Atheism is not as rare or as rational as you think

[Aupmanyav]

.. an otherwise religious species. If belief in god(s) is truly an evolved human universal, ..
“By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.” .. assuming that atheism leaves an indelible stamp of immorality even on people’s faces ..
I have now accepted that the experiments in our initial Science paper were fatally flawed, the results no more than false positives.
Religion is no less an evolutionary product than is a raptor or a ribosome, .. The seemingly bizarre religious rituals that many deride as irrational may in fact be cultural evolutionary tricks that help create cooperative societies.
.. religions may have survived and thrived in part because they served an evolutionary purpose. .. atheist can have a more mature, scientifically literate, and fulfilling relationship with religion if we are open to the possibility that it doesn’t poison everything.

We are Homo sapien sapiens. Sapient - having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment. You seem to feel that 'Sapient' means a fool.
Which fool says that? 'Religious species', then we should have been named Homo religiosa.
Do you think believing without evidence is a better option. You forget that I loaned you USD 1000. When are you going to repay me?
It is the religious who think that by worshiping this God or that, they will get immortal life in heaven.
Ara Norenzayan is a psychologist. Why the article writer had to mention this if the results were fatally flawed and no more than false positives?
You did not tell us about the qualifications of the article writer?
I agree to that. Ideas about religion, tribe are unifying. See for example, the Al-Qaeda or Islamic State. Conflict between Sunnies and Houthis in Yamen. Or Iran or Iraq. Or the Shia Hazaras of Afghanistan and Gilgit and their Sunni neighbors. Or the Christian Kukis and the Hindu Meteis of India. Or the Sunnis and Yezdis of Iraq. How many should I mentrion. Don't forget Africa.
Religions do not serve any evolutionary purpose. Even without religion, we will mate and produce offsprings.
Religion is a poison in many cases if not all. Atheist do not need any relationship with religion.

@sun rise , I am disappointed by your selection of such a worthless article to post in this forum.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the quote from Pascal Boyer is appropriate:

“Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.”

But added to this must be the facts of religious teaching of children so as to reinforce such beliefs when they are at their most vulnerable, rather than when they are mature enough to decide for themselves, so religions have an advantage straight away. When we have a level playing field as to fair education then things might be different.

And even if we have tendencies to go for the easier explanations, we know that so often such are not the correct ones.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How do you suggest we test for and verify this claim?

You don't have to.

The reality of the matter speaks for itself.

 

[Audie]

Imagine if people argued we shouldn't have any politics because Hitler existed.

Ha. You said the H word. You're out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You don't have to.

The reality of the matter speaks for itself.

Actually you do, as a claim without evidence is just blowing crap out your mouth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually you do, as a claim without evidence is just blowing crap out your mouth.

The evidence is clear. There are no theist babies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually you do, as a claim without evidence is just blowing crap out your mouth.

The evidence is clear. There are no theist babies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The evidence is clear. There are no theist babies.

That's not any evidence towards your claim. Saying the evidence is clear doesn't make it so, especially when you provide no evidence to support your claim.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not any evidence towards your claim. Saying the evidence is clear doesn't make it so, especially when you provide no evidence to support your claim.

I just did support the claim. There is no such thing as theist babies.

Tell me it's otherwise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just did support the claim. There is no such thing as theist babies.

Tell me it's otherwise.

That's another claim entirely. You said people are better off without religion. That's your first claim and you've provided no evidence in regards to how atheists are better off than theists.
Science has shown we seem to have an inclination towards holding religious beliefs so your second claim that there are no theist babies seems doubtful, especially as babies aren't born knowing things or having opinions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's another claim entirely. You said people are better off without religion. That's your first claim and you've provided no evidence in regards to how atheists are better off than theists.
Science has shown we seem to have an inclination towards holding religious beliefs so your second claim that there are no theist babies seems doubtful, especially as babies aren't born knowing things or having opinions.

I still stand by that as well.

People are better off without religions because religions oftentimes comes with expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

It's better just to go with reality as it presents itself without a need for fabrication and embellishments that only further distorts the truth of the matter.

Religion is a crutch and that assessment applies to myself as well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People are better off without religions because religions oftentimes comes with expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

That's many things in life. Shoukd we also get rid of the Constitution, democracy and capitalism?

Religion is a crutch and that assessment applies to myself as well.

You are confident of this statement but can't actually support it.

 

[Left Coast]

Ha. You said the H word. You're out.

Reductio ad absurdum is lost on some people, I guess.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's many things in life. Shoukd we also get rid of the Constitution, democracy and capitalism?


You are confident of this statement but can't actually support it.

I can support everything because it's reality which supports itself.

So I can because the reality is there unless one wants to deny what's in front of them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can support everything because it's reality which supports itself.

So I can because the reality is there unless one wants to deny what's in front of them.

That's not how claims and evidence works. Do you think we'd have any progess at all in quantum mechanics if we assuned reality supports itself?

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not how claims and evidence works. Do you think we'd have any progess at all in quantum mechanics if we assuned reality supports itself?

I really don't care. Reality trumps any cockamee excuse people use to deny what's actually in front of them.

Unless of course, something else factual comes around, and I'd be happy to alter my tune to accommodate any new established information.

Science theory itself is based on established foundational facts, but things like quantum and string theory are still theory at the end of the day. Same as gravity is.

Religion however has no such scientific foundation as the aforementioned does, so I would suggest either find one or it just gets put down.

 

[Heyo]

Reductio ad absurdum is lost on some people, I guess.

Godwin's Law should be known to everyone who isn't on the net since last Tuesday - and heeded.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reality trumps any cockamee excuse people use to deny what's actually in front of them.

Reality often isn't what we think is right in front of us. This is why science mandates peer review and replication, not only because our brains have a biased and flawed intake of reality but also because what's in front 9f you may not be what's in front of me.
Amd "still a theory at the emd of the day"? Et tu? When did you get to a YEC level of scientific illiteracy to be able to manage to get that frim your finger tips?
Now, again, how do you propose we test your claim? It's not hard. In less than a minute I even came up with an adequate research plan. What's yours?
"It's in front of you" is the antithesis of scientific explanation.

 

[Left Coast]

Godwin's Law should be known to everyone who isn't on the net since last Tuesday - and heeded.

Indeed! Thankfully I was pointing out how absurd such an invocation would be when discussing all politics, much like using the worst religious examples to make generalizations about all religion.