Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Pebble, I think either view is fine. I have no desire to insist others must believe as I do. The point I believe that was being made is that all human societies develop some belief in gods or higher powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 9 minutes ago, Pebbles said: Please don't make your viewpoint the only one thats correct. There are many people out there including me who are very comfortable that death = we cease to exsist. Many of us find it a great comfort. to suggest that we are somehow lacking in our comprehension capabilities is rather insulting. I don't fear being dead, I do fear dying - that may hurt and I have a lot of reasons to live. I'm an atheist. I was speaking in the terms of humans in general. It's no coincidence that people started burying their dead around the same time that they were able to comprehend death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, briantw said: I'm an atheist. I was speaking in the terms of people in general. It's no coincidence that people started burying their dead around the same time that they were able to comprehend death. I'm not sure of this, but I think burying the dead may have happened more as a response to being setteled in one place, instead of being completely nomadic. I'm not saying settled as always in the same location but in one location long enough in one spot that they won't be able to avoid the spot they dump uncle Ugg. Even without an afterlife I'm sure they wouldn't want to watch the body of a loved one rotting or being devoured by scavangers. What to do with the dead becomes an issue to be solved. this may itself have helped the need for an afterlife to be real. But I don't think its a diect response to understanding death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Pebble, Aren't there indications Neandertal buried their dead? But, in fairness we are presuming burial means religious. That is also a huge assumption. Empathy and sadness at the loss of a loved one are not uniquely religious emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Karaddin, Is it your contention that the deaths at the hands of the Soviets because people professed religious faith is pedantry? That's what this thread was about initially. So, I certainly hope not. The inability to properly measure the number of people in past societies who were athiest is also not pedantry. It is a serious impediment to proper analysis of such a question. That it happened is beyond question the degree and frequency with which such oppression occured is definately a question. You're a smart man with a solid grasp of the English language Scot, I'm sure you know better than this that I'm not dismissing people killed as pedantry, if the thread had simply been remembering that I wouldn't have even posted. But it wasn't, you started on about the likelihood of atheists turning to this elsewhere, and seem to view the negative impact of religion vs atheism through a very skewed lens. You also seem more concerned about hypothetical future atheist persecution of theists than the impact that Trenton is having right now on a variety of different groups. But by all means go back to the martyr act, I'm sorry for interrupting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Karaddin, Quote You also seem more concerned about hypothetical future atheist persecution of theists than the impact that Trenton is having right now on a variety of different groups. No, not really. I don't want anyone to be oppressed for their beliefs or lack of beliefs. What or who is "Trenton"? Do you mean the incredibly tone deaf argument offered by the Diocese of Trenton to liablity for the sexual abuse their priests committed? If so, could you please explain what you mean. Beyond googling and finding that the Diocese of Trenton argues it is not liable for actions outside the scope of their priest's employment how is this "having an impact on a variety of different groups"? This is not an unusual argument to be offered by employers seeking to avoid liablity under respondeat superior legal theories. I strongly suspect the argument will fail. Churches that have care and control of children do, in my opinion, have an affirmative duty to protect those children under their care. That is why most churches now have specific child protection policies in place or require parents to be present with children at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 How would you feel about the statement "heterosexuality is more natural than homosexuality"? Because there are more straight people than gay people, but gay people are just as natural as straight people are. My atheism is just as an intrinsic part of me as the desire to see some meaning apparently is to some others. It's a fair but flawed comparison, I'd say. Especially given that we have countless examples of homosexual behavior in animals and in humans, whereas we have zero examples of any human cultures practicing atheism as their primary ethos. It isn't about there being more or not. This isn't an argument by statistics. Surely throughout all history and cultural anthropology we would have one example of a society that believed entirely in natural reasons and not supernatural ones? But we don't. It's certainly possible that that is just a crazy coincidence. Or religion is a very virulent meme - though that makes you wonder why religion is so virulent and so able to take hold with people then. Or you might wonder why epileptics often are absolutely convinced that they experienced God when having seizures. Or why hallucinations in humans produce visions of gods. It is possible that it is pseudoscience too. But given that the anthropological, historical, psychological and now neuroscience results we have back up the notion that humans essentially are programmed to believe in something, it's unlikely. And why does it matter to you? Why is naturalism a bad thing? That doesn't mean that you should do it, and plenty of things that are natural are abhorrent to us now. As an atheist it seems like this should be a value neutral proposition to you. It certainly is to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Saying a story everyone falls for is good is like saying a virus everyone gets infected with is good. Who said anything about it being good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: If there are articles out there like your describing, count me as skeptical that they will stand up to peer review because my pseudoscience meter is blinking at those claims. Links to reports of peer reviewed articles on the biological naturalness of supernatural explanations: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140117153635.htm http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007180 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx As with all science, there may be possible alternative explanations for the data. But the idea that there are normal biological and cognitive processes that make belief in the supernatural more likely than not for most humans is certainly not "pseudoscience." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Pebble, Aren't there indications Neandertal buried their dead? But, in fairness we are presuming burial means religious. That is also a huge assumption. Empathy and sadness at the loss of a loved one are not uniquely religious emotions. I don't know enough about this time period to discuss it with any more than I think / guess. But I doubt all Neanderthal's where what I'd call 100% nomadic. I believe (again I don't really know) that they had some caves or shelters that they would regularly use particularly over winter when they would rely on stored food. thus they would spend a long period of time in one place. but this is really derailing your thread, particularly when you've agreed that burring the dead does not have to indicate religious belief. As to how much Atheism in the past was suppressed. You won't ever get exact numbers or even rough numbers. there was a lot of pressure to be a christian (and to be the right kind of christian depending on the time) Not being of the right faith left you more open to prosecution and charges of witchcraft / heresy. I would guess you were also more likely to get on with day to day life in the community if it wasn't openly known you didn't go to church. I think it possible you could have been shunned. Is the reason there was so few open atheists because they where all afraid of coming out? or where there in fact so few - possibly because those that did faced such prejudice that they where unable to spread their idea's and contaminate the god fearing local community. After all the church was power, one person not believing is not really a problem, but a few people can easily turn into many and that threatens the churches power. You will never get an answer to how many atheists there where, but I doubt you can deny that there wasn't an agenda against them. the fact you can't put a value on the number to me suggests that the anti-atheist regime was rather successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Pebble, You and Karaddin may be right there may have been many atheists in the past who were silent out of fear. That said you can just as easily be wrong. People may have believed because everyone around them did and the idea of atheism may simply not have occured to them. Our current age always colors our view of the past. My point is not that you are wrong, but that it is nearly impossible to know if you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Your right, we can't know how many there where a few, a lot or hardly any. We do know there where some because of court records Karaddin linked a few up thread. If I was to guess I'd say Atheists where a tiny minority. But was the numbers so low because they couldn't freely talk about their beliefs so others never considered Atheism because they did not encounter it. If this is so then there was an effective Atheist agenda that if nothing else suppressed the idea of Atheism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Pebble, You and Karaddin may be right there may have been many atheists in the past who were silent out of fear. That said you can just as easily be wrong. People may have believed because everyone around them did and the idea of atheism may simply not have occured to them. Our current age always colors our view of the past. My point is not that you are wrong, but that it is nearly impossible to know if you are right. Scot, there is no "maybe" about this. It has always happened and still does to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Tywin, I agree, there were some atheists in the past who stayed hidden out of fear. How do you propose to quantify that number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Tywin, I agree, there were some atheists in the past who stayed hidden out of fear. How do you propose to quantify that number? Why bother? What does it matter? This isn't some football game where the ethics that kills the least amount of people (but still kills a bunch) wins. It all sucks, because people often suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Kalbear, No argument. Oppression is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, I agree, there were some atheists in the past who stayed hidden out of fear. How do you propose to quantify that number? My guess is there isn't a good way to quantify it, especially if you're trying to analyze every society and culture at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Kalbear, No argument. Oppression is wrong. So why ask the question? It's immaterial and just deflects from the conversation. If we all agree that what few atheists there were were likely to be executed for heresy back in the day, there's nothing to argue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 21 minutes ago, Kalbear said: So why ask the question? It's immaterial and just deflects from the conversation. If we all agree that what few atheists there were were likely to be executed for heresy back in the day, there's nothing to argue about. My point initially was that there was no organized opression of atheism because atheism was such a small minotity. But, in fairness, had it been a sizable movement I'd be shocked if there wouldn't have been an organized push against it. Again, I don't want to see anyone oppressed, regardless of what they profess to believe or not believe. This thread came about because I see people calling religious belief madness and child abuse. That combined with the annual "Sunday of the New Martyrs" made me wonder how far people would be willing to go to combat what they see as madness and child abuse. I'm not saying it is likely to happen again but being a believer. Being a member of a faith that did go though that type of oppression it made me wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: (1.)My point initially was that there we no organized opression of atheism because atheism was such a small minotity. But, in fairness, had it been a sizable movement I'd be shocked if there wouldn't have been an organized push against it. (2.)Again, I don't want to see anyone oppressed, regardless of what they profess to believe or not believe. This thread came about because I see people calling religious belief madness and child abuse. That combined with the annual "Sunday of the New Martyr's" made me wonder how far people would be willing to go to combat what they see as madness and child abuse. (3.)I'm not saying it is likely to happen again but being a believer. Being a member of a faith that did go though that type of oppression it mads me wonder. 1. You're wrong to dismiss the idea that there was organized opression of atheists just because there wasn't a lot of atheists in general. 2. There is legitimacy in calling SOME people's religious beliefs madness and/or child abuse. But to make a blanket statement about it would be wrong. 3. Grammatical errors aside , I think you're wrong to fear that happening here in America. You've cited a few examples of "atheists" oppressing religious groups in the past, but they were from vastly different cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.