(Religion=Delusion) = Delusion

[Simon Anders]

Myles, you are some sort of scientists I believe. This below is just crap. He is confusing the priviledge of not having to get one's hands dirty with not being violent or approving violence. Toss in a couple of scientific terms and you get 'speculations' that are of as much scientific merit as racism science.

I'll speculate that organic athests growing up in the ebove type of environment have had a wide variety of of their epigenetic markers triggered that make them less prone (but no immune) to expressions of violence.

 

[Myles]

Myles, you are some sort of scientists I believe. This below is just crap. He is confusing the priviledge of not having to get one's hands dirty with not being violent or approving violence. Toss in a couple of scientific terms and you get 'speculations' that are of as much scientific merit as racism science.

I cannot offer an informed opinion on this. I would confine myself to saying that it is part of human nature to be violent in some circumstances.

Hitler kissed babies; millions went to their deaths. The Pope kisses babies; millions die in Africa because of his ruling on birth control.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat seemed to think his class of people out there in the suburbs are somehow immune from being causal in violence. The fact is they don't have to get their hands dirty.

Your understanding of the words I posted then is very incorrect.

But I do see nothing, nothing at all that indicates that becoming an athiest somehow reduces one's chances of contributing to violence.

My assertion is that adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity results in human behavior that is more rational and less prone to violence. That pool of behavior is where organic atheism tends to arise from and thrive.

And people who walk around calling themselves atheists seem just as likely to vote for war and deny the actions of their intelligence services and their nation's corporations and how these affect the citizens of other countries.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

I think CC's post is smug and self-servingly naive.

I think it's your interpretation of my post that's the issue.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Myles, you are some sort of scientists I believe. This below is just crap. He is confusing the priviledge of not having to get one's hands dirty with not being violent or approving violence. Toss in a couple of scientific terms and you get 'speculations' that are of as much scientific merit as racism science.

The only confusion is your interpretation. Part of it might be a knowledge gap so I dug up an article describing general primate behavior in a similar resource situation:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now/?searchterm=bonobos

 

[Simon Anders]

I cannot offer an informed opinion on this. I would confine myself to saying that it is part of human nature to be violent in some circumstances.

Hitler kissed babies; millions went to their deaths. The Pope kisses babies; millions die in Africa because of his ruling on birth control.

yes, the excuses and justifications vary.
And notice that the Pope will never be found in a photo hitting a baby. Nor have the neo-cons taken out their personal bats in, say, the Latin America. Oh, perhaps a few intel ghosts did some wet work.

 

[Simon Anders]

My assertion is that adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity results in human behavior that is more rational and less prone to violence. That pool of behavior is where organic atheism tends to arise from and thrive.

And my point was this was facile as those areas tend to support the things you listed with violence.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

Let's take all the neo-cons who are pulling Bush's strings and are happy to align with the Religious Right and use them for their purposes. I do think if you have basic resources you are probably less likely to break your knuckles on other people's faces, but this should not be confused with the violence one tacitly or openly approves of.

I think it's your interpretation of my post that's the issue.

That would be nice.

 

[Simon Anders]

The only confusion is your interpretation. Part of it might be a knowledge gap so I dug up an article describing general primate behavior in a similar resource situation:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now/?searchterm=bonobos

Let's look at this from a South American perspective. How many times have US forces gone into Latin American countries? How many times did US intel staff train torturers or aid fascist governments perpetrate crimes against peasants students and union organizers? How many times have US corporations influenced or coerced governments there to enact policies that directly damaged the lives of peasants - a group according to your theory more likely to be violent than the people who made these policies that fucked up their lives?

Did the USA do this because it lacked basic resources such as food and fuel? Did money and luxuries for some play an enormous role in all this?

It's funny. For a long time scientists called any projection of human emotions, intention and cognitive processes onto animals, well, projection or anthropomorphism. But now some scientists assume that we will act like, what was it bonoboes, despite the rather obvious fact that we do not? One of the things that makes us unique is our ability to make excuses for killing and damaging the other.

And it is very clear we do not need to believe in God to do this, nor do we forswear violence when basic needs are met.

There does seem to be a knowledge gap present, I'll grant you that.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

And my point was this was facile as those areas tend to support the things you listed with violence.

In the name of atheism?

Let's take all the neo-cons who are pulling Bush's strings and are happy to align with the Religious Right and use them for their purposes. I do think if you have basic resources you are probably less likely to break your knuckles on other people's faces, but this should not be confused with the violence one tacitly or openly approves of.

Are you saying that atheists control bush?

That would be nice.

More importantly, it would be true.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think Atheism has an ideology. It's just the non-acceptance of one particular assertion.

so an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

I have observed that organic atheism tends to arise when there is adequate fuel, resources, protection, and opportunity.

and where the hell is that on this planet?

Atheists resulting from that type of environment tend to require little or no idology and have their own ways of meeting their psychological needs.

its hard to imagine how you could bypass the conflict in your personal life that arises from resource management .. what to speak of the world at large

I'll speculate that organic athests growing up in the ebove type of environment have had a wide variety of of their epigenetic markers triggered that make them less prone (but no immune) to expressions of violence.

for someone who thinks theists are deluded with the fairies it seems like you really dig into the pixie dust ... for Christs sake man pick up a newspaper!
/slaps crunchy cat several times across the face

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Let's look at this from a South American perspective. How many times have US forces gone into Latin American countries? How many times did US intel staff train torturers or aid fascist governments perpetrate crimes against peasants students and union organizers? How many times have US corporations influenced or coerced governments there to enact policies that directly damaged the lives of peasants - a group according to your theory more likely to be violent than the people who made these policies that fucked up their lives?

Do you understand why the US does these things?

Did the USA do this because it lacked basic resources such as food and fuel? Did money and luxuries for some play an enormous role in all this?

The US doesn't know how to manage the resources it does have and has a requirement for 10x - 50x the resources that the entire planet can supply. A bigger issue is that the US and any other international entity aren't privy to equal resources.

It's funny. For a long time scientists called any projection of human emotions, intention and cognitive processes onto animals, well, projection or anthropomorphism. But now some scientists assume that we will act like, what was it bonoboes, despite the rather obvious fact that we do not? One of the things that makes us unique is our ability to make excuses for killing and damaging the other.

The article is one of many examples that deal with primate behavior and adequate resources. There are existing patches of micro human society that exhibit similar behavior.

Like most life forms on earth, humans are difference detection machines that collect energy to persist. Violence is an inescapable part of the process; however, the right environment can strongly influence an individuals propensity towards violence.

And it is very clear we do not need to believe in God to do this, nor do we forswear violence when basic needs are met.

I don't think anybody said we did.

There does seem to be a knowledge gap present, I'll grant you that.

:runaway:

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“Truth is revealed by investigation.
(so like if say 95% of people from 95% of history say something is true, and practically anything culturally valuable is due to the influence of it, you might feel inspired investigate it)

This thread is examining the delusional basis for atheists not bothering to investigate
(kind of like going with 5% of 5% as a basis for not even trying to investigate)
”
Then you will likely not get anywhere, as your understanding / use of atheism is flawed.

Atheism is merely a non-belief in God - which people have told you again, and again, and again.

There is no "delusional basis" for atheists not bothering.

on what basis do you say there is no proof for god then?

The atheists that are not bothered see no beneficial purpose in investigating, and see the trade off between investigation and reward as insufficient. This is not a delusional basis.

whats the reward of not investigating?
and how does that compare to the reward of investigating?
... I mean we are talking about investigating the cause of something that has catalyzed practically anything we hold as culturally valuable in life

Your criticism is with those few strong atheists who argue that God does NOT exist, and that anyone who thinks that God does is delusional (they are a few and far between breed). And your argument, that your roll out again and again, is one of them not following the right path to investigate.

and your argument is one of repeatedly rolling out bold claims of theists being delusional and then retreating behind agnosticism when the artillery comes out

They are not delusional either - as to be delusional there must be rational and overwhelming contradictory evidence to what they are saying.

"Quick men! Back to the trenches!"

Yet you are unable to point it out to them - but instead spout the "you need to know how to look" routine.

well isn't that what the first part of education is all about?

Their argument that God exists = delusion is based on what they see as a total lack of evidence to support the fact that God does exist.

given the methodologies they apply, one would hardly expect a different result

In order to counter this, you must surely provide them with evidence, no?

or alternatively, the right methodology
its kind of like a person claiming that a thermometer is faulty because it doesn't tell the time accurately

Your current argument requires what you consider a blind man to start seeing: no matter what texts you put in front of him, he won't read them.

its more like a man who refuses to open his eyes

i

 

[Crunchy Cat]

so an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

You don't believe that jellybeans rule the zaboombafoo dimension do you? I am sure your unbelief in that is not an ideology.

and where the hell is that on this planet?

A bulk of areas in Western nations. Take silicon valley for example.

its hard to imagine how you could bypass the conflict in your personal life that arises from resource management .. what to speak of the world at large

I've haven't had many resource issues in my lifetime so I am not sure what kind of conflict you are referring to.

for someone who thinks theists are deluded with the fairies it seems like you really dig into the pixie dust ... for Christs sake man pick up a newspaper!
/slaps crunchy cat several times across the face

It's a speculation light... that is not the same as a claim.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

”
You don't believe that jellybeans rule the zaboombafoo dimension do you? I am sure your unbelief in that is not an ideology.

it is when I declare a non-interest due to lack of cultural credibility

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and where the hell is that on this planet?
”
A bulk of areas in Western nations. Take silicon valley for example.

hardly what you would call a holistic environment

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its hard to imagine how you could bypass the conflict in your personal life that arises from resource management .. what to speak of the world at large
”
I've haven't had many resource issues in my lifetime so I am not sure what kind of conflict you are referring to.

the fact that you probably have to work some job doing strange things for postponed rewards amongst people who may not be your cup of tea ... and thats putting it nicely

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for someone who thinks theists are deluded with the fairies it seems like you really dig into the pixie dust ... for Christs sake man pick up a newspaper!
/slaps crunchy cat several times across the face
”
It's a speculation light... that is not the same as a claim.

its a speco all right!!

 

[Simon Anders]

Do you understand why the US does these things?

I believe I understand both the rationalizations and the real reasons, yes.

The US doesn't know how to manage the resources it does have and has a requirement for 10x - 50x the resources that the entire planet can supply.

I think this is a strange suggestion, but it really does not counter my point. The people who decided the US needed to intervene in SA or the corporate heads who decided they needed to do the things they did there had adequate food and other resources AND did not act out of concern for USAs poor.

A bigger issue is that the US and any other international entity aren't privy to equal resources.

I did not get this. I can't quite see how privy is the right verb, but perhaps it can somehow fit. Generally we are privy to information.

The article is one of many examples that deal with primate behavior and adequate resources. There are existing patches of micro human society that exhibit similar behavior.

Well, those certainly provide a stronger case than what other species do in time of surplus or adequacy. I see many micro and macro human societies where the violence continues, but, as I said earlier it tends to be outsourced, something animals have a hard time doing.

however, the right environment can strongly influence an individuals propensity towards violence.

Sure. An individual's. I just don't see any reason to make broad generalizations.

I don't think anybody said we did.

Well, it sure seems like you are saying that violence will go down when people have their basic material needs met. Perhaps I have misunderstood that. The article you chose to fill in my knowledge gap seemed to fit with my interpretation. I do not see this is the case. I do see a shift away from direct participation in violence to the getting of others to do it and then psychological mechanisms to deny or distance or justify this violence.

Fist, club, gun, somebody else.

I am sure the nobles in medieval Europe considered themselves beyond the base violence of the lower classes, but the worst of it was in their names and for their goals.

But it seems you keep saying I misunderstand your point. I think I have made mine, in any case. My apolagies if it did not apply. I am done with this thread for a while at least.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat

it is when I declare a non-interest due to lack of cultural credibility

You mean that non-interest would be the guiding principal of your life?

hardly what you would call a holistic environment

Debatable, but it does fulfill the criteria.

the fact that you probably have to work some job doing strange things for postponed rewards amongst people who may not be your cup of tea ... and thats putting it nicely

I do what I enjoy for my work life and the people tend to be close-knit. Not much of a conflict there.

its a speco all right!!

I mean this in the nicest possible way:

:fart:

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I believe I understand both the rationalizations and the real reasons, yes.

Good. Then you will note that real or perceived, there are not adequate resource for every party involved (end to end).

I think this is a strange suggestion, but it really does not counter my point. The people who decided the US needed to intervene in SA or the corporate heads who decided they needed to do the things they did there had adequate food and other resources AND did not act out of concern for USAs poor.

Adequate resources have to exist across all parties involved and if that were the case, we wouldn't have the poor.

I did not get this. I can't quite see how privy is the right verb, but perhaps it can somehow fit. Generally we are privy to information.

Many words in the english language have multiple definitions. The definition of privy that I am using is "belonging or pertaining to some particular entity".

Well, those certainly provide a stronger case than what other species do in time of surplus or adequacy. I see many micro and macro human societies where the violence continues, but, as I said earlier it tends to be outsourced, something animals have a hard time doing.

Do you think if all soceities had adequate resources that we would be outsourcing violence?

Sure. An individual's. I just don't see any reason to make broad generalizations.

Individuals do tend to make up the whole.

Well, it sure seems like you are saying that violence will go down when people have their basic material needs met. Perhaps I have misunderstood that. The article you chose to fill in my knowledge gap seemed to fit with my interpretation. I do not see this is the case. I do see a shift away from direct participation in violence to the getting of others to do it and then psychological mechanisms to deny or distance or justify this violence.

Fist, club, gun, somebody else.

I am sure the nobles in medieval Europe considered themselves beyond the base violence of the lower classes, but the worst of it was in their names and for their goals.

But it seems you keep saying I misunderstand your point. I think I have made mine, in any case. My apolagies if it did not apply. I am done with this thread for a while at least.

I'll paraphrase. I am saying that a generation whom was raised in the presence of adequate resources would think more rationally and be less prone towards violent expression. I am also saying that such an environment is quite conducive to organic atheism.

 

[lightgigantic]

Crunchy cat

it is when I declare a non-interest due to lack of cultural credibility ”

You mean that non-interest would be the guiding principal of your life?

what I hold as culturally credible would be

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hardly what you would call a holistic environment ”

Debatable, but it does fulfill the criteria.

well where does the silicon valley get it "adequate" fuel supply from?
and where the hell would it be without its cheap immigrant workers?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the fact that you probably have to work some job doing strange things for postponed rewards amongst people who may not be your cup of tea ... and thats putting it nicely ”

I do what I enjoy for my work life and the people tend to be close-knit. Not much of a conflict there.

so would you go to work if they stoppe dpaying you?
Would you complain if you weren't able to go on vacation

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its a speco all right!! ”

I mean this in the nicest possible way:

kind of wondered where all that hot air was coming from ....

 

[Simon Anders]

Good. Then you will note that real or perceived, there are not adequate resource for every party involved (end to end).

Oh, gosh. I couldn't resist. I have to say it keeps seeming like I understand your position. OK. The people in the US who perpetrated the violence in Latin America did not lack for resources. They were violent.....anyway.

Adequate resources have to exist across all parties involved and if that were the case, we wouldn't have the poor.

I think pointing out that very wealthy people often make war on the poor counters your argument. They have resources, they make war anyway. If you mean that the rich who often do this are not above some very high luxurious level of resources, ok, fine. But then my class based arguments apply.

Do you think if all soceities had adequate resources that we would be outsourcing violence?

Absolutely. If the well off members of well off societies do this now and have done this in the past I see no reason why it would not continue. You could try to make the case that the well off have REALLY been doing, for example, what they have been doing in Latin America for the poor of their own country. But in that case I need to warn that I will also not buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you.

Individuals do tend to make up the whole.

This was a poor argument. You said it 'can' have an effect on the propensity of an individual. That is hard to disagree with. I see that this does happen with some people. That violence will dissipate in general seems unlikely because I can see that some people continue to be violent or become violent when that have the basic resources. And these people tend to rise to the top of the power structure.

I'll paraphrase. I am saying that a generation whom was raised in the presence of adequate resources would think more rationally and be less prone towards violent expression. I am also saying that such an environment is quite conducive to organic atheism.

And I don't see this happening. Again I see these kinds of people only too happy to outsource violence. It is also the environment the whole New Age movement sprung up in, the neo-pagan revivals, the resurgance of potentially atheist Buddhism but also Hinduism in the West. But I am less concerned about this latter theory of yours which you can back up with some figures or not.

I still see those with all their basic needs being met approving directly and indirectly violence in their name or what is supposed to be their interests (as if, for example, American corporations interests are American citizens' interest, somehow, miraculously by definition)

If, for example, a large % of the middle and upper classes in the US were able to somehow face what happened just in Latin America due to interventions of various kinds by their gov and companies, then I might see a new trend. I do not see this. You'd be likely to be spat on by Dems and Repubs. alike for bringing it up. It is taboo.

I've also traveled widely in Latin America and I found the poor, often on the border or below the border of having enough resources not only less violent than say the average Ivy League College student, but also more willing to share.

 

[NDS]

LG, do you as a Hindu believe in the possibility of multiple universes?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy cat
what I hold as culturally credible would be

Obviously, but what about the non-credible?

well where does the silicon valley get it "adequate" fuel supply from?

It's not necessarily relevant. What matters is that adequate resources are available.

and where the hell would it be without its cheap immigrant workers?

Don't know. I would speculate a reduced pace and higher quality.

so would you go to work if they stoppe dpaying you?

You bet, I would use their resources to work for myself.

Would you complain if you weren't able to go on vacation

How could my vacation be stopped?

kind of wondered where all that hot air was coming from ....

Asked the volcano?