
There is plenty of science legitimizing the reality of a fractal universe. The answers are all around us. We are taught to believe we're powerless, or we have no purpose, or its all just chance. Its simply not true. Life is beautiful and we are more powerful than we know.
What if you're a grown ass man who actually thinks man was formed out of dirt and woman formed out of a MCrib?
What if you're a moody bitchy red headed preteen getting her period for the first time?
mhmmmmm. McRib.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I don't really understand you argument. Because religion provided benefits in the past, therefor religion is true ?
Atheism can mean different thing for people, but mostly it is that there is no God (just like we people experience free will, but there is none) and/or that religion is a bad thing. As long as religion changes to fit with the current society, there would be no problem. In the past, religion was a product of the society. Society changes, religion does not (or at least, they lack in progress and some of them are are really the strong nutcases who don't wanna change).
Anyway, there is a big difference between an eveolutionary adaptation of religion and the truthness of it.
i'm pretty sure bishes have an adaptation against rape. Does this mean that bishes should not be mad if they have been raped, since they are adapted to it ?
I really recommend you practice what you preach and educate yourselves. I think this will largely move from being a debate to us actually understanding that atheism isn't something we chose because we're super smart. Both inheritance (or in our case non-inheritance), as well as social factors, play a huge role in our decision not to believe.
This is not entirely true. Yes, it is true that our behavior, emotion, beliefs whatever is a product of genes + environment. Our genes and environment gives rise to our IQ level. This IQ level can predict our religisoity. Higher IQ is correlated with less religiosity. Thus it is true that smart people don't believe in god, and stupid people do believe in god. The effects are not even subtle, everybody experiences this
~~^^Misc Twitter Crew^^~~
RonPaul2012
Wise words from Dr. Ron Paul: Maximalizing the individual Freedom leads to diminishing the Equality and to the neglect of Solidarity
It does you just don't see it. Everything we know absolutely with 100% certainty is backed by facts right? Well there are no facts backing the atheist side either. Therefore, if you're going to "preach" either side of the argument it becomes irrelevant to say who is left with the burden of truth because neither can substantiate their claims to begin with.
Also on a side note, leprechauns are completely unrelated to God. God and Jesus were written about with first hand accounts and the miracles they performed dealt with real people. Leprechauns are/were not.
Your line of "default" is severely broken in logic, and is an extremely close minded way of looking at the universe.
Going to bed now, goodnight.
No, school yourself.
The atheist side is nothing exists, you say something exists, I say you have to demonstrate/prove that it does or it doesn't exist, you say I have to prove that it doesn't exist or you are right by default.
Doesn't work like that.
E-STATS
________
Bench 350x12
Squat 405x50 ATG baby!
Dead 2000x1
Penis 17.3" (lower than misc average feelsbadman.jpg)
Shooting for 9000 at next meet!
☆☆☆υк ˘яєω☆☆☆
Negs on sight: Misusing "alpha", oooo face gifs, teens, people who whine about negs
_______________
1.5k+
OP, the evolutionary argument as I understand it is that religion is an expression of altruism.
Socially those with religion, bond during rituals and foster a common set of goals and values. Which all combine to unite the tribe and make it stronger. It also provide a mechianism that encourages personal sacrifice for the common good.
The creation of a god is pretty much the logical extension of ignorance. I don't know how the sun rises, must be something involved, that something must be very powerful, they must be all powerful, we should fear them, we should worship them to make sure the sun rises.
The genetic triggers that encourage this behaviour are very quickly favoured because those who don't partake will be excluded from the tribe and thus mating opportunities.
How does this not explain the birth of religion as a biologically induced concept?
E-STATS
________
Bench 350x12
Squat 405x50 ATG baby!
Dead 2000x1
Penis 17.3" (lower than misc average feelsbadman.jpg)
Shooting for 9000 at next meet!
☆☆☆υк ˘яєω☆☆☆
Negs on sight: Misusing "alpha", oooo face gifs, teens, people who whine about negs
_______________
1.5k+
The creation of a god is pretty much the logical extension of ignorance. I don't know how the sun rises, must be something involved, that something must be very powerful, they must be all powerful, we should fear them, we should worship them to make sure the sun rises.
The genetic triggers that encourage this behaviour are very quickly favoured because those who don't partake will be excluded from the tribe and thus mating opportunities.
How does this not explain the birth of religion as a biologically induced concept?
sigh. I can't even bother
F-
Is there no limit to what people will believe if it is prefaced by the phrase,
“Scientists say …” ?
Funny youtube series I just discovered. And yes, people use this "argument".
We were all created by L Ron Hubbard.
ask yourselves why you take that position on "this argument". Hopefully you realize you have no basis for doing so, but I guess that would be hoping for too much
Is there no limit to what people will believe if it is prefaced by the phrase,
“Scientists say …” ?
Discounts & Deals - Sign Up!
Bookmarks