Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Nearly Sane]

With all due respect, Religion being an emotional crutch is the sort of thing you say as a teenager when you are in the first flush of serious irreligion.

Firstly, anything can become  an emotional crutch, secondly the times and places where religion cannot be and as  some Christians have observed the good news becomes bad news for your ego before it can become the good news. John Bunyan is such a Christian.

I remember a documentary about two friends an observant Jewish businessman and his accountant, a non stipendiary Anglican minister. The Anglican commented on how lucky his Jewish friend was having his religion codified. Christianity? Not so easy and Jesus commandments entail a lifetime of navigation and learning and the difference between doing and being. Hardly crutch material.

With all due respect he didn't say anything about an emotional crutch

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think I've ever talked about a conversion in relation to my journey - indeed I go out of my way to talk about 'recognising' that I was atheist rather than 'converting' to atheism.

So where is the suggested equivalence between your experience and mine? The only reason you can be setting yours against mine is that you see yours as superior to mine?

Once I moved beyond that denial life made an awful lot more sense and I developed a much more acute sense of ethics.

How? Intellectually? For pleasure and/or profit? We do know you have made a crust from ethics.

To be honest, from my perspective you don't come across as someone who was genuinely atheist,

Ah, it had to appear, the “No true Scotsman”fallacy.

And yes of course I consider that the universe is explicable without recourse to god.

Your assertion. Your burden.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Why! because its like trying! well its like me asking and you saying " my client doesn't need to answer that on the grounds it may incriminate him"

Genuinely Atheist what the hell is that

A "genuinely atheist" person is someone who does not believe in the existence of gods or any supernatural beings, and this lack of belief is a core aspect of their worldview.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Definition:
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities or gods.
Types of Atheism:
Implicit Atheism: This refers to the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it.
Explicit Atheism: This is the conscious rejection of belief in gods.
Positive Atheism: This is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.
What Atheism Isn't:
Being an atheist doesn't mean you have all the answers to theological questions or that you are sure about every aspect of the universe. It simply means you are unconvinced by the assertion that gods exist.
Diversity within Atheism:
Atheists come from diverse backgrounds, cultures, and beliefs, and they don't have a common belief system, sacred scripture, or leader.
Agnosticism vs Atheism:
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact, while atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Implicit, Explicit, positive, what is your worldview?

And yes if I am honest, Agnostic Christian, but through Our Lord Jesus Christ I come nearer to the unknowable.✝️

Agnostic Atheist, go on say it with pride 👍shout it from the roof tops😀

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

How? Intellectually?

Out of necessity really. Once I recognised that I did not believe in god (and therefore did not believe in the justifications in the bible etc) I recognised that I could no longer 'outsource' ethical responsibility to structures, books, organisations etc whose provenance/authority I didn't believe in. Nope I had to 'onboard' ethical responsibility - I needed to determine for myself what I considered to be right and wrong. I needed to develop my own ethical framework. This felt a little scary, but also hugely liberating and felt really important to my development as a person.

For pleasure and/or profit? We do know you have made a crust from ethics.

Neither for pleasure (see above), nor for profit - your notion that I've earner a crust from ethics shows how little you understand about the academic world.

Had I wanted to fast-track my academic career I would undoubtedly have focussed entirely on my main areas of research and academic expertise - more grants, more top papers, quicker route to a Chair. But I didn't do this - I took a decision to engage in ethics within the university, both ethics committees and teaching. No-one asked me to do this, I do not get specifically rewarded for this and I'm certainly not 'earning a crust' from this. If I wasn't engaging in ethics teaching/admin I would contribute to teaching and admin in other areas.

But, in order to understand the world of ethics (specifically medical ethics) better at a key point in my career I decided to study for a masters degree part-time, while still holding down my academic job. The university was happy to do this, but didn't provide any funding - so I self funded. So rather than 'earning a crust' my commitment to ethics has cost me. Not just in the cost of the tuition fees for my MA, but potentially delaying my promotion to a Professorship by perhaps a year or two (as this promotion was entirely based on my main academic expertise).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Atheists,

Out of necessity really. Once I recognised that I did not believe in god (and therefore did not believe in the justifications in the bible etc) I recognised that I could no longer 'outsource' ethical responsibility to structures, books, organisations etc whose provenance/authority I didn't believe in. Nope I had to 'onboard' ethical responsibility - I need to to determine for myself what I considered to be right and wrong. I needed to develop my own ethical framework. This felt a little scary, but also hugely liberating and felt really important to my development as a person.


See, see the above, , I do want to question but not now, just a simple Thank you ProfDavey.
Gonnagle.

[Sebastian Toe]

You keep claiming no supporting evidence or sound reasoning for the existence of God, but this is a very subjective claim.  There is evidence and reasoning in abundance, but you appear to personally choose to seek reasons to dismiss, ignore or ridicule such evidence.  You do not seem to realise that your ability to do this is evidence of God's miraculous gift of freedom which nature alone could never give you.

Yet you keep posting that there is no evidence for an emergent consciousness from a physical brain.
There is evidence and reasoning in abundance which you seek to dismiss out of hand.
You do not seem to realise that your alternative is to posit an entity which requires magic to even begin to work!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Atheists,

Out of necessity really. Once I recognised that I did not believe in god (and therefore did not believe in the justifications in the bible etc) I recognised that I could no longer 'outsource' ethical responsibility to structures, books, organisations etc whose provenance/authority I didn't believe in. Nope I had to 'onboard' ethical responsibility - I need to to determine for myself what I considered to be right and wrong. I needed to develop my own ethical framework. This felt a little scary, but also hugely liberating and felt really important to my development as a person.


See, see the above, , I do want to question but not now, just a simple Thank you ProfDavey.
Gonnagle.

But unfortunately the professors statement could preface the saying "Therefore I resolve to pull my ethics and morality out of my arse".

Sorry I'm on my phone typing this and can't put the letters in bold.

[ProfessorDavey]

But unfortunately the professors statement could preface the saying "Therefore I resolve to pull my ethics and morality out of my arse".

Charming

Perhaps you struggle to accept that someone can be ethical without god (that hoary old debunked cliche). Perhaps you cannot accept that someone might recognise the importance of ethics to a greater extent when they come to recognise that they do not believe in god.

Well, perhaps Gonners is more open to a mature and adult discussion about these matters that you are Vlad.

[Gonnagle]

Charming

Perhaps you struggle to accept that someone can be ethical without god (that hoary old debunked cliche). Perhaps you cannot accept that someone might recognise the importance of ethics to a greater extent when they come to recognise that they do not believe in god.

Well, perhaps Gonners is more open to a mature and adult discussion about these matters that you are Vlad.

Dear Prof,

Yes I fear our Vlad needs to go back to Christian school, learn some damn manners he is turning into a a complete oik Mods a sound thrashing all round, me first

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Charming

Perhaps you struggle to accept that someone can be ethical without god (that hoary old debunked cliche). Perhaps you cannot accept that someone might recognise the importance of ethics to a greater extent when they come to recognise that they do not believe in god.

Well, perhaps Gonners is more open to a mature and adult discussion about these matters that you are Vlad.

You seem to be in denial that one CAN produce a morality extra rectally.

Of course one can be ethical and non religious but that could be a remnant or common grace, and the question is, when does someone become unethical?

We seem to be at the Humanists graveyard vis a vis the moral argument. The point where humanism won't or can't explain where their ethics spring from.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course one can be ethical and non religious but that could be a remnant or common grace, ...

Which seems to imply that the non-religious are merely acquiescing to religious norms. Seems a rather arrogant assumption Vlad.

Actually I think that there are very, very longstanding tenets of morality within human societies, which are probably founded in the evolutionary advantage they convey to a species that survives due to social coherence and cooperation within the 'tribe'. These elements likely predate anything we'd consider as religion, but would have become embedded in religious customs, expectations and rituals in due course.

... and the question is, when does someone become unethical?

Well given that ethics and morality are ultimately subjective and not objective and are societal constructs then that is a question that does not have a universal answer.

We seem to be at the Humanists graveyard vis a vis the moral argument. The point where humanism won't or can't explain where their ethics spring from.

Weird, because I think I've just explained where ethics likely spring from - the evolutionary advantage linked to embedding societal rules, customs and expectations. Which is based on a concept (evolution) which is evidence based and can be demonstrated. On the contrary, your reliance on divine intervention in handing down moral rules has no evidence base as it presumes (and requires) the presence of a deities despite there being no credible evidence to support the existence of that deity.

Back to the drawing board Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which seems to imply that the non-religious are merely acquiescing to religious norms. Seems a rather arrogant assumption Vlad.

Actually I think that there are very, very longstanding tenets of morality within human societies, which are probably founded in the evolutionary advantage they convey to a species that survives due to social coherence and cooperation within the 'tribe'. These elements likely predate anything we'd consider as religion, but would have become embedded in religious customs, expectations and rituals in due course.
Well given that ethics and morality are ultimately subjective and not objective and are societal constructs then that is a question that does not have a universal answer.
Weird, because I think I've just explained where ethics likely spring from - the evolutionary advantage linked to embedding societal rules, customs and expectations. Which is based on a concept (evolution) which is evidence based and can be demonstrated. On the contrary, your reliance on divine intervention in handing down moral rules has no evidence base as it presumes (and requires) the presence of a deities despite there being no credible evidence to support the existence of that deity.

Back to the drawing board Vlad.

What darwinian evolutionary development has human
morality effected?

Social development or innovation perhaps.

You make a pretty pat appeal to instinct. Perhaps that is the naturalistic fallacy on your part.

Plus running through your responses is is avoidance of the points I'm making.

Flannel and fob on your part.

I feel an appeal to memetics sadly coming our way.

[ProfessorDavey]

What darwinian evolutionary development has human
morality effected?

Social development or innovation perhaps.

You make a pretty pat appeal to instinct. Perhaps that is the naturalistic fallacy on your part.

Plus running through your responses is is avoidance of the points I'm making.

Flannel and fob on your part.

I feel an appeal to memetics sadly coming our way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

And, of course, we see equivalent societal behavioural expectations (right and wrong if you like) in non-human species which suggests strongly that morality isn't merely a feature of human societies but also of other species with complex social structures.

Seems an awful lot more evidence-based and plausible than 'goddidit'.

[Gonnagle]

Which seems to imply that the non-religious are merely acquiescing to religious norms. Seems a rather arrogant assumption Vlad.

Actually I think that there are very, very longstanding tenets of morality within human societies, which are probably founded in the evolutionary advantage they convey to a species that survives due to social coherence and cooperation within the 'tribe'. These elements likely predate anything we'd consider as religion, but would have become embedded in religious customs, expectations and rituals in due course.
Well given that ethics and morality are ultimately subjective and not objective and are societal constructs then that is a question that does not have a universal answer.
Weird, because I think I've just explained where ethics likely spring from - the evolutionary advantage linked to embedding societal rules, customs and expectations. Which is based on a concept (evolution) which is evidence based and can be demonstrated. On the contrary, your reliance on divine intervention in handing down moral rules has no evidence base as it presumes (and requires) the presence of a deities despite there being no credible evidence to support the existence of that deity.

Back to the drawing board Vlad.

Dear Prof,

Its this bit that has me intrigued.

These elements likely predate anything we'd consider as religion, but would have become embedded in religious customs, expectations and rituals in due course.

What do Atheists consider religion to be?

Early man, there is evidence of him praying and crying over the beast he has just killed, or early man burying his relatives with trinkets of their life.

predate anything we'd consider as religion.


I wonder if any Atheists will answer my question.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Its this bit that has me intrigued.

These elements likely predate anything we'd consider as religion, but would have become embedded in religious customs, expectations and rituals in due course.

What do Atheists consider religion to be?

Early man, there is evidence of him praying and crying over the beast he has just killed, or early man burying his relatives with trinkets of their life.

predate anything we'd consider as religion.


I wonder if any Atheists will answer my question.

Gonnagle.

Well I think religion needs some element of the supernatural to it, alongside custom and ritual - otherwise all we are considering is all societal customs/rituals etc which seems way too broad to my mind.

And we can see non-human societal species with clear custom and ritual which cements community coherence etc, which is unlikely to have any appeal to the supernatural. Remember that humans had existed for hundreds of thousands of years before we have any indication of anything that we might consider to be religion. So presumably the earliest of humans would have developed these all important customs and rituals to cement group cohesion etc long before anything we would realistically consider to be religion became established.

[Gordon]

What do Atheists consider religion to be?

Irrational and ritualised belief in, and subservience to, an unevidenced supernatural agent(s): with elements of tradition and authority incorporated into the delivery methods.

[Gonnagle]

Well I think religion needs some element of the supernatural to it, alongside custom and ritual - otherwise all we are considering is all societal customs/rituals etc which seems way too broad to my mind.

And we can see non-human societal species with clear custom and ritual which cements community coherence etc, which is unlikely to have any appeal to the supernatural. Remember that humans had existed for hundreds of thousands of years before we have any indication of anything that we might consider to be religion. So presumably the earliest of humans would have developed these all important customs and rituals to cement group cohesion etc long before anything we would realistically consider to be religion became established.

Dear Prof,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion#:~:text=Paleoanthropologists%20Andre%20Leroi%2DGourhan%20and,religious%20behavior%20%E2%80%94%20reach%20back%20into

I can cherry pick and you can cherry pick particular parts, me I think we are Homo religious.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion#:~:text=Paleoanthropologists%20Andre%20Leroi%2DGourhan%20and,religious%20behavior%20%E2%80%94%20reach%20back%20into

I can cherry pick and you can cherry pick particular parts, me I think we are Homo religious.

Gonnagle.

From your link:

"Paleolithic religions are a set of spiritual beliefs and practices that are theorized to have appeared during the Paleolithic time period. Paleoanthropologists Andre Leroi-Gourhan and Annette Michelson believe unmistakably religious behavior emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest,[1] but behavioral patterns such as burial rites[2] that one might characterize as religious — or as ancestral to religious behavior — reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of Homo neanderthalensis and possibly Homo naledi.'

Lot of caveats there Gonners - I think what they are saying it similar to my suggestions - that societal behavioural expectations which aligned with customs and rituals aimed at supporting community coherence etc have existed in human species since they evolved (as indeed they do in many non-human species). Over time these rituals developed into what we now consider to be religions - hence as ancestral to religious behavior.

I suspect that the inclusion of the supernatural and development of religion (rather than just ritual) may have been driven by the expansion of small human groups geographically/territorially. This probably had two key features - first the drive to inquisitiveness (what lies over there) which would necessarily be a prelude to territorial  expansion. So the god of the gaps, so to speak.

The other feature would be territorial expansion meaning that one small human group or tribe started to encounter others. At this point the 'us vs them' element becomes important for community cohesion (you are one of us, not one of them). And this lends itself to belief in deities who are on your side but not on the other side. 'Stick with us, cos god's on our side'.

[Gonnagle]

Irrational and ritualised belief in, and subservience to, an unevidenced supernatural agent(s): with elements of tradition and authority incorporated into the delivery methods.

Dear Gordon,

Irrational

adjective. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

Cheers, thank you.

may your next shit be a hedgehog😀

subservience

No! fine with that, although personally I question God all the time

unevidenced supernatural agent(s)


Don't know about the agent part, but the supernatural, I see the whole Universe as super-natural, and something we only know the tiniest amount about, so unevidenced, this is my evidence, you or rather Atheists think it is just a huge, mega series of accidents.

Well maybe not all Atheists what do you say Mr Dennett

“Darwin’s dangerous idea,” Dennett writes, is that Bach’s music, Christianity, human culture, the human mind, and Homo sapiens “all exist as fruits of a single tree, the Tree of Life,” which “created itself, not in a miraculous, instantaneous whoosh, but slowly, slowly.” He asks, “Is this Tree of Life a God one could worship? Pray to? Fear? Probably not.” But, he says, it is “greater than anything any of us will ever conceive of in detail worthy of its detail. . . . I could not pray to it, but I can stand in affirmation of its magnificence. This world is sacred.”


Affirmation of its magnificence, sacred Gordon, do you think this little blue planet of ours is Sacred.

Sacred

connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

From your link:

"Paleolithic religions are a set of spiritual beliefs and practices that are theorized to have appeared during the Paleolithic time period. Paleoanthropologists Andre Leroi-Gourhan and Annette Michelson believe unmistakably religious behavior emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest,[1] but behavioral patterns such as burial rites[2] that one might characterize as religious — or as ancestral to religious behavior — reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of Homo neanderthalensis and possibly Homo naledi.'

Lot of caveats there Gonners - I think what they are saying it similar to my suggestions - that societal behavioural expectations which aligned with customs and rituals aimed at supporting community coherence etc have existed in human species since they evolved (as indeed they do in many non-human species). Over time these rituals developed into what we now consider to be religions - hence as ancestral to religious behavior.

I suspect that the inclusion of the supernatural and development of religion (rather than just ritual) may have been driven by the expansion of small human groups geographically/territorially. This probably had two key features - first the drive to inquisitiveness (what lies over there) which would necessarily be a prelude to territorial  expansion. So the god of the gaps, so to speak.

The other feature would be territorial expansion meaning that one small human group or tribe started to encounter others. At this point the 'us vs them' element becomes important for community cohesion (you are one of us, not one of them). And this lends itself to belief in deities who are on your side but not on the other side. 'Stick with us, cos god's on our side'.

Dear Prof,

Well I am not going to disagree, your theory could be right, but the archaeological evidence  is only one very small part of what I think makes us Homo religious, there is also the psychological evidence, have you ever looked up at a cloud and seen a face, or what about the man in the moon, we all do it, it is how we evolved, is that a sabre tooth tiger in the bushes, are you going to hang around to find out, bugger that😀

Homo religious, we are born that way.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Irrational

adjective. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

Well, if you think dead people don't stay dead, and if you (as some here have done) avoid the problems of the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT, and yet believe as a matter of 'faith' that Jesus was truly dead and was resurrected (from death) and that they have on-going relationship with this long dead person - then I'd say that was irrational.

I think our wee blue planet is lovely, essential and special (from our perspective) - I wouldn't use the term 'sacred' though given the connotations of that term; "Something that is sacred is believed to be holy and to have a special connection with God."

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sacred

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

Dearest Dear Gordon, then I must be irrational, I have relationships with lots of dead people, Our Lord Jesus Christ being one of them, gies a kiss ya auld Atheist and stop being terribly irrational rational

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Dearest Dear Gordon, then I must be irrational, I have relationships with lots of dead people, Our Lord Jesus Christ being one of them, gies a kiss ya auld Atheist and stop being terribly irrational rational

Gonnagle.

Next time we meet, which I hope will be soon, said kiss will be delivered.

If I were ever to have been a Christian (nae fucking chance of that) I'd like to think I'd be the same sort of Christian that you are.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Well I am not going to disagree, your theory could be right, but the archaeological evidence  is only one very small part of what I think makes us Homo religious, there is also the psychological evidence, have you ever looked up at a cloud and seen a face, or what about the man in the moon, we all do it, it is how we evolved, is that a sabre tooth tiger in the bushes, are you going to hang around to find out, bugger that😀

Homo religious, we are born that way.

Gonnagle.

Pattern recognition - yes of course we are hard-wired to see patterns (including importantly human faces) - why, because it has evolutionary advantage. Those early humans that were able to see and interpret patterns were better able to hunt and survive that those less able to. And if they were better able to hunt and survive then they would be more likely to reproduce and pass on that ... err ... ability for pattern recognition.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/singular-perspective/202105/why-the-human-brain-is-so-good-detecting-patterns

[Gonnagle]

Pattern recognition - yes of course we are hard-wired to see patterns (including importantly human faces) - why, because it has evolutionary advantage. Those early humans that were able to see and interpret patterns were better able to hunt and survive that those less able to. And if they were better able to hunt and survive then they would be more likely to reproduce and pass on that ... err ... ability for pattern recognition.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/singular-perspective/202105/why-the-human-brain-is-so-good-detecting-patterns

Dear Prof,

Including importantly human faces we all do it, and I have to say my theory ( aye its mine ) that we are Homo religious is looking good, and no I am not saying proof of God ( that will come later  ) simply that we are Homo religious, Homo sapiens, Homo Narran's, we are more

Gonnagle.