Or love for that matter? Or a product of delusional thinking?
While our uniquely massive forebrain gives us qualitatively more conscious control over our cognitive behavior than any other animal, it is nonetheless a mistake to assume that it gives us
complete control. We have instincts programmed by our DNA and passed down by mutation, natural selection and genetic bottlenecks, just like all other vertebrates. Like them we also have hormones that can trigger instinctive reactions or even directly affect our cognition; external chemicals like pheromones and drugs can do the same thing.
Love and hate are not "thinking." They are emotions. They percolate into our forebrain and manifest as thoughts, but they themselves are not thoughts.
Never hear that "it was hate at first sight'.
Love and hate are not symmetrical opposites. In fact they are not even mutually exclusive. So there's no reason to expect them to deconstruct along similar lines.
Religion is a hate mechanism.
Monotheistic religion, to be precise. Someone with more scholarly experience can correct me, but I don't see that the traditional polytheistic religions generated anywhere near as much hatred and violence as Judaism, Christianity and Islam have. Jung's model of
archetypal instincts explains that by pointing out that the polytheistic religions all had the identical set of gods.
Of course all the Abrahamists (as well as the Bahai, Zoroastrians and other monotheist minorities) believe in the same single god, but somewhere they got sidetracked into thinking that their particular way of honoring that god is the only correct way and everyone else is at least wrong and at worst in need of aggressive conversion, and that their god demands it since apparently he can't take care of it himself.
I've been reading the news for more than fifty years and I submit that monotheistic religion is the
greatest engine of hatred on this planet. Economic philosophy was in competition for that title for several decades, but we managed to get past that. Perhaps that experience will show us how to get past religion.
. . . . and also please be aware that i DO NOT believe as other believers believe . . . .
As Q pointed out, regardless of the petty details about prophets, covenants, resurrections, saints, rituals, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you hold the core belief that defines you as religious and puts you in opposition to science. You disagree with the premise that is the foundation of the scientific method and all science, and which has withstood rigorous peer review for five centuries: that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. You believe that there is an illogical, unobservable supernatural universe, inhabited by at least one creature who capriciously suspends the natural laws of the universe and perturbs its workings. This is supernaturalism, this is religion, and this is antiscientific. The other details don't matter.
. . . . so please dont stereotype me..ask me what i believe first before you go off on any god believer hating rants.
I hate monotheism but I do not hate monotheists generically. (I assume you're a monotheist since you never put "gods" in the plural.) You differ from one another as much as any people and some of you manage to transcend your moral and intellectual handicap. The Quakers, for example, have an unblemished history of being inspired by their faith to do only good--not just good as defined in their holy book, but good that qualifies as good by any sensible standard. Such as holding clandestine classes in antebellum America to teach slaves to read and write: a capital offense.
Is love/hate irrational? Probably. Most worthwhile things in life are. Indifference is rational.
It seems like every time I run into one of your posts I slap my forehead in amazement that you can call yourself a professional biologist. You seem to know nothing about the pre-Neolithic history of our species, and nothing about the differences in instinctive psychology between species of varying degrees of socialization.
Like all the other Great Apes except orangutans, like many other primate species, and like many species we have learned to work with such as dogs, horses and dolphins,
Homo sapiens is a
pack-social species. (As opposed to, for example,
solitary species like tigers and owls, or
herd-social species like cows and penguins. There are other types of social organization, especially among the invertebrates.) Pack-social animals depend on their pack-mates for survival, or at least for comfortable survival. This manifests in many behaviors such as cooperative hunting, cooperative defense, group child-care, and sharing of discoveries such as rich hunting grounds, bountiful grazing territory, or safe rest areas.
Because pack-social animals
depend on their pack-mates for safety and prosperity, they also have to
care for them. In a small pack like those of Mesolithic humans, perhaps a couple of dozen extended-family members, it would be a tragedy to lose a member.
It is, therefore
entirely rational to have feelings of affection, caring and dependence on one's pack mates. We call this
love. After the Neolithic Revolution (agriculture and permanent settlements) this was expanded and strengthened. In a Neolithic "economy" division of labor and economies of scale began to increase prosperity disproportionately to the size of the community. If the person who was the specialist in making shoes, brewing beer, hybridizing figs (the first cultivated crop), or telling stories died, it would be a greater loss than the demise of one member of a nomadic hunting and gathering tribe.
The evolution of our farming villages into cities, nations, states and transnational hegemonies continues to exacerbate this. When John Kennedy died it was a loss to the entire First World. He was loved by hundreds of millions of people who had never met him,
for entirely rational reasons.
Hatred works the same way. The slacker in the hunter-gatherer pack with the defective gene or the incompetent parenting who doesn't pull his weight during the mastodon stalk and then steals your food may be your cousin, but he is directly endangering the survival of the pack, so it is entirely
rational to hate him. (Illustrating my earlier note that love and hate are not mutually exclusive.) The tribe in the next valley whose food supply was wiped out by a flood and is now encroaching on your precious hunting and gathering range is endangering the survival of your pack (since there was no food surplus before the invention of the technology of agriculture), so it is entirely
rational to hate them.
Today there is a colossal food surplus, but it is not reaching the people in some regions, so for them it is
rational to hate the ones they have been taught to believe are responsible for their hunger. (They have been misled but that's not their fault. Americans send boatloads of food to the Third World but their despotic leaders sell it and use the money to buy champagne and weapons.)
Everywhere else people have risen above the first couple of steps on Maslow's Hierarchy, no longer worrying daily about survival and security. This makes life more complicated as they worry about others threatening the things that are important to them at this higher level, the things that in aggregate define their way of life. It is still
rational to hate people who pose those threats, although the error rate in targeting that hatred is much higher.
The neighbor who works the night shift and wants the Animal Control Department to take away your beloved dog because he barks during the daytime. The preacher who thinks your music is sinful and petitions the City Council not to allow a concert to be held. The people in another country who don't spend very much on their children's education, so they can afford to let them grow up to be factory workers, so your brother who was wasting the $100,000 education our taxes paid for by pushing a button on a machine tool is now out of work.
Or the guy who gives your girlfriend a ride home from the library in his Jaguar so now she's dating him instead of you.
This hatred is
not irrational. It is often manipulated by the powerful for political gain (including religious gain, since religion today is largely politics), so it is
wrong, but that's not the same thing as irrational.
Religion gives worth and meaning to life. Love caring charity are all irrational . . . .
Bullshit. I have just demolished that argument. Please do not EVER post it again or it will be a textbook case of trolling. This is not something that should have to be explained to any self-respecting biologist. You have a habit of coming back a few weeks later and reposting an argument that was already refuted, hoping you can indoctrinate our younger members into your monotheistic folderol before anybody notices.
I think the reason they are atheists is because they are literal thinkers; they simply cannot understand points of view which seem perfectly obvious to me. I have often noticed this in discussions, where a theist will say one thing which seems very clear and inspite of being explained over and over, the atheist simply cannot understand it. They seem to be incapable of thinking on anything other than a literal plain.
You cleverly substitute the word "literal" for "rational." Your "point of view" is supernaturalism, which stands in opposition to science since it gainsays the fundamental premise that underlies science. It is not that we can't understand your assertion, since we've been bombarded with it by the world's theistic majority throughout our lives. What we can't understand is how someone who calls herself a scientist can take fairytales seriously.
If you were simply trying to say that religion is a collection of metaphors, that would be fine. But you have never said that. You insist that there really is an illogical, unobservable supernatural universe, a belief which so far does not contradict science so long as it leaves the natural universe as a closed system. But you go on to believe that there is a creature in that supernatural universe who pops into the natural universe from time to time and mucks it up, violating the laws of nature right and left. At this point the natural universe is not a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. So your belief is antiscientific.
Once I realised this, I also realised the futility of attempting to explain anything to them. Its like showing a red rose to a colour blind person. He cannot appreciate its beauty, its all gray to him.
This bogus simile is a perfect example of your trademark disingenuity. It's absurdly easy for a color-blind person to test for the existence of colors he can't see. In a controlled experiment with any desired level of rigor, people with normal vision will distinguish red from green with 100% consistency. So will most species of birds, who are notoriously difficult to subvert. And many insects, who need color vision to find food. He can go to a university and learn about the electromagnetic spectrum, and discover that he does indeed perceive light in a manner suggesting that he has a physical abnormality. The evidence for colors is everywhere. We've even recently discovered that many animals have more color receptors than we do, and many can see into the ultraviolet. Bees and flowers evolved together, and bees can tell them apart by their ultraviolet spectrum. Many birds that we assume are not dimorphic have ultraviolet marking so they can tell a male from a female.
There is no way to test for the existence of a supernatural universe. However, observational experimentation can be used to test for the perturbations of the natural universe by the denizens of the supernatural universe, which your supernaturalist model of reality postulates. And in the half millennium since science as we know it has existed, none have been detected.
Anyone who is incapable of according even nominal respect in a discussion should not be surprised if they are treated according to the samskara they display.
The Rule of Laplace (or Sagan's Law for the TV junkies among us) advises us that when an extraordinary assertion (in this case one that contradicts the foundation of science) is not accompanied by extraordinary evidence to support it,
we are under no obligation to treat it with respect.
This is a place of science. It says so in the website's title. You have the entire rest of the world in which to spout your superstitious crap. If you try to preach it here
you will be slapped down.
Even atheists know this, they would never act the way they do anonymously on this forum, in real life. Not without consequences.
Gosh, is that because Abrahamists comprise almost two thirds of the population and
rule most of the planet??? Because if we speak candidly we will be ostracized at best and murdered at worst?
Which is why they deceive people in reality, by playing a role of being polite and respectful, which they drop once they are anonymous. Its made me wonder what the atheists around me, that I meet are really like in their hearts and minds. How much of what they show is real and not a deception.
I can't speak for all of them but I'm happy to have a frank conversation with just about anyone once I get to know them and am sure they're not going to find a way to get me fired, denied credit, or harrassed by the police.
If I met you in the carbon world I would have the same conversations with you that I have here. But I will not do that while standing in line in the company cafeteria with twenty strangers listening, of whom six or eight are statistically likely to be militant Christian fundies and one of them car-pools with my manager.
