That's probably a contributing factor, but I think anthropomorphization goes a long way too. Even when biologists discuss evolution, they often refer to it as goal-seeking or otherwise give evolution human characteristics (she even has a persona: mother nature). They don't literally mean that evolution is human-like, but it's the easiest language you can quickly grab to convey concepts.

Most religions ascribe very human-like characteristics to their gods in both appearance and behavior. Particularly characteristics of the male patriarchy (power, jealousy, moral authority) which, I guess, isn't surprising, given that males ruled the sociopolitical religious sphere for so long in human history.

Another interesting theory that's probably not true is bicameralism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Which basically ascribes the voice of god to our early development of language and our inability to decipher our own voices from external voices (also possibly the mechanism for schizophrenia).

Batlord and GB, you guys are still responding to my posts and going off on a tangent about religion. I made it explicitly clear in my first post that I don't believe in any of that, just that it's possible their may be a 'creator'. I'll go on to say that maybe not even a 'God', just fulfilling a similar role as far as our existing goes. S/he/it might not even be supernatual, just not described or imagined by humans.

It doesn't seem that far fetched, after all we can recreate the circumstances under which it is widely believed life first began. I think it's called primordial soup? Google brought this up too: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is, it's a closed minded to write off the idea of God completely even if religion is mostly (if not entirely), imo, a bunch of hooplah. But there's still the possibility of something else.

Abiogenesis is a very interesting topic... and one of the many reasons to write off God(s). "Primordial soup" is often used as a pejorative by creationists; an attempt to trivialize the process. We should talk about abiogenesis instead of argue over the unfalsifiable plausibility of an invisible omnipotent omniscient creator of everything.

I don't know how true that statement is, the first time I recall hearing "primordial soup" was from Carl Sagan, and he was not a Creationist.

I get what you mean and actually agree but that's an entirely different subject from this thread. But I do get a little irked sometimes when people say there's no possibility of there being a God just because every description human beings have dreamed up has been, well, silly. I mean really.

"What's this!?!! Men are ****ing each other in the ass in bathhouses?!?!?! CLEARLY THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE CITY!!!!"

Come on now. A being wise and apt enough to create an entire universe wouldn't be that erratic.

But really though, I don't see why it seems so far fetched to people. Like I said, if we can recreate the circumstances under which life on Earth (supposedly) began and evolved to what we know today, what's so preposterous about the idea of ourselves having been created? I mean, the fact that this creator is invisible to us doesn't mean much. The organisms found in primordial soup are more than likely completely oblivious to our existence. And even if we hypothetically could let those organism evolve to a point where they had the means to contemplate such things, that doesn't mean they'd have the means to witness us. If I'm forced to believe in anything it's that there's more to existence than what we interpret or are even capable of understanding as a species. I mean, there are colors out there we can't even see.

:clap::clap::clap:

I did address your point. You say that there "may be a 'creator'". I pointed out that any number of things "may" be true (i.e. zombies, Harry Potter, etc). Why do you take the idea of a creator seriously and not any number of other absurd beliefs? I'm putting forth the idea that there may be a cultural influence that is influencing you into considering something (be it a god or a "creator") that you may not otherwise treat seriously.

My point isn't that we can rule out a god (or a creator), and I imagine any atheist with two logics to rub together wouldn't either. If you think that's what atheists think then you're probably misinterpreting what they've been saying. My point is that if there isn't any evidence for an idea, no legitimate reason to consider it for longer than it takes to go, "Hey, maybe...", then why would we give it any real consideration until evidence was brought forth?

If life can be created by glorified monkeys then why do you need anything that could be described as a deity to create us? Why not just scrub the idea of God and start talking about aliens? Whether or not I treat the idea seriously I still find it far more believable than a deity just by virtue of the fact that we know intelligent life exists.

And if we're talking about aliens, then you've just taken the argument out of the Atheist vs Religion sphere and this now becomes an off-topic discussion that has nothing to do with the preconceptions of atheists.

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't used in earnest. The term was originally coined by a Russian scientist proposing that life emerges from matter naturally, without the need for external influence (which is essentially what abiogenesis is).

But I admit, it's only in my personal experiences that it has been used as pejorative by creationists.

you can't choose what you believe if you are intellectually honest

do you mean the view that there is nothing beyond what science currently supports, or that empirically verifiable evidence is the only way to reliably access anything close to objective statements about reality? cause if it's the latter i'd argue that this approach is limited only in the same way our perception is necessarily limited. but just because our perception is limited doesn't make it reasonable to start filling in the blanks with whatever you feel like.

I dunno, don't wanna investigate, therefore GOD.

You mean like that?

that's just one example. but in general if someone says there's more to objective reality than what science can investigate then i want to ask them what method they use to investigate that aspect of reality. if it is by definition not empirically verifiable then to me it's like they could just make up any old bull****.

I feel atheists ain't that different to the religious. Both claim to know something they do not. To insist the Gods are real, are false, which is sillier? Who knows.

:laughing:

Theism is distinct from gnosticism. One can be either atheist agnostic, theist agnostic, atheist agnostic, or theist agnostic. Your claim that the both claim to know something they do not is only true of the gnostics (whether theist or atheist). But atheists (and theists) can also be agnostic.

For clarity:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...itions.svg.png

Though, even between two agnostics in a discussion/argument (one theist, and one atheist) I agree with Hermione's analysis:

"But that's - I'm sorry but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist? Do you expect me to get hold of - of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody proved it doesn't exist!").

You're basically saying here "How can you be so sure there isn't something science can't explain?", which is entirely the wrong question, since science is perfectly alright with not knowing everything - what it's unhappy with is the idea you can not know something, yet not WANT to know it. Science makes the point that the first and most simple explanation provided to most problems is usually proven to be incorrect later on - for example the idea of there only being 4 elements was proven false by the discovery of the elements we know today, which could potentially be proven to be false tomorrow and replaced wholesale.

It therefore advocates the constant questioning of any established belief, in order to maintain a healthy scepticism of the idea we already have the correct answer for a complicated, or even not so complicated, question.

Science, for example, has yet to answer why animals need sleep. We know the effects of not sleeping, but we don't have any idea what it is about sleeping itself that prevents those effects from manifesting if we get some shuteye.

That, to science, is a mystery for which they will accept an answer if one is provided that can be reconciled with available hard evidence.

The reason science subsequently tends not to accept god, is because no religion has yet posited a god whose existence reconciles with available evidence.

Very interesting.

I agree with your general point, but just to nitpick, it's not quite that we have no idea about sleep; there are theories with evidence behind them. The most notable is the maintenance theory, for which evidence recently was published in Science:

Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain

Interestingly, the day I posted this, the other proposed function of sleep (in memory and learning) gained some ground in terms of evidence, too:

Sleep promotes branch-specific formation of dendritic spines after learning

Fair.

The number one reason why atheism has a negative stigma is because religious people consider this blasphemy. If you say to a religious person you do not believe in god, this is to them a personal attack. Furthermore, inside their own minds they wish they could go 'back to the good old days' and stone you.

Maybe those Christian conservatards are just having one of their (many) lapses in logic i.e. the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. For example, those (at least from what they have observed) who are morally-corrupt, hedonistic libertines with no conscience are all atheists, therefore all atheists must be morally-corrupt, hedonistic libertines with no conscience.

Maybe if they were to put aside their conservatarded hostilities and get to know some atheists, their views would become more aligned with reality.

I thank my luck every day that I was raised mainly atheist by my father, who mainly subscribes to the whole alien fish bowl theory thing. I'm inclined towards that myself, but believe it places more relevance on our species than necessary. I don't think we're even interesting enough to be pets.

I'm not an Atheist myself but I think it's silly how people say there is a war against Christianity coming from the Atheists.

It's always a war with certain people...

:nono:

Unless rolling my eyes qualifies as an artillery barrage then I'm just condescendingly indifferent. They're right about the secret guerrilla war against Christmas though. I know I have nothing better to do with my time than pit my wits against Frosty the Snowman.

Why, I've destroyed 12 christmas spirits just this last Christmas!

^ I literally lol'd, silently.

I don't think atheists have much of a negative stigma where I live. It's worse if you're religious.

Same, apart from some old relatives I don't know a single theist. It's not that people hate religious people they just find it abnormal.

I thought Norway was supposed to be a religiously conservative country.


Oh and... TORE!!!! Where U been, Cracka Supreme?

That must be nice.

Today was some sort of BDSM festival celebration. There's a couple every year, the biggest is the Folsom Street Fair and I guess today's is related to that?

Anyways, lots of beared, burly, pierced dudes in leather chaps and short shorts on the train today. A small group of people were protesting it, handing out flyers and saying "Jesus loves you!" and some guy was like "**** YOU I'M AN ATHEIST *******!"

Made me think of this thread.

So no hot chicks in leather bustiers? :(

A couple here and there but mostly dudes. I wasn't there for the actual parade part I just caught the aftermath on my way home from work. The Folsom Street Fair is usually pretty evenly queer and straight couples so there were probably more women, just not that I saw.

My part of the world isn't particularly religious, but the leading church here is protestant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._the_world.PNG

As for where I've been .. Moved, got a job, got a house, got busy being elsewhere :)

Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

This thread's been a fun read.

Not many religious people where I live. And my atheist colleagues proudly proclaim their position.

Damn you. I'd kill to not have to assume that half the people you meet don't believe in evolution. Specifically I'd kill that.

i tell people i'm atheist if they bring it up then we might get into it a little bit but ultimately i take the position that i think the stories are fake but i don't know at the end of the day and i don't really care if they want to believe in it. it really hasn't been an issue for me so far and i live in the middle of the bible belt. i do meet people who believe what i consider to be dumb **** but it really doesn't bother me that much, i just find it a bit strange.

Just move...countries. :)