Just to clarify, you're confusing two different things.
I agree that there are social hierarchies in the sense of the alpha male.
I disagree that it's useful to create a hierarchy by arranging all species in a rank from the lowest worms and slugs at the bottom to "higher animals" like tigers and zebra, to apes and then mankind at the pinnacle.
So do you agree that it is useful to create a social hierarchy in the sense of the "Alpha male' ?
I dont know what you mean by atheist organizations. No such thing would speak for me or all atheists.
Are you saying that these non-theists based orgs don't exist? It doesn't matter if they don't speak for you ar all atheists. Theist orgs don't speak for all theists either. So what?
The strengths of theism aren't personally important to me, so i feel i can do without them and concentrate on what is more important to me, trying to see the world as it is, without the emotional filter of religion.
So are your emotions placed to the side when you 'see the world as it is'?
For reference, the highlighted was "Toward satisfying those who want instant answers and a sense that someone is in control"
Scientists without religion often need to answer, "We don't know, but we're working on it. Might not discover it in your lifetime, though."
Theists can answer, "It's because god did it that way, and even if we don't know all the details, we can be sure it's for the best."
That's what I meant by the highlighted.
Okay. But scientists with religion may have the same outlook and same answer. It depends on the question. "If the question was "Did something intelligent create the universe?" A scientist without religion might answer "We don't know, but we're working on it. Might not discover it in your lifetime, though."
But of course, science isn't about answering that type of question. Scientists are not looking for the answer to that question.
Theists in their variety of ways, and ideas of gods say 'yes'. Atheists in their variety of ways say anything from 'we don't know' to ' what god? there is no god! Show me the evidence for this (or that) god...'
Thanks.
All good.
That's easy for us to say. Just 75 years ago in the US, huge numbers of people thought racial discrimination was good and necessary.
Yes. It is hard to gauge whether that type of thinking has gone away. The present political mood seems to show that it hasn't.
Some are resisting the call towards sapience...perhaps even large numbers are resisting.
It's easy for us to agree on which of the big things are good and evil because we come from a similar time and culture.
Sure. Different tribes have been evolving at different speeds. But is the question of good and evil really that hard to fathom? Some peoples who are regarded as primitive cultures seem more in touch with the nurturing of their environment but may still have practices which we would call evil. It's a mixed bag of good and evil.
It gets down to the individual as to how they behave and this has nothing to do with atheism or theism because within these two positions good and evil exist.
All that being as it is, those who practice good might be outnumbered by those who practice evil and the obvious disagreement between the two practices has certain areas where the lines are blurred...
Evil represents the decline of civilized societies and good represents the progress toward sapience.
There are groups throughout the social layers of human social hierarchy specific to supporting either agenda, and the higher up the hierarchy the more defined the groups would have to be (because the populations are smaller) and the lines become less blurred - the focus more intense, the information more readily available and less infected by blurred lines of confusion.
Born 200 years ago into my family, I probably would have been a Christian slave owner. Born 100 years ago into certain branches of my wife's family that didn't immigrate, I might have been a German Nazi. In both cases, I would have been just as convinced I knew good from evil as I am now.
There is a type of thinking which suggests that knowledge of good and evil is easily accessed within the conscientious individual.
Sure their may be confusion and uncertainty, but there are likely stories of individuals who chose not to be Nazis even that in doing so they suffered at the hands of the mob which did choose. Fear and misinformation tends to snare those who react to situations which require thought and the capacity to choose good over evil, and choose evil because it appeals and is an easier choice than suffering the consequences of choosing good. So this type of self convincing is a product of fear and misinformation and being convinced that evil behavior is good' doe's not in itself make good from evil.
This kind of decision making for the individual has been part of the human psyche for a long, long time. We might well know the difference between good and evil but will choose one over the other based on other things which allow for a kind of purposeful forgetfulness because of the demanding situation linked to it and/or with personal survival.
This too is not something peculiar to theists or atheists. Theists who do evil in the name of some idea of god and atheists who do evil in the name of some other idea are people doing evil because they choose to do so. Some need the backing of a god idea and others need no such additional props.
Either way, evil gets done.
Same with the process of good. So a good person who lacks belief in god(s) has no need for the god-prop and a good person who has belief in god(s) has a use for the god-prop.
So what? Good is being done.
Is the idea of god necessary though?
Why should it even concern a good person whether the idea of god is part of the process or not?
I think, like all social behavior, the underlying driver is natural selection, but unless a social system is a real failure and kills off the whole group, the specifics are more random. Radical Christians are torturing and killing one century, radical atheists another, radical Muslims the one after that. Everybody rotates around being the bad guys, and the good guys too.
Radicals = evil then?
Given this rotation process has happened and continues to happen, what is being learned therein? It reminds me of the type of belief in reincarnation where the interactions of victim and victimizes role are reversed so that every soul can get a handle on the lesson to be learned therein....so that *eventually* the lesson will be learned and everyone will get along peachy.
Remove the "afterlife' idea from the process and what is left is a section of humanity which is unable or perhaps unwilling to learn (or acknowledge the inner knowledge) of what good and evil really are.
Your argument seems to suggest that knowledge of good and evil are not an instinctual aspect of the human being.
I am not so sure that it is all about the individual brain determining how people are going to behave. But even if that is correct, then there are many (myself included) who have a brain which understands that the knowledge of good and evil is something we at least understand - instinctively and conscientiously.
Sure - there are occasions where the lines appear blurred or not enough information regarding the actions from one against another are able to provide one with a clear position of judgment (judgement is reserved) but generally the maxim 'do good to other as you want others to do good to you' is sufficient in most circumstances and in those which require choices such as joining a hate group because the hate group is the larger proportion of the population and not to do so pretty much ensures you will be counted as expendable and treated accordingly...there is something within which - no matter the circumstance or greatly reduced chances of survival, certain types of individuals choose not to support hate.
But i dont think there's an actual correct moral system, outside people. That's the province of theism.
Is this why any attempt at making one often results in failure? I would suppose then that the knowledge of good and evil is inactive in those who are evil - who support evil agenda.
They are unable to make their minds up and prefer to squabble etc...but they do not see their behavior in this regard as evil but as good.
No, it was a joke, just joking about how long they've survived.
Related question: Do you think humans have reached the pinnacle and are no longer subject to evolution?
The PoE is a process and in itself - related to the universe - is fairly much an infant. Humans are experiencing the process and are also in their infancy. Provided even a very small number of powerfully positioned individuals together reach sapience as a stage of that development, then the chances increase in relation to their staying for the long haul and in that we are speaking about an immense amount of time - so much time in fact, that it becomes a pointless exercise counting it.
Being 'subject' to the PoE will become less of a challenge and more like surfing (and not falling off the board) and there will always be 'pinnacles' - or certainly in the early stages of development of consciousness in relation to the universe.
It is totally feasible that a human being one million years from now would not be recognized as such by anyone from this day an age as even being human. Such is the nature of the PoE not just in relation to the evolution of form but of function in relation to consciousness within it and what consciousness with form can achieve.
As is evident, the human form is exceptional for creating machinery etc from the 'dust of the earth' which allows for us to be less 'subject' to the process. Nothing is written in stone that ways around the problems we are subjected to through the PoE cannot be found.
Theists typically think that atheists are negative like that, because atheists don't have a vision of God's future purpose of man. I don't get it. Shrug. Just another way to hate on atheists, I guess. They really don't like us, and seems you've bought into it.
Whatever. That is between those certain types of theists and atheists to sort out. I don't buy it myself. The impression I have is that most subsets of theism consider the universe to being just a 'holding place' for the wayward soul to either learn or not learn through personal choice, and the real universe is some other alternate reality.
Most subsets of atheism don't appear to have a care about the physical universe and the human (and planet species) in relation to purpose beyond the individuals purpose and what the individual can get out of the experience before they die and cease to ever exist again. Any collective purpose is not an issue of interest.
Thus, both types are equal in not supporting consciousness in relation to the physical universe in any far seeing far reaching capacity. Both appear to think of the universe as no place special.
Atheists can and do speculate about the wonders that humans may accomplish in the future, from reducing suffering to exploring and populating other worlds. Science, rather than religion, will do it, just as research rather than prayer has produced modern medicine or got us to the moon, and there's no need for a god to instruct us or foreordain it.
There you go putting all atheists in the same category. It may well be the case that some atheist indeed are in support of purpose and agenda related to getting and maintaining a foothold in the universe and overcoming the obstacles which the PoE places in the way.
But this is not because they are atheists. It is not the lack of belief in gods which promote or compel this motivation. Many who call themselves 'theists' also support the same agenda.
A subjective feeling that one has a purpose is more related to brain chemicals than whether one believes in god.
It is one theory. We could all just as easily say that regardless of what chemicals are producing what behavior, the idea of god or no god is not that which propels the individual to think about the future of humanity etc...and want to support such purpose. Generally the theory of chemical reaction as an answer to why people make the choices that they do is saying that we are all subject to that process and as such, cannot escape the process...unless we do so through introducing chemicals which will 'right the wrong' and get everyone on the same page.
So far a great and mighty (and possibly primarily an atheist org) - commonly known as "Big Pharma" are profiting from this theory but is it working?
Correct. Well, actually, the other way around. Being depressed can often cause a sense that life has no purpose. But being depressed isn't caused by atheism or theism, all else being equal.
Oh I see. I thought you were arguing that those who get their sense of purpose through theism were more subject to depression than those who don't. I can understand that would be more the case if the person believed that this universe was not the 'real' one and thus they pine for the one they are not in and are depressed about the one the are in...but having no purpose in this universe leading to be depressed about it seems to be about having no purpose rather than what reasons one might have for seeing no purpose.
Here's where I don't know if it's even worth looking up articles, because you may have a definitely-not-religious way of deciding what causes depression, that you think is better than the latest scientific evidence.
So I googled "cause of depression" and this was the first hit:
http://www.depressiontoolkit.org/aboutyourdiagnosis/depression.asp
That's really aimed for a popular audience, but I don't think current research papers will be substantially different. From context, I hope it was clear I wasn't talking about obvious situational things like stress and grief, like a spouse dying or losing a job, but an innate tendency toward depression lasting years, best explained by the bolded: primarily a difference in genetic characteristics and, for a brief while, to be fair, menopause.
No - my comment was that a cause which might be purposefully overlooked is how people are forced to live in inequality because of the nature of the social systems in place. Those who profit (the Alphas) from the way the social systems are currently operating would be much more apt to ignore it as a likely cause - as even a major cause of depression and their answer is to say "it is a chemical imbalance - your brain is not wanting to think in a way which ignores that likely cause and gets on with 'being normal'. Your brain is not working 'normally' you are sick and you need to use our drugs to help you regain balance and become a supporting member of the currant social systems which profit the Alpha.
Put another way. A dog kept in a cage and poked often with a sharp stick is depressed and will quickly develop brain chemicals which would have it react to its unnatural predicament aggressively . One could give the dog drugs which will allow it to understand its predicament as 'not so bad after-all' and after a while the sharp stick is not needed to test the dogs undesired reaction. There is now no reaction and that is the desired reaction. The cage remains. The dog is still depressed but does not know it is depressed because the chemicals being used makes it think it is happy.
I thought I was referring to your response to jimbob. Some animals have evolved reproduction that sacrifices the parents to increase survival of the kids. Salmon aren't necessarily part of that "some". In that case, their survival doesn't seem to matter. Their death doesn't reduce the likelihood of survival to reproduction of their offspring. Thus - it doesn't matter if they die.
