Is Richard Dawkins bashing religion basically talking over his own head? I've read theologians who've launched such arguments against their religions that make his best arguments sound like dimwitted brainfarts. It makes me think he deliberately cashes on pseudo-intellectual fedoratheists.
His goal was to reach the masses. He is very smart, and he succeeded in his goal.
The secular victory over theology already happened. Philosophy is almost entirly secular now and draws it's influence more from Nietzsche than theology. Intellectualism never involves religion except when it is seen as a utility, rather than a source of truth itself.
Where religion is alive is in the masses, which is what Dawkins and co are targeting.
>The secular victory over theology already happened.
In that case he should stick with his dumbed down arguments for the stupid masses instead of debating someone who at least knows two shits abouts theology, to avoid embarrassment.
Except William Lame Craig never argues for theism, he always argues for deism, and always fails to show adequately how it is possible to go from all the logical arguments he uses to a belief in a monotheistic religion, and the following of moral codes from a book.
m8, every time a discussion get's a tad philosophical Dawkins neurons imploted. How many times does his shallow intellect need to be exposed?
none of the new Atheists have any unique arguments. Its all stuff you can read online for free, and its mostly just butthurt rhetoric and red herrings at that. They're philosophical, theological and in some cases, historical laymen.
>he always argues for deism
No, he argues for the existence of a creator. Not a particular Deist or Theist god, only for a god in particular. I don't see what aspect of his arguments implies that they can only be applied to a deist god.
>There has never been even the tiniest sliver of evidence that god exists
That's not the point, fedoralord.
>religion has zero depth
Jesus what the fuck are you on about. It's not like there haven't been hundreds if not thousands of books written about theology on Christianity, let alone Islam and Hinduism.
>There has never been even the tiniest sliver of evidence that god exists.
>The Leibnizian Cosmological argument
>The Digital Physics argument
>The Introspective argument
>The Cosmic Conscious argument
>The Teleological argument
>The Ontological argument
Now list the arguments in favor for Atheism
What about Eucharistic miracles? They still happen even today. Pope Francis was actually witness to one as Archbishop of Buenos Aires.
The trouble with the New Atheists, and Dawkins in particular, is that they treat religion as a scientific hypothesis that you can disprove in a lab. It isn'. Religious ideas are generally incoherent and plastic enough that they don't rise to the level of rigour of a testable scientific hypothesis. Take the Omphalos theory that God created the world recently, but with the appearance of age - you can't disprove that with science, because every scientific proof of the age of the earth can be waved away as a symptom of God's deception.
You can, however, disprove it with philosophy; Ockham's razor, the argument that its obviously shoddy reasoning, the point that this makes God incompatible with benevolence, etc etc.
Trouble is, most New Atheists, Dennett aside, have an absolutely dismal grasp of philosophy, despite the fact that most of atheism's strongest arguments come from it.
Link related, its a critique of Atheism's scientistic turn: http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGNAA.pdf
>Dawkins probably hasn't read The Origin of Species
He teaches life sciences at Oxford, I'm pretty sure he's read Darwin, unless they refuse to read him because Darwin was a Cambridge swine
> It makes me think he deliberately cashes on pseudo-intellectual fedoratheists.
I'm an atheist, and I think Dawkins writes good books, but this certainly is true. He basicly started a money-draining cult for super fedoras.
> Leibnizian Cosmological argument
This argument is circular, there is no included observable falsifiability and hence it fails to distinguish between an existing universe that does not have a creator and one that does.
>The Digital Physics argument
Starts off in information theory, no component of the physics includes any sort of creator being. Someone just used the word physics to try and make their argument for deism sound better than it was, which is actually quite pathetic.
Asserts that mental processes are somehow not physical. While I dont feel that the argument as to whether mental processes are purely physical or not is relevant here, requiring the assertion one way or another is a baseless assumption.
>Cosmic Conscious argument
Another attempt to dress physics in order to make it appear as though it supports a deistic interpretation of the universe. Alternatively if you referred to the argument from consciousness then that's just another name for the introspective argument.
The older version of the cosmological argument. Suffers from exactly the same circular reasoning.
Well now we start the fun game of defining positive properties, I'll start with "creating a world with SIDS in it" as a positive property of a deity and we can go from there into "is existence necessarily a positive property". Or we could take the route where the fact that the argument asserts the notion that conception somehow correlates to physical existence is in and of itself, nonsense. (Let alone the converse argument that is used to counter the paradoxical nature of omnipotence; that god is not conceivable)
Now, if we're not going to bother actually debating things and just throw names around, I'll happily list Russell's teapot and the specific religious texts of any and all major religions throughout history as arguments for atheism.
First off, you're omitting that Pope Francis refuses to recognize the "Buenos Aires Eucharistic Miracle" as a miracle.
If you look up Frederick Zugibe on Wikipedia, it says that he is: "one of the alleged scientists investigating the Eucharistic miracle of Buenos Aires, yet no substantial evidence has come forth." It's also clear from his Wikipedia page that he is not a cardiologist, so I doubt that the article you linked holds a single shred of truth.
The stuff on the wafer is probably just red mold/algae, and the reason it expanded in the water was probably because (It's a fucking wafer).
Darwin died an agnostic and if you want to know what he meant by agnostic you should read some quotes from Huxley, his friend that invented the term, it wasn't the wishy washy position that it agnostic is often used to mean today.
He died a Christian, dilettante.
He did adopt a somewhat agnostic stance.
But 'Nature' was somewhat anthropomorphic in its character in the "Origin of Species" book. Not only that, he quotes the Bible as well...
>Why does Dawkins want to disprove God's existence so fervently?
He basically flipped his lid over creationists in the US constantly trying to fuck with biology, the field he has devoted his life to, without any evidence except their own religious beliefs.
Religious people should remember that it was the religious that attacked biology, Dawkins is just its defender.
>He did adopt a somewhat agnostic stance.
He said outright he was an agnostic. A position that was specifically defined by his friend to include meaning NOT a Christian.
Simply asserting he was a "Christian, dilettante" or trying to water down his own statements to "a somewhat agnostic stance" is just you making things up.
Favorite Darwin quote
"As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful ramifications."
> He basically flipped his lid over creationists in the US constantly trying to fuck with biology
This and to be fair, being religious in all fairness but when you're putting people in actual danger by trying to pray away cancer and having the bible invading classrooms outside of theology classes something had to be done.
Some people assert he died a Christian, others do not.
May I say though, that when he wrote his cardinal work On the Origin of Species, you can definitely see the Christian influence the most.
And that is how I prefer my evolutionary biology: with a hint of God.
The word didn't even exist until Darwin's lifetime, when it was invented by his friend Thomas "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley and like I said it was not invented as the wishy washy concept it is used as today.
>Some people assert he died a Christian, others do not.
You mean some Christians like to believe the fiction he converted back to Christianity on his deathbed even though there never was a shred of evidence for this.
>even trying to slip "god" in subtly somewhere into natural selection just fucks the whole thing up.
This just shows that you have a meme concept of God. The Godhead is not a flying bearded man, that's an artistic anthropomorphism used to explain things to illiterate peasants.
No strawmans have been made. Natural selection requires no thinking entity of any kind, whether it is just the "essence of to be" or a flyming man. It is a process that needs no overlord and as soon as you try and insert one into it, in any way at all, whatever concept you are using for 'god', causes problems with the whole theory.
Simply shouting "strawman, strawman, strawman, afeists just don't understand!" and trying to define your god in the vaguest way possible is never going to change that.
>he believes in a 5000 year old jewish text that provides no credible evidence for any claim written inside of it
Reminder that the religious are the ones claiming there is a God while Atheists are simply stating there probably isn't one since none of you have any actual evidence to support your claim
>Theism does not require that there be an "overlord"
That's the definition of theism and you are now strawmanning me by inserting 'bearded man in the sky' after I was so abundantly clear in my post.
Yes, it kind of does.
The whole point about theism is that a god has personally made reality with a specific purpose in mind. Teleology can be completely thrown out of the window in evolution, and so can the idea of one entity controlling the whole of reality for this specific purpose
Most of the arguements for God frankly suck or relay on assumptions.
"axiomatically assume everything was made for a purpose. There for there must be a creator"
Besides that I don't think any arguements for a God ever advanced beyond Deism. You can postulate the universe might have had a 'start' and call whatever started it 'God' but implying that the 'starter' was intelligent or intervenes in human affairs is a dead end. Arguements for a 'start' of the universe also do not make a lot of sense with what we know about physics.
A 'start' would imply there was at some point no matter, a giant vacuum. But vacuums are impossible. And no kiddies, the big bang is not 'something from nothing'. The big bang is 'very concentrated something into spread out something'. The concept of 'nothing' is a linguistic invention.
Just getting the idea of the unvierse as having a 'start' is an unstable position. Than to say that some agent started it instead of it being a natural process is pretty much an unreachable position. Finally going from the agent merely being a non-descript one to one that thinks like humans and narrates to Jews in the desert gets you in the realm of sounding like a lunatic.
>there probably isn't one since none of you have any actual evidence to support your claim
this is false reasoning
to say that the lack of proof that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, indicates that there "probably isn't a God", is simply bad logic
the question of whether the universe has a creator or not, and the question of whether the Christian religion is true or not, are two distinct questions
atheists seem to think that without physical evidence of a creator that can be experienced by human beings with their primitive 5 senses, on this 1 puny planet out of billions and billions
of planets and stars and galaxies, then the odds are in favour of there being no God, is egocentric and blinkered.
>atheists seem to think that without physical evidence of a creator that can be experienced by human beings with their primitive 5 senses, on this 1 puny planet out of billions and billions
>of planets and stars and galaxies, then the odds are in favour of there being no God, is egocentric and blinkered.
No, that just means you're aware of the burden of proof and who has it
Theism does not require an overlord who is directing all things. For example, pantheism is a type of theism that does not require such an overlord.
Nice try Shlomo, but my name is Thomas. And no that is not exactly what the Bible says. It says that Jesus is a incarnation of the Godhead who was begotten to deliver spiritual truth to the people of Israel and the world.
no, because the question of the very existence of the universe isn't comparable to some earthly, comprehendable event that can be boxed into a human logic game
to argue that until primitive humans on this 1 planet out of billions, have attained the technology required to prove the existence of a creator (even though logic suggests that if a creator existed, it could more than likely exist and choose to not be detectable by its creation) then the likelihood of a creator can be described as small, or much more unlikely than no creator, is just opinions, not an objective truth
That does not even logically follow. Christians are perfectly able to do scientific research without it being influenced by theology.
It is a million miles away from being a specific point about Darwin's work having specific influences from specific pieces of theology and then building that into an actual point about ehat you think that proves.
Pantheism isn't theism, it is a belief that literally everything in the Universe is one entity, ususally not a thinking one.
It could more accurately be described as atheism with a twist of "woah dude".
No evidence for an intelligent creator has been presented that is not better explained by natural physical processes. Unless you'd like to argue that the existence of natural physical processes itself is evidence for a creator, which is a cute God of the Gaps argument that works for now but will start to break down as better colliders are constructed.
On the Origin of Species is influenced by Christianity.
You cannot dispute this.
This is the best form of evolutionary biology, not so much the Christian influence necessarily, but at least one which rationalizes some aspect of spirituality and spiritual entity with the existence of evolutionary biology.
May I just remind the scientifically illiterate that "proof" is an unscientific term. In the physical sciences, there is really no such thing as "proof" but rather "supporting evidence." In the physical sciences nothing is said to be "proven" rather accepted theories are said to "have adequate supporting evidence."
>look I just proved God doesn't exist in a 4chan post.
Do you know how many academics would laugh at this shit and call you retarded? Religion and theology exist for a reason, moron, to dismiss philosophically derived arguments for the existence of God is absolutely idiotic.
>No evidence for an intelligent creator has been presented that is not better explained by natural physical processes.
except there is no logical explanation for the existence of the universe by natural physical processes
atheists haven't closed any gaps in the question of how the universe came to be, since the beginning of man
>Pantheism isn't theism
Top fucking kek, are you daft? This further goes to show how much of an intellectual shitshow fedorans are. Pantheism is a type of theism. Just as polytheism or monotheism are types of theism.
You don't appear to be basing this on anything other than the fact it has 'theism' in the word.
I consider myself to be somthing of a naturalistic pantheist. I suggest you tootle off and try and get your head around what pantheism is, because it is literal heresy to monotheists.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. An unanswered question is not a valid "therefore God" matter. There's no reason to assume there is a God, so there's no reason to believe in God. It doesn't require active assertion that there is no God, it just requires not making an active assertion that there is a God.
>On the Origin of Species is influenced by Christianity.
>You cannot dispute this.
You've not even made any sort of argument for the case other than "Darwin was Christian in his youth" for me to dispute yet.
Nine words followed by "you cannot dispute this" is laughable.
my point is that you placed a likelihood level on whether God exists or not.. that until there is physical evidence of a creator, then autism demands that we must consider the chance of it to be either zero, or much smaller than the chance that the universe came to be with no creator or knowledgeable influence
and that position holds no basis in logic.
>pantheism is heresy to monotheists
Yes this is correct. That doesn't mean it's not theism. Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.
>the universe is God
Well, I'm not that guy, to start with. But my premise is exactly as I outlined, there is no reason to believe in God because there's nothing to demonstrate the evidence of God. You can make a logical argument that God's a potential cause to everything, but that basically boils down to speculating about something you can't possibly know about, which is absurd from any standpoint, scientific or philosophical.
So instead I choose not to believe there is a God. Not to believe there is no God, but simply to not believe in him.
Darwin quotes the book of Genesis, for one.
Darwin refers to Nature as an entity which exists independently of man and headed towards some projected goal and destination, as the summary of chapter IV indicates.
The use of the word "God" is a complete misuse of the word though, pantheists do not hink the Universe literally has a personality and is a being and 'thinks' as such.
Obviously not, dumabss. However this discussion was started by someone waffling away about the Catholic and Orthodox churches and how they believed in evolution only to evolve, quite possibly the same poster, desperately trying to use pantheism, which is heretical to both, to try and support their position.
My position, as someone who is extremely favourable to naturalistic pantheism is that it is most certainly not some sort of flavour of theism.
> nothing to demonstrate the evidence of God
Are you talking about material evidence? You don't justify God's existence materially, for it is already assumed all of the material existence is manifested through God.
The ones who seek to disprove God's existence using material justifications are creating a logical fallacy the likes of which Kierkegaard would have rationalized as defiance - a very masculine form of religious unbelief. You are in defiance, wanting to be yourself without God - a negative unity.
>Darwin quotes the book of Genesis, for one.
Would you mind highlighting these for me.
>Darwin refers to Nature as an entity which exists independently of man and headed towards some projected goal and destination, as the summary of chapter IV indicates.
You are very clearly misreading it, if you have read it at all.
>Is Richard Dawkins bashing religion basically talking over his own head?
Yes. He's fundamentally wrong about various facts about religion and its history. Some are just basic signs of his ignorance and have mostly no bearing on his theses, like the fact that in God Delusion he claims that Constantine christianized the Roman Empire when he just legalized Christianity as a religion.
Some are just him being contrarian, like the fact that he claims that religion was created to control people while in reality it most likely predates human society.
But some are more fundamental misunderstandings based on his assumption that all religions are sorta kinda like Abrahamic religions. Like the claim that religions claim monopoly on truth, ie. that all others are false, when the sixth largest religion in the world claims the opposite. Or the fact that a promise of reward in afterlife is a quintessential element of religion, when the entire reason for the birth of messianism in Judaism, the mystery cults in Roman and Greek religions and the spread of pharaoh funeral rites among lower rungs of society in Egypt was precisely because those religions didn't initially offer a real afterlife in the sense we know it.
>we atheists has black science man hoo know everythang and sheeit
>he say god aint real so shit nigga he probs aint baka
>yo essays wasn written by modern scientists so dey aint proof nigga
You clealy don't grasp what a meme is, other than following the meme that the word 'meme' is some sort of insult that discredits what someone is saying.
You are also unaware that half of the point of /his/ is to take these discussions onto a board that didn't involve angry /pol/acks posting hats.
Stop saying the same shit over and over. We don't know if there are a God and it is impossible to prove or disprove him. Believing in God is not rational, but does everything have to rational? There, /thread, over. Now go outside or something.
I think historical evidence supports a rabbi in the Middle East could Jesus existed.
You don't even have physical evidence he existed, yet alone exists, yet alone is hard physical proof of god.
>The use of the word "God" is a complete misuse of the word though, pantheists do not hink the Universe literally has a personality and is a being and 'thinks' as such.
Now you're getting into what they believe the nature of God is, not whether they believe God exists or not.
>Now you're getting into what they believe the nature of God is, not whether they believe God exists or not.
You mean I am getting into how you use god and how some of my fellow pantheists use god and pointing out they are entirely different concepts that do not support each other in the slightest.
Nope. I'm saying it is not even deism, let alone theism.
I think there is historical evidence someome called Jesus, an important rabbi with an apocalyptic message, existed.
There is no physical evidence of him (a statement of fact not a claim he never existed).
There is certainly no physical evidence of him that amounts to hard physical evidence "God" exists.
>You mean I am getting into how you use god
When did I ever say what I believe God to be? You think I have some monolithic, unchanging view on what God is and what God's nature is? I don't, sometimes I find myself drifting into doubt at other times into pantheism or into dualism or into monotheism.
>Constantine christianized the Roman Empire when he just legalized Christianity as a religion.
u wut m8
>Some are just him being contrarian, like the fact that he claims that religion was created to control people while in reality it most likely predates human society.
Society most likely predates humans, being evolved from a social primate so that's pretty stupid.
>But some are more fundamental misunderstandings based on his assumption that all religions are sorta kinda like Abrahamic religions. Like the claim that religions claim monopoly on truth, ie. that all others are false, when the sixth largest religion in the world claims the opposite.
You have to go down to the 6th largest, and I don't even know which one you're talking about. Most charts have that as Chinese ancestor worship, tribal religion, or new religion, all of which are around 5%.
>Or the fact that a promise of reward in afterlife is a quintessential element of religion, when the entire reason for the birth of messianism in Judaism, the mystery cults in Roman and Greek religions and the spread of pharaoh funeral rites among lower rungs of society in Egypt was precisely because those religions didn't initially offer a real afterlife in the sense we know it.
Wait, so you're saying, get this, that religions, they naturally gravitate towards having an afterlife reward, because they're religions.
Just to note that the definition of rabbi is different than to what it is today. At Jesus' time the temple still existed and the priestly caste were the religious authorities.
>an apocalyptic message
That is not really what Jesus of Nazareth was about. He really is about revealing spiritual truths and how to achieve salvation. Revelations, the most apocalyptic book of the New Testament is not attributed to the words of Jesus.
Why should I, if you have evidently read the book?
The book of Genesis is used as a justification for the variations arising in domestic-bred dogs. This is hilariously stupid, not a single academic would dispute the theological influence in On the Origin of Species.
You appear to be desperately trying to drag me into an argument that has nothing to do with the claim that I responded to >>523301 that "Jesus is hard physical proof that god exists".
I love a good debate about all kinds of things, but you are just meandering and being incoherent.
At what point does a discussion over the use of the word 'rabbi' in 30AD or a discussion about "what Jesus was all about" even remotely relate to the original claim?
That's something interesting you're saying. I'm incredibly scientifically illiterate so what I'm about to say I pulled out of a "how it works" article or something so bear with me.
Does measuring the different potentials of an electric field, and finding that electrons flow from the highest potential to the lowest potential (higher voltage to lower voltage) not prove that electricity will always try to "fill up" the weakest potential? or is that not a theory but a fact?
>The book of Genesis is used as a justification for the variations arising in domestic-bred dogs.
Where the fuck did you read this in the Origin of the Species?
Are you on cuckoo-cloud land snorting coke with the fairies and the pixies?
So at what point does a couple of sentences in Tacitus' writings that mention someone called Jesus become "physical proof that god exists"?
Refusing to give any evidence and then accusing someone else of refusing to acknowledge non-existent evidence does not even begin to become an argument.
Your problem is that you're trying to deal in terms of casuality. You want to see the effects produced by the cause (god) and tell us that this is evidence.
Well, you have the universe as evidence for God :^) I rest my case.
You can start tipping now.
>Well, you have the universe as evidence for God :^) I rest my case.
Something exists therefore an undefined concept exists and therefore your case is solid and 'rested'.
You what matey?
how is that evidence?
Thats an abstract concept that requires axiomatic assumptions to sustain that very concept.
Its a self-contained idea based on absolutely nothing but faith.
Which every religious thought is ultimately based at
things decay. things get less and less complex
life is meant to have initiated from non-life... and then got more and more complex.
anyone with half a brain can see this is completely at odds with the atheist position
It is true though. Pantheism maintains that "theos" is the universe or is all things.
With concern to the existence of God / theos, there are only three broad categories: atheism, agnosticism and theism. Atheism rejected the existence of God, agnosticism maintains that God may or may not exist and theism maintains that God / gods exist(s).
Atheism = God is not.
Agnosticism = God may or may not be.
Theism = God is or gods are.
You haven't yet made a falsifiable claim that can be evaluated by experimentation or observation. You can't see radiation or radiowaves or infra-red or atoms.
Or were you just complaining that making up things is not a valid metholodogy for understanding, well, anything?
I mean, is your literal point that you can't prove it exists, make any falsifiable claims about it, you can't touch it, see it, experiment on it, observe it, or well do anything that shows it exists there PROOF that it does exist?
Am I thinking like a theologist yet?
>Wait, so you're saying, get this, that religions, they naturally gravitate towards having an afterlife reward, because they're religions.
It's more accurate to say that human beings gravitate towards the belief in an afterlife, regardless of whether they see themselves as "religious" and that religion's develop to offer more comprehensive views of the afterlife as religions without one cease to satisfy their spiritual or psychological needs. But the belief in an "afterlife" is not a characteristic of religion per se. A religion can not have an afterlife and still develop a strong following.
Religions don't naturally gravitiate towards having an afterlife reward, human beings generally speaking naturally gravitate towards a religion which promises an afterlife as opposed to one that doesn't because for most human beings those religions speak better to the human experience.
Dawkins of course only understands religion as an external thing, even when he attempts to explain it psychologically, he retreats to the classic Marxist view of religion as merely the product of something like say capitalists seeking to exploit the proletariat. When that fails to explain the phenomenon, he then turns to something that borders on the metaphysical, where "religion" is like some great archon of the gnostic cosmos, pulling the strings of those unenlightened by gnosis/knowledge or who are simply too permanently dumb to understand. It becomes an external entity that controls human experience, as opposed to the product of human experiences.
Religions with an afterlife are popular because human beings generally want to believe in an afterlife, not because some external entity called "religion" tells them to believe in an afterlife.
if God exists, God isn't going to be a particle in the observable universe, or a physical force that can be measured by some man made measuring equipment
whether God exists or not, the terms by which atheists will be satisfied to even consider whether God exists, can never be satisfied, by definition... there is a zero percent chance, even assuming there is a God, that man will be able to find physical evidence for God
Even if someone presented physical proof of a "god", many people would say that what was discovered isn't God.
This was a problem for Greeks as some believed even the gods were made of atoms, which was opposed by people like Aristotle and Plato, who saw gods, more specifically THE God, as being part of a realm of intelligible principles which directed the courses and cycles of matter but was ultimately ineffable and beyond the material realm. If a person claimed they discovered "physical evidence" of God that could be weighed and measured, it would only be accepted if it was examined in light of the "fact" that God in his real essence isn't physical in any way. Whatever the the object from which this evidence derives would be written off as merely another material projection from the immaterial mind/essence of God, rather than a piece of God himself.
Atheism = I don't believe in god because there is no evidence there is one
Agnosticism = It is impossible to even start to know whether god exists therefore I don't believe in god.
Ignosticism = you don't even have a concept of god that is falsifiable
Deism = God exists, as evidenced by the Universe and nature, but we can't make any claims about him and he probably doesn't interfere with human affairs
Pantheism = the Universe is one entity, you could metaphorically decscribe this as 'god' but it has no connection with theism.
Polytheism = lots of supernatural beings exist and they love fucking about with the world and mankind
Monotheism = one big supernatual being exists and he loves fucking about with the wotld and mankind.
Theism = any form of polytheism or monotheism and arguably deism.
That's wrong. This is a religious person arguing in bad faith to paint atheists as complete deniers.
Atheism = Disbelief in god. Disbelief does not mean militant denial. Such as disbelieving a claim without a citation, until a citation is provided, due to a lack of citation.
Agnosticism = It is impossible to know if God exists. You can be an agnostic theist, and think it is impossible to know if God exists, but believe in God on faith alone, or you could be an agnostic atheist, and not believe in God because there is no way of knowing if God exists. This is in contrast to a theist that believes in God because he takes miracles as evidence, or an atheist who believes if God existed, God would theoretically be knowable and not completely unaccessible to humans.
Theism = God is or gods are.
The person that invented the word agnosticism explicitly defined themselves as being a disbeliever. I'll go with the original definition rather than with the incoherent and nonsensical way some people try and use it now.
Weak atheism = agnostic atheism = original atheism.
The only issue Huxley ever had was with strong atheism i.e. I can prove god doesn't exist.
>New Atheists are pretty much the fundamentalists of atheism.
>Religious belief does not have to do with intelligence, it has to do with much deeper psychological factors.
Ohshitnigger what are you doing?
Your Intro to Psychology class hit you pretty hard, I presume?
>I'll happily list Russell's teapot
Please do, so that you can really drive home how much of a pleb you are.
Deism and pantheism were both dveloped as concepts that were against theism.
The entire point of deism is that it is a belief in 'god' that is not theism.
Simply trying to enlist all these postions as support for your belief in a flying carpenter - or whatever it is that you do believe - is nonsensical.
>decades after Bertram made his argument
>one of the top philosophers of his time and still respected now
>still the most solid definintion of a burden of proof fallacy
>I'll dispute this by calling you a pleb and posting a frog
Atheism is the rejection of the existence of God. Agnosticism is the assertion that God may or may not exist, and one does not know for certain either way. The "agnostic atheist" or "gnostic theist" concept is a meme that was created to make the title of "atheist" seem more rational.
Not him, but there is nothing irrational about the possibility of a teapot or something equivalent to that nature floating between us and Mars or floating between two planetary bodies anywhere for that matter. Russel was trying to make about dogmatic statements, not metaphysical or rational speculation. Russel's teapot is no argument against the possibility of God's existence nor is it a rational proof against God's actual existence if we assume he does exist, nor is it really meant to be, I think.
If I said something like "there is/was an alien civilization far more advanced than us which developed something which we would probably call a 'teapot' in our language and most likely, if this object was a mainstay on any spacecraft, the chances that one such teapot is floating somewhere in our solar system or in another solar system visited by these creatures, are fairly high." This is not an irrational statement unless one proves that there is no way another civilization could have existed besides our own or unless one proves that if such a civilization existed it would be impossible for them to develop something like that which we call a teapot or that said teapot could have somehow escaped from their possession into the vacuum of space.
Russel's teapot is a statement on tendency for religion to make absolute statements regarding God and enshrine them as doctrine, not the equation of God with said teapot in the realm of rationality.
>The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.
I think you might have misunderstood the quote son
>Not him, but there is nothing irrational about the possibility of a teapot or something equivalent to that nature floating between us and Mars or floating between two planetary bodies anywhere for that matter. Russel was trying to make about dogmatic statements, not metaphysical or rational speculation. Russel's teapot is no argument against the possibility of God's existence nor is it a rational proof against God's actual existence if we assume he does exist, nor is it really meant to be, I think.
Of course Russel's teapot is not an agurment that disproves the existence of god.
It merely shows that there is as much evidence for god's existence as there is for an invisible teapot orbiting the Sun.
the only true answer lies in Astrotheology. its the black pill that ends everything youve ever read in your life and completely destroy your system of thoughts and rebuilds it as if you were a newborn god. if you never read Astrotheology you cant claim you know the truth.
Dude. That is a metasource made from dictionaries and is even worse than my source.
I can't believe you are honestly trying to claim that the postions of deism or pantheism somehow support whatever your nonsense is that you want to claim.
This is just disingenuous and dishonest.
And your own fucking source says this...
>• Pantheism - the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence and/or the universe (the sum total of all that is was and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of 'God'. The existence of a transcendent supreme extraneous to nature is denied. Depending on how this is understood, such a view may be presented as tantamount to atheism
>It merely shows that there is as much evidence for god's existence as there is for an invisible teapot orbiting the Sun.
Except that's not the point of Russel's Teapot at all.
Russel's teapot was never meant to say that God's existence is as high as the teapot's existence. If it was, then Russel would be guilty of the same behavior he is criticizing with that analogy.
The teapot statement is speaking of saying things without any proof and taking them as dogma. This proof can either be empirical like physical evidence, or it can be rational. Many can and do make the argument that it is easier to prove God's existence rationally with less bold speculations than it is to try to prove the existence of this supposed teapot rationally or empirically, which is why so many Deists and Christians also make use of Russel's teapot as a weapon against those who criticize them.
Russel's teapot is making a point about making absolute statements about things you either cannot know the actual truth of or which you do not yet possess the means to know the actual truth or making presumptions about things you do know the truth of (like if you believe God's existence is a fact but start making statements about what he said and claiming that because no one has yet proven that what you say God said/did he couldn't/wouldn't have done, they should accept what you say he said/did as truth). It's not a statement on how possible or impossible God's existence is.
It's a statement on dogmatism, not theology or metaphysics.
>Russel's teapot was never meant to say that God's existence is as high as the teapot's existence. If it was, then Russel would be guilty of the same behavior he is criticizing with that analogy.
What? That is nothing I said or Russell said.
You have wasted your time typing out a load of words on one enormous strawman.
>The existence of a transcendent supreme extraneous to nature is denied.
Which is what I have said all along.
>What? That is nothing I said or Russell said.
Actually it is what you said
>>It merely shows that there is as much evidence for god's existence as there is for an invisible teapot orbiting the Sun.
I meant to type "Russel's teapot was never meant to say that the possibility of God's existence is as high as the teapot's existence" which is exactly what you were implying.
If you had bothered to read my whole post you would have probably noticed this was a honest mistake as I also repeated "It's not a statement on how possible or impossible God's existence is."
Of course, you jumped at the first thing that would allow you disregard anything challenging your worldview.
>If you had bothered to read my whole post you would have probably noticed this was a honest mistake as I also repeated "It's not a statement on how possible or impossible God's existence is."
But if you undertsood it from the start you would understand it is about the burden of proof and about how if you want to claim an invisble teapot orbiting the Sun is real then the burden of proof is on you and if you want to claim god is real the burden of proof is on you.
Really, the division between the supernatural and the natural world's is mostly a Western thing. In most world religions, such a strict division doesn't exist. If anything the belief in most cultures that only that Absolute or God is truly and wholly immaterial. One could argue that angels, spirits or lesser gods (in the case of polytheisms) are more confined to material existence than God himself but less confined than say, humanity or other animals. Such is the case with most Eastern religions, including Islam and Eastern branches Christianity.
>But if you undertsood it from the start
I did understand it from the start. You're the one who doesn't as you thought it was a statement equating the possibility of God's existence with that of the subject of the teapot when it has absolutely nothing to do with whether God actually exists or not.
>you would understand it is about the burden of proof
I know it is. But Russel's teapot goes both ways.
>if you want to claim an invisble teapot orbiting the Sun is real then the burden of proof is on you and if you want to claim god is real the burden of proof is on you.
Russel's teapot is dealing with positive statements in general and New Atheists who rely on Russel's teapot are usually the one's most guilty of the fallacy, not necessarily theists who quite often persistent in their attempts to prove God's existence rationally. Whereas New Atheists believe they are usually above having to prove their absolute statements regarding the nature of reality. Russel's teapot applies to those who simply repeat dogma without any rational or scientific argument. If I believe the teapot exists based on what I feel are rational and scientific proofs of its sure existence, then Russel's "burden of proof" doesn't apply to me. It applies to the one who says the teapot exists (or doesn't) simply because it says so or doesn't say so in "scripture".
It's just saying that pantheism can be presented as atheism, deism or theism depending on the understanding of the phrase "The existence of a transcendent supreme extraneous to nature is denied. "
Atheists deny metaphysics as a whole and cover their ears when it comes to the assumption they make, no point in arguing with them on those premises.
God not existing is just a consequence of metaphysics being denied.
> Atheists deny metaphysics as a whole
How do you even come to this conclusion? What is the train of thought, if this isn't shitposting?
Indeed, probably should've said new atheists as a whole. I'm an atheist myself but I don't have such a view of metaphysics.
The fact that the famous arguments for a primordial cause are easily dismissed as "unproven assumption"(which is something I've seen do in other contexts) makes me think that they don't want to consider fundamental principles and their logical consequences as acceptable in an argument.
Moreover, in other environments with these types of atheists(I'm very sure not everyone is like that), I've often encountered people who out right said that metaphysics is bullshit.
Just my impression on things, maybe other people who had to deal with these people can relate.
>I've often encountered people who out right said that metaphysics is bullshit.
Well, I mean, what contributions has metaphysics made to our understanding of the universe in the last 50 years? 100 years?
I'm skeptical. You would have just linked to THAT post then instead of the damage control post. The only reason I can imagine one would link to the damage control post is to aid in the damage control... which a random anon on the internet generally wouldn't do.
That's just my perspective on the matter.
>how has metaphysics contributed to our understanding of the physical universe
>how has it helped us understand the PHYSICAL universe
lol this board is a meme, you're a meme, every faggot on this faggot board is a meme
Metaphysics is first and foremost foundational, like math for instance. Math, by itself, has made no contribution to our understanding of the universe, but it did indirectly though physics and in general its use in science.
You need metaphysical assumptions about the world to use the scientific method, even though you might say "it's obvious".
Anyway, the issue here is about accepting metaphysical arguments or not in principle.
I don't see why theists trying to make arguments based on perceived principles about the reality of things, principles that might actually be "reasonable" or "obvious" as the principles of science, is "bad". I mean, the way they are received at least makes me think there's an outright denial to try and understand them.
Another way to say it is that I don't see any actual interest in understanding the arguments, as if they were mere trivialities and the people who made them just stupid or something. That's just my impression.
>You need metaphysical assumptions about the world to use the scientific method, even though you might say "it's obvious".
So name some metaphysical developments over the last fifty or one hundred years that have contributed to furthering actual understanding, the same way developments in mathematics have contributed to furthering acual understanding.
I have a degree in physics. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it. There are no required or even suggested courses or books pertaining to metaphysics when getting a physics degree.
Metaphysics has nothing to do with modern physics as far as I understand it. If you have any greater insight into the two fields then I'm willing to listen.
>you don't need METAphysics to understand physics
yeah no fucking shit dude it's in the word, that was the whole point of the original post, christ this board is filled with fucking retards
>You need metaphysical assumptions about the world to use the scientific method
I don't see why that would be true. The results of the scientific method speak for themselves. Not trying to rebuke you or anything. Just giving my thoughts.
> Just my impression on things, maybe other people who had to deal with these people can relate.
Think about this; everything that isn't about God in metaphysics is atheistic. That's everything from question and answers to free will, modality, categories, the nature of time and causality. Non of those questions are seriously answered by "well God did it" in the academics.
Pick up an intro book on metaphysics and there'll probably be one chapter about the existence of God while the rest of the book ignores him.
Well it's different though, astrology got replaced because its scope was rendered useless by astronomy.
I don't think you can say the same about metaphysics since by itself the study of physics doesn't replace META-physics. You might make the case if you have an argument.
I haven't read the thread, but correct me I'm wrong about what led to this metaphysics discussion.
>theist anon gives argument for God
>atheist anon dismisses argument out of hand because it isn't scientifically verifiable
>theist anon says science was preceded by philosophy and metaphysics so anon's non-scientific argument for God deserves just as much credit as all of science does
I don't think it deserves that credit though. Philosophy and metaphysics are super general. They are just what we called our attempts to understand the universe leading up to the scientific revolution, as if humanity was fumbling through keys to open the door to the library until we tried the science key and got in. To say that arguing philosophy or metaphysics is just as valid a way of figuring out how the universe works as science is like someone remaining outside the library still trying philosophy keys on the now open door because they think it was the act of trying to open the door that gives us knowledge, not reading the actual books in the library.
>Dawkins of course only understands religion as an external thing, even when he attempts to explain it psychologically, he retreats to the classic Marxist view of religion as merely the product of something like say capitalists seeking to exploit the proletariat.
Wait, so you're saying, religions change and adapt, to give people what they want, so they can convert more people. Seriously not sure why you're being full retard about this, unless you genuinely believe religion is based on some sort of absolute truth rather and being a spook.
>Are you talking about material evidence? You don't justify God's existence materially, for it is already assumed all of the material existence is manifested through God.
If you can think of another way that isn't utterly subjective, I'm all ears. Don't give me any of that "open your heart up to him, and you'll feel him" shit either. Everybody says that about their religion.
>Religion is the opiate of the masses, it is the sigh of the oppressed.
Yeah, because Marx was REALLY anti-religious.
This is the same Marx who viewed atheism as specious because it didn't remove the preconditions for the cultural necessity of religion.
But the post he was quoting never mentioned Marx. He was quoting Marx in his response for absolutely no reason, despite the post he he was replying to not mentioning nor quoting Marx. Instead the post called religion a spook, and everyone knows how Marx felt about spooks.
I took them as an arbitrary limit, based previous work by some other anon in >>524863. If you have an objection, feel fre to contribute a useful conclusion of metaphysics that exists outside my arbitrary range. Should you succeed, you will force me into another hypothesis. This is a basic aspect of the scientific method.
Non that anon (and I know Darwins ideas would have had influences from the bible, as would anyone from that time period) but I found the dog domestication related sections in chapter one, but I couldn't find any genesis related passages?
"In attempting to estimate the amount of structural differences between allied domestic races, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they are descended from one or several parent species. This point, if it could be cleared up would be interesting; if for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propogate their kind truly, were the offspring of any single species then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt the immutability of the many closely allied natural species - for instance, of the many foxes - inhabiting different quarters of the world."
There were changes Darwin made in different editions too. the concluding paragraph had "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one"
While later editions had "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one"
You're really struggling to demonstrate that is any way based on Genesis and as for the concluding paragraph, Darwin later wrote he regretted it being in there and it was entirely a sop to public opinion.
In his early life he was a Christian, but "in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind"
"he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering, such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs."
Please stop making shit up m8
This waffle doesn't even come close to demonstrating Dawrwin based anything on Genesis, as for me making shit up I just provided you with a letter from Darwin amply demonstrating what I was saying.
Okay. Chapter one, towards the end. Pg. 32 of my copy.
"From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to"
Again, it's not even a direct reference to the existence of a divine essence, however it is referenced because he, and many others, were religious.
Great, a full twenty years after the original book was published.
ITT pussies scared of death and dumb enough to believe in anything
Stop fucking the world up because you're all pussy faggots and become an atheist. you don't believe anything, IRL. You have the evidence or call it bullshit, and your religious dogma faggotry that has fucked the world up is no exception.
Oh for goodness sake. I can't beleive that when we got to the bottom of it this was your entire basis of your claim that Darwin's theory of natural selection was based on Christian theology.
The fact he mentions various classical works in one paragraph as evidence that people in the classical period when the books were written bred dogs.
>the destruction of horses under a certain size was ordered, and this may be compared to the "roguing" of plants by nurserymen. The principle of selection I find distinctly given in an ancient Chinese encyclopædia. Explicit rules are laid down by some of the Roman classical writers. From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to. Savages now sometimes cross their dogs with wild canine animals, to improve the breed, and they formerly did so, as is attested by passages in Pliny. The savages in South Africa match their draught cattle by colour, as do some of the Esquimaux their teams of dogs.
What about the summary in chapter four? There is a certain theological ring to it, isn't there?
When it comes down to it, On the Origin of Species is a more theoretical, qualitative work than a quantitative. And that's why, philosophically, theology has to play a role, either in supporting or eventually denying the existence of the theory.
But Darwin's particular theory isn't relevant anymore, for one he was completely ignorant of genetics. Ever heard of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, when Darwin's theory was combined with Mendel's (He was a Friar). and since then there's been even more development. whether Darwin himself is a Christian or Hindu or even a Satanist literally means nothing in relation to evolution.
>I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ``appeared'' by some wholly unknown process.
Abrahamic religions are very well set up to make you believe them lots of loopholes and "facts" based on faith. its just a whole bunch of con men claiming to have communicated with a divine entity with absolutely no proof and people still believe them. Hmm why would one want to claim to have communicated with a divine being there couldnt be any benefits could there?
Mendelian genetics is certainly more quantitative.
It does still matter though, because we see a glimpse of a different way to look at evolution. It doesn't matter what others are saying, many agree that simply because of the time period it was written, On the Origin of Species is influenced theologically.
It certainly isn't a main focus of the work, and this is because it speaks largely of a process that could or could not be subordinate still to a divine order. Which, again, is an interesting way to think about evolutionary biology.
You do have to read a bit of science to become a contemporary in regards to this field, but there aren't many categories existing which allow for a large understanding of the fundamental theory through a read of a cardinal book.
Not really, I think there are some grounds for such a claim, given the evidence presented. Maybe a compare and contrast is necessary. Read modern evolutionary biology texts and compare it with On the Origin and see how they stack up.
>different way to look at evolution.
Not really a different way so much as an outdated way. Developments in gents, epigenetics and so on have completely eliminated the need for God Darwin felt he required. Thst's the nice thing about science, it advances, and provides smaller and smaller gaps for God to fit into.
>Not really, I think there are some grounds for such a claim, given the evidence presented
> Maybe a compare and contrast is necessary. Read modern evolutionary biology texts and compare it with On the Origin and see how they stack up.
That would have no relevance whatsoever.
>Sometimes I read something so stupid I can't even articulate a response.
I know right?
I read a post on 4chan that said that despite there not being any theology in the "On the Origin of Species" we should run some sort of a comparison with modern evolutionary texts because this would, well, um, prove something or other.
I couldn't stop laughing.
Well that's unfortunate, maybe you could mature a little and come back when you understand how influence and impacts work.
You can read The Holy Bible.
And you can read On the Origin of Species.
After reading both, you'd have a fair grasp of the entirety of the theories comprising the origination of our species as we know it. And that is kind of sad, ideologically. Which was my point. It's just democrats or republicans these days. No middle ground. That's a metaphor, just as applicable to dichotomous theological stances these days.
>Well that's unfortunate, maybe you could mature a little and come back when you understand how influence and impacts work.
Look mate. I just don't buy the claim that when there is zero evidence of any theological basis on "On the Origin" that you could somehow prove there was by comparing it to modern texts and chalking up differences to the influence of the the flipping bible.
It's a nonsense idea, sorry to put it so bluntly.
You can't prove or disprove such a reality by asking me or a set of readers questions, given that we are human and live to mistakes. You'd need an international council of non-partial participants who etc.
To humour you, though, the "self" is a set of characteristic electric impulses generated by the physical stricture of a particular brain.
That line you quoted there. It has more than just a few implications regarding your previous statements. You first attempted to state that there was no theological influence in On the Origin, and I pointed to evidence of two instances when theology had an indirect (or possibly direct in the case of chapter four) influence. Then you stated that you could not compare and contrast Darwin's field notes with contemporary findings, which is ludicrous because, theoretically, the field which Darwin helped create is a broad, expansive one still existing, with people who still reference the cardinal work.
And this is the point that continuing discussion becomes difficult, I see no 'evidence' suggesting that there is an eternal part of the self (unless you mean the effects your existence has upon the future even in the most unimportant butterfly effect manner). What is your basis that this exists, rather than simply saying we do not know.
t. agnostic atheist
The brain is essentially a learning machine. Neurons that fine together multiple times tend to fire together easier in the future (where firing is defined as x neurotransmitter amount causing an action potential, by opening up a cell to diffusion through neurotransmtter-activated channels) whereas neurons that do not fire together tend to become disconnected.
>You first attempted to state that there was no theological influence in On the Origin, and I pointed to evidence of two instances when theology had an indirect (or possibly direct in the case of chapter four) influence
And both of your examples were trashed.
Darwin only mention Genesis in a paragraph that cited other ancient works as evidence that that people bred dogs in classical times when the bible was written, there was not a shred of use of the theology.
The other example was a mention of a creator in the final paragraph, which he explicitly stated he regretted and was a "truckle" to public opinion.
Don't simply pretend we have gone back to hours ago.
And of course you can compare Darwin to modern work, the point is that doing so would not in any way suddenly magic up some influence of theology that isn't there.
Have you read any theology-based philosophy.
St. Aquinas and Kierkegaard are examples.
Kierkegaard is great, he makes the argument that there must be an aspect to humans which is reflected within all of our activities and being.
Possibility and necessity is a dichotomy Kierkegaard uses to show the difference between too little necessity, and too little possibility, respectively, the latter being the bigger problem, usually indicating a negative unity, between the body and spirit. In this case, the relations between these are not grounded in God, therefore they can only relate to each other thrugh their own world and reality. Therefore what you find in societies without a singular God is, in defiance of the self relating to itself infinitely, there is a finitude of the body of the self, defined through the terms of the body, and none of the eternal spiritual realm of existence. As a consequence, typically people will want to be themselves in defiance of this construct society has created that is termed religion.
You are making the same post over and over again. If you don't understand or admit a bit of theological cultural influence in Darwin's works or somehow think he cannot relate to contemporary scientific academia you are sorely mistaken on both accounts, but I believe this is where the debate ends because you will obviously not concede either of these points.
Wrong way of looking at things. Rather, some neurons are connected to relatively more other neurons by genetics, which is determined by evolutionary pressures. In modern societies, the neurons most come cred to evolutionary pressures manage to be co-activated with strange other neurons, and again neurons that tend to be activated together tend to become easier activated with each other.
>somehow think he cannot relate to contemporary scientific academia
You must be bonkers if you think I have said any such thing.
>If you don't understand or admit a bit of theological cultural influence in Darwin's works
Look. If you want to try and claim something is based on Christian theology you need to show that. Simply saying "cultural influence" as if the fact Christianity influenced Darwin's culture somehow makes his work based on Christianity or the bible is just silly.
In a strictly Darwinian sense or a social Darwinism sense?
If either one or both, it doesn't matter, you are indicating that individuals pick members of its society to propagate that think a certain way, because of conscious or, what is more likely, unconscious decisions affecting the formation of the next sub-species, is this correct?
>Have you read any theology-based philosophy.
I have not, I've got much more of a STEM basis (ecology).
I'm not sure I understand the argument about possibility and necessity your making.
> typically people will want to be themselves in defiance of this construct society has created that is termed religion.
But I would disagree with this, unless you would call not acknowledging something defiance, but to me this would seem to be no different to not acknowledging say Lamarkian evolution, to go back to the earlier topic about evolution and Darwin.
>there must be an aspect to humans which is reflected within all of our activities and being.
In relation to this, why would an aspect unique to humans not be able to arise over time, our species has evolved from ancestors which would have experienced the world in fundamentally different ways, if the brain is unrelated to our conscious experience how would you explain the difference in the perception of reality between a colour blind and non colour blind person for example?
Social Darwinism would only be a thing if social success determined viability of offspring. Instead, we often find people on the lower runGS of the social Darwin is ladder reproducing rather successfully.
In any case, all of your formulations are wrong. Nobody "picks" who will be the next subspecies except the individuals who decide to/are forced into a new environment. The closest people to being a "new" subspecies are populations living at extreme high altitude, whose circulatory systems ar subtly different than the "average" human. This has nothing to do with their thought process beyond perhaps different methods of supplying brain glucose.
The reason why I initially suggested you read more theology based philosophy is because that is what defines a lot of contemporary thought in that direction to this very day.
After reading your post, I am intrigued. Wouldn't you agree that God fits your definition of "an aspect unique to humans"
On the contrary, neurons differing in insects substantially, like a branching of a major nerve, is evidence that even within the own species there can be wide genetic individual differences in the organism.
Yes? None of those differences involve sub-species, however.
Actually, I don't know if that holds true in non-human organisms. But in human organisms, the difference between one subsecies and the next is a lot more than minor neuronal differences.
But these differences can arise. And do arise. You're saying that millions of years of CroMagnons and Neanderthals living nomadic lifestyles did not cause them to cross and evolve in a certain way? We evolved the way we did because of genetic, but also age-old cultural developments in how we treated our own species. The changes in the brain were due to this very basic principle.
With certain assumptions you could say that God fits the definition, but I would say that the assumptions (especially anything based on the necessity of God) for this to be defensible are completely unsupported and I guess it comes down to an Occam's razor type argument.
also that any aspects unique to humans didn't necessarily have to turn out the way they are, it could have been completely possible that the Toba eruption pushed our species to extinction, what happens to God/the idea of God if humans cease to exist, or if we never existed in the first place, I don't see humans as an inevitability of history.
The changes in brain chemistry were not DUE to changes in behaviour. Rather, small changes in chemistry resulted in small changes in behaviour, which resulted in small changes in survival rate, and the entire thing became amplified in a positive feedback loop. How Homo sapiens sapiens came to dominate Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is probably nowhere near as idealized as you think, though.
I misread what you wrote, sure, the concept of God is entirely a unique aspect to humans, as are many other things language, art, science etc. I would think that the creative capacity possessed by our species is perfectly adequate to explain the origin of the concept of God (with potentially some genetic bias towards this view, I remember reading something suggesting that a dualism view seems to inherent).
It's not any different. It's just food for thought. If you grow up thinking your culture's religion is correct (and everyone else wrong), and everyone grows up in different cultures, it is more likely that no one is correct.
So you're saying once we're no longer under the threat of death and our survival instincts are not being stimulated, then we will no longer neurologically evolve? Some sociologists would disagree with you, does not the state of society and its anthropological stage influence the succeeding generations in choosing different neurological characteristics to desire?
>So you're saying once we're no longer under the threat of death and our survival instincts are not being stimulated, then we will no longer neurologically evolve?
Yes. Until a selection pressure acts upon neurology, or acts upon another trait that influences neurology, it will remain essentially constant barring drift/founder effects/etc. Take a caveman baby, give him immunity to modern disease and drop him in a preschool, and he will be the same as any other human.
>Some sociologists would disagree with you, does not the state of society and its anthropological stage influence the succeeding generations in choosing different neurological characteristics to desire?
These desires must be such a selection pressure that other desires are at an inherent selection disadvantage, such that allele frequencies "controlling" them (good luck fiding those) are reduced frequency over time. Do you have evidence for that?
It's a good thing evolution has moved far beyond Darwin, then. Sexual selection is still a selection pressure, and traits developed by it must not cause a longterm net decrease in fitness if the species is to survive.
Okay, let's grant that. Let's pretend sexual selection is as important as natural selection. You still haven't explained how that invalidates the neuronal basis of thought, and how that proves God.
What is meant by the 'neuronal basis of thought'? You still haven't explained the ultimate origin of the thought in itself. Where does the thought find its beginning or origin in the mind itself? Philosophically, everyone would agree of the existence of the thoughts, but where do these originate? Lets have the proof of God in mind, but these are questions that should be answered first.
My parents are atheist, they didn't tell me not to believe in God. They always told me if I want I can go ahead and believe in whatever I want. As far as I know it's the same for other atheists here.
Then again here atheism is widespread and has been for a long time, Americans who hate on religion might do things differently.