The naivete of the New Atheist scholars

Depraved perverted stories are bothersome enough, what if he has a license to drive on our highways too?
AMH, I'm interested in your input. If you're using sarcasm here it's hard to detect. On the chance that you are...I get it. You're calling me out for being self-righteously prudish? Is that it? Well I'm not. I don't necessarily judge people for being perverts. However when people have started threads under the guise of an interesting topic only to spew nonsense based on personal "idiosyncracies" I tend to speak up.
Yes, it is genetic. Here it is again, I think this is an important clue as to ancient *god figures*. It can be seen today in the behavior of Chimps and is still common today in modern man, just in a more sophisticated way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
Write4U, are you serious with that? You bet I am serious, the first acknowledgement of an unseen enemy from above (a god) and a display by the Alpha that he would protect his family from this unseen enemy.who was making loud noises (just like he had when trying to impress other males with rolling the can and making loud noises to show his power), then the lightning (from above), another scary thing thrown by this unseen enemy, and lastly the water (from above) that was thrown dowm and madet him and his family miserable. This behavior stems from the *fight or flight instinct* when threatened. But he stood his ground, because he was lord of that territory. Who were some of the first gods? Zeus and Thor (thunder amd lightning. Does that not strike you as significant? This may have been a small glimpse from 60-70 thousand years ago, which still goes on today with prayer for salvation or in a draught, prayer and sacrifice to an "unseen presence* for a number of purposes. Praying to a unseen God is common today still for something that is needed at any given time. Blood sacrifice to appease the gods, ritual, pomp and circumstance. We just do it now in a more sophisticated way. But the act of acknowleding a powerful being up above has been around a long long time, before modern man appeared. You have to read between the lines to see the remarkable similarities of early hominids and modern man. Not much has changed.. If you think this is farfetched (in history), yes it is, and has become part of our *mirror neural network* and our belief in gods. You think this Alpha chimp was just playing in the rain for fun? Think about it, and then you can easily fill in the blanks timewise from then to now. The *fight or flight* instinct goes back millions of years. It is all part of the evolution of worship or fear of the unseen. Do you think the chimp knew about how weather fronts form? To him, some unknown being was doing something that made him fearful and angry. Have you read the book, which explains the missing details in full? Well, at least the video explains the rise of Donald Trump. But I think that it is a leap, correct or not, to say that the chimp had a conception of God. But, yeah, I think it is a step towards that.
TimB said: Well, at least the video explains the rise of Donald Trump. But I think that it is a leap, correct or not, to say that the chimp had a conception of God. But, yeah, I think it is a step towards that.
But is that not the underlying concept of all Gods? The *unseen and unknown* force that makes things happen, by any name, such as Thor. That little clip tells a very large story, if you analyze it carefully. Apes don't have names for things, but obviously this chimp was *aware* of extraordinary and unexplanable events. The names came later with homo sapiens, but the fundamental story never changed, it just became more sophisticated in expression along with the development of speech, and stories of *talking burning bushes*
... As soon as university students are informed of the real history of religion, religion will die in a couple of generations.
Now that is a bold assertion. If it were only true. But in case it is, why not make "The Real History of Religion" into a multi-episode video special, in order to reach more than just university students? They have been doing it for millenia, war after war. Episode after episode. the bloodiest wars you can imagine. Even Dracula was a holy warrior at one time, before he was betrayed by the priests. And as far as education goes, here is a good story of religious history v education. http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm oh and here is a little insight into the mindset of the Inquisition (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). This bears close analysis.
The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Write I’ve seen dogs get scared from lightning and thunder.
Aside from that, I hope you did notice my comments on the idea that religion probably started with Proto humans.
In other words before HomoSapiens. Not that there was a “day 1” for any species…
There are some things science can’t do yet or may never be able to do. And figuring out what those particular primates were thinking in that video is one of them.
Looked like a bunch of goddamned apes running around the woods to me!
(that was humor) :cheese:

Write I've seen dogs get scared from lightning and thunder. Aside from that, I hope you did notice my comments on the idea that religion probably started with Proto humans. In other words before HomoSapiens. Not that there was a "day 1" for any species.....
I always take notice of your comments and on this we are in complete agreement. And yes, as long time dog owner I have seen both the *fight or flight* instinct in the 7 dogs I have had the pleasure of observing during some 40 years and the different responses to *perceived threats*. When the object is visible their behavior is markedly different than when confronted with thunder and lightning which is obviously caused by something, but they are unsure and the flight instinct overrules the fight instinct. I did have a big dominant shepherd who would growl and bark at thunder, which he perceived was threatening his pack (including me).
There are some things science can't do yet or may never be able to do. And figuring out what those particular primates were thinking in that video is one of them.
Please note that it was just one Alpha primate who displayed power during the thunderstorm, while the rest of his family sat huddled, clinging to each other.
Looked like a bunch of goddamned apes running around the woods to me! (that was humor) :cheese:
lol. well yes, they did run around a lot, but it all had purpose, something we seem to overlook in animals all too often. btw, anyone not really familiar with Koko, the female gorilla, should really watch some of these clips and stories. She has a sign vocabulary of close to a thousand meaningful messages and has even been caught lying to avoid scolding. Moreover, when her (manx) kitten, which she named, All Ball, died in an accident, she was heartbroken. I wept when I saw this beautiful person looking out the window, alone in the evening, grieving over her dead baby kitten. http://www.bing.com/search?q=koko+gorilla+videos&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&refig=51f2cec6f3904500b9473fa7ac7db41d&qs=AS&pq=koko+gorilla&sk=AS5&sc=8-12&sp=6&cvid=51f2cec6f3904500b9473fa7ac7db41d
Well, they kinda did. Doesn't an anthropologist count as a scientist? Albert Schweitzer? All the archaeologists? Friedman's Documentary Hypothesis?
What do anthropologists have to do with the history of religion? Only experts in ancient texts and, secondary, archaeologists are required. As long, however, as the experts in ancient texts do not pass the correct information to the archaeologists, the latter cannot find something that they are not looking for. The Documentary Hypothesis offers a starting point for anyone interested to have some insight into religious matters but has nothing to tell about the history of religion or why people believe what they believe. I respect Schweitzer for supporting Bauer’s theory but Christianity only confirms that the people 2000 years ago believed the stories told to them by their elders and not the nonsense that the theologians offered. Science (read Academy), if it ever decides to turn intellectually honest, would come out and announce how it happened originally and humans were persuaded to believe in the absurd idea of the immaterial gods.
I am an atheist who believes in meta-physics, I believe in a Mathematical Universe. A purely abstract mathematical function, which is causal to everythig we experience.
You are not an atheist. You are obviously one more person who is afraid to state “I know there is no God" and by-passes his fears by calling God the…Mathematical Universe. The God idea is absurd and insulting to your intelligence. Find the courage to realize this fact and then you will not have to use the above laughable sophistry.
Plato was on the right path with his Platonic solids. I can accept that as a true explanation of how the universe works, because we *know* that's how it works..
You also respect that scumbag of Plato! Well… that was to be expected.
Watch this presentation, which explains HOW it all works. No ghoulies , ghosties, and things that go bump in the night. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365464997/
I do not watch videos and I do not care how it all works, neither it is relevant to the question at hand. The ancients said that the gods created humans and the theologians expanded the creation of humans to include the creation of the universe. You pay attention to the nonsense of the theologians of… how it all came to be, and disregard the words of the ancient layman.
So no divine conception from a god. Well that's a relief. Today we lock up peope who claim that they were raped by the devil or some other demon. But then why call Jesus the *son of God* ?
The Christian theologians used the standard story informing how the gods were born: a god was raping a woman and a “son of god" was born. It was not divine conception from a god, as you write. It was just conception from a god. The fact that you, as a modern person, can only understand “god" in connection with “divine" creates the problem. As you see, the knowledge of the history of religion is indispensable for understanding everything that has to do with religion.
Now that is a bold assertion. If it were only true. But in case it is, why not make "The Real History of Religion" into a multi-episode video special, in order to reach more than just university students?
It can be done if you can get BBC, National Geographic, or History Channel to produce the videos. :-) Certain things have to be studied or taught in a classroom. You know the two sister goddesses Isis and Nephthys. They sometimes appear as a single person and are called “the sister Isis-Nephthys. Their grandmother, Tefnut, is sometimes, presented as a dual person and the same happens with Horus who appears as having two heads (the one of a god and the other of a non-god person). How can one, by means of a video, persuade spectators that we are here not dealing with theological nonsense but with a notion anchored in archaic events? Here is the relevant article, if you want to get the general idea: https://www.academia.edu/7033776/Dual_Mother

So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests?
If I insulted humanity by insisting they worshiped the sun( for lack of any other gods put forth)
aren’t you insulting humanity even more by insisting that these people believed morons who were telling them the sun was a god?
After all on the face of it, worshiping the sun “naturally” so to speak is far more endearing(and plausible!) than explaining the people thought the sun was a god because other people told them it was.
Besides that, what the heck do you think people thought the Sun was before priests told them it was a god?
40,000 years ago. 60,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?

Obviously these priests and theologians realized there was power to gain by being the stewards of the belief systems.
By being the spokespeople and arbiters of the gods.
But it is inconclusive to try and figure out what came first, the priest or the god.
And even if you could say the priests came first(which they definitely DID NOT), it surely was no great leap for the people to get behind the idea. Not even a micron of a leap.

I am an atheist who believes in meta-physics, I believe in a Mathematical Universe. A purely abstract mathematical function, which is causal to everythig we experience.
You are not an atheist. You are obviously one more person who is afraid to state “I know there is no God" and by-passes his fears by calling God the…Mathematical Universe. And you are an arrtogant fool if you are calling Mathematics a god. Mathematics is a *function of universal spacetime.*
The God idea is absurd and insulting to your intelligence. Find the courage to realize this fact and then you will not have to use the above laughable sophistry.
Oh I agree that the God idea is absurd and it is an ad hominem for you to try and lecture me on sophistry, when I can prove the mathematical function of the universe. It has nothing to do with God or religion, it's just values and equations.
Plato was on the right path with his Platonic solid models, I can accept that as a true explanation of how the universe works, because we *know* that's how it works and concept well beyond your undertstanding of the universe...
You also respect that scumbag of Plato! Well that was to be expected.
Of course it was, but to call Plato a scumbag tells me more about you than you will ever know about me.
Watch this presentation, which explains HOW it all works. No ghoulies , ghosties, and things that go bump in the night. http://video.pbs.org/video/2365464997/
I do not watch videos and I do not care how it all works, neither it is relevant to the question at hand. The ancients said that the gods created humans and the theologians expanded the creation of humans to include the creation of the universe. You pay attention to the nonsense of the theologians of… how it all came to be, and disregard the words of the ancient layman.
As we should because they were ignorant goat herders. And you are seriously deluded if you think they had it right.. But your disrespect of not reading and learning something about the history of the emergence of gods into the human society, speaks of ignorance and vanity. The OP question is *The naivete of the New Atheist scholars". What you seem to be unaware of is that serious intellectual inquiry into the nature of the universe does not include god at all but the mathematical function by which all things work. As an atheist I care less about the history of religion which has been proved false so many times that to equate that with some kind of serious area of inquiry is absurd. I say God does not exist and you say yes I do, as if you have all the answers. If you cannot present an viable alternative to the mathematical function of everything, you have no standing here at all. You are just a muck raker trying to build your own ego by dismissing all others as naive. Your questions or statements have no value to me at all. If you refuse to learn anything about naivete. Obviously you know nothing about physics, or you would understand that mathematics is the antithesis to god and religions. No intent, only function. If you don't know the difference then you are the new age ignorant fool, who refuses to learn anything real about the universe, instead of trying to rewrite the history of religious practices, which has no scientific value at all. i gave you the explanation of the origins of the concept of a god (gods). If you have an objection to that, voice it. But don't try to resort to intimidation of your *knowledge of the history of the concept of god". Frankly I could give a rat's ass about the history and origins of God, however when I did give you some history you refuse to read it even though you insist this is what it is all about. Your a child stomping the floor my friend, and really should show a little repect to your *current*, more informed elders, instead of the ignorant elders of the past. But if you so easily dismiss the time I spent on research, you are not worthy of my attention. Good bye and try to be well.
Yes, it is genetic. Here it is again, I think this is an important clue as to ancient *god figures*. It can be seen today in the behavior of Chimps and is still common today in modern man, just in a more sophisticated way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
So, you are attributing ape mentality to humans!! How about investigating whether you do that judging by your own mentality? Humans wrote religious texts 4,500 years ago and, according to human mentality, one should read and endeavor to understand those texts, in order to know what humans believed about their gods, before jumping to conclusions. Have you read and understood those texts? If not, then it is an ape’s brain that resides under your cranial vault. You insult me, the human, I insult you in return in order that you learn to think before speaking and, especially before writing down your… wise ideas.
Yes, it is genetic. Here it is again, I think this is an important clue as to ancient *god figures*. It can be seen today in the behavior of Chimps and is still common today in modern man, just in a more sophisticated way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
So, you are attributing ape mentality to humans!! How about investigating whether you do that judging by your own mentality? Humans wrote religious texts 4,500 years ago and, according to human mentality, one should read and endeavor to understand those texts, in order to know what humans believed about their gods, before jumping to conclusions. Have you read and understood those texts? If not, then it is an ape’s brain that resides under your cranial vault. You insult me, the human, I insult you in return in order that you learn to think before speaking and, especially before writing down your… wise ideas. "So typical"
Well, they kinda did. Doesn't an anthropologist count as a scientist? Albert Schweitzer? All the archaeologists? Friedman's Documentary Hypothesis?
What do anthropologists have to do with the history of religion? Only experts in ancient texts and, secondary, archaeologists are required. As long, however, as the experts in ancient texts do not pass the correct information to the archaeologists, the latter cannot find something that they are not looking for. The Documentary Hypothesis offers a starting point for anyone interested to have some insight into religious matters but has nothing to tell about the history of religion or why people believe what they believe. I respect Schweitzer for supporting Bauer’s theory but Christianity only confirms that the people 2000 years ago believed the stories told to them by their elders and not the nonsense that the theologians offered. Science (read Academy), if it ever decides to turn intellectually honest, would come out and announce how it happened originally and humans were persuaded to believe in the absurd idea of the immaterial gods. That giant quote you posted was from an anthropologist. You're going from a little bit annoying to completely wacko. If you're going to take everything people say and answer with , "no, not that, nu-uh, not what I meant, nope, you're wrong", don't expect much in return. How can the hypothesis of who wrote the Bible and why, NOT tell us about a major event in the history of religion?

Dimitrios, I will answer your questions latter on tonight. Busy now, but I want to respond. mike

Actually, it all goes back to the biological basics. If you believe that human beings are a direct supernatural creation in the form of a biological animal by a supernatural creator for the express purpose of venerating that creator, and that that creator in one way or another embedded the urge to establish religions for that purpose, then you need not read any further. However, if you are of the opinion, as am I, that all human beings and their tribal cultures and civilizations at any point in time is the sole result of biological and cultural evolution without the intervention of a supernatural being, then you may have some interest in my thoughts on this.
The essence of existence is survival. If an animal, including humans, does not live to reproduce then everything physical that that organism represents, does not extend into the future. Human beings, along with other primates, also exist in groups; families, tribes, cultures, communities, villages, cities, nations and religious communities, all of which are essentially subsets of the common gene pool of the human species. Survival over time, and the inherent ability to change in physical and cultural characteristics is the key factor in forming the future of any species, or any human culture. Without the injection of a supernatural being that controls the future according to prearranged plan, their is no rational argument that circumvents the flow of our biological existence. However… humans have created ways that modify this law of biological existence that have been in effect through the many thousands of years of human development. When language and then written language came into existence, then for the first time in human history the concepts, imaginings, and historical events of human cultures could be preserved beyond the biological limitations of the human species. And within recent time we have discovered the biological genetic roots of life and the possibility exists for the actual recreation of an extinct species through manipulation and cloning of the preserved genetic codes of species long gone from the stage of earthly life.
It seems that the human species has always been able to exist cooperatively in numbers and assist each other in the processes of life and living, thus survival of the group. It also seems that the human species has had little problem with the total annihilation of the life and culture of other human groups that were/are in competition for living space and natural resources that were/are critical for survival of their group.
In my opinion, the foundation human survival is the emotions of love and compassion. And the foundation of compassion stems from the behavior that evolved to nurture, protect and thereby insure the survival of infants born to vertebrate species that depend on long gestation times and a long period of juvenile development. (Behavior that is quite evident in many vertebrate species in the world today.) Without care and protection of the few progeny requiring a long infancy, a species could not survive. This compassion is also reflected in strong family ties and as humanity evolved, extension of compassionate behavior to members of the extended family expanded into a cooperative tribal community. Those early proto human tribes that could express compassion and protection to the extended family group could best survive and grow through cooperation, and through cooperation, could develop the behavior and the concomitant physical and behavioral specializations that enhanced attainment of divergent life supporting behaviors; such as child care, food preparation, hunting animals, and very important, defense of the tribe and the ability to exert warfare against competing tribes. Biological and cultural evolution directed by environmental changes over deep time formed the modern human species.
There had to have been quite a conflict between the essential emotional behavior of compassion for children and family/tribal members; and the necessity of being able to reject and kill members of other families/tribes that were in competition for the essential resources of food, territory, water, shelter, and other requirements for survival. A form of authority was needed to provide direction and distinction that allowed child care and protection of family tribal members, but also allowed and encouraged the warfare and destruction of competing human tribes. And indeed that is the history of the development of humanity. This authority was found and codified in the concept of a god(s) that cared for them and was expressed through the god’s direction to the tribal leaders. Now by the authority of a supernatural all powerful being, his chosen people could exercise the necessary compassion within the tribe to enhance survival; and in direct opposition to this essential inherent behavior, express the also inherent behaviors of predation and aggression against other tribes, and this enhanced their survival at the expense of others of their species. Thus the concept and exercise of what became religion made growth of what we call civilization possible. Group and individual morality is defined by the survival needs of the tribe, implemented through the window of religion, which is opened by the shamans, witch doctors, priests, clerics, preachers, and pontiffs of the tribes. So morality is not an absolute decree by a loving and/or hateful god; it is a pragmatic bending of ancient behavioral patterns into a universal societal conviction that allows that society to do what it deems necessary for the leaders of that society to dominate and prosper. (Religions live and die at the hand of man, i.e, Paul the Apostle, Henry VIII and the Church of England, the Catholic and Orthodox churches, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard, to name a few.)
As long as we ascribe to and obey the human formulated edicts of a supernatural god, the future of humanity will be controlled by those who would use the authority of religion to cloak and finance their institutional, governmental, and personal agendas.

And you are an arrtogant fool if you are calling Mathematics a god. Mathematics is a *function of universal spacetime.*
It was you who wrote: I am an atheist who believes in meta-physics, I believe in a Mathematical Universe. You thus presented a parallelism between the creator God and the… Mathematical Universe. We are not discussing astrophysics here, so what is this nonsense about the mathematical universe. If you are an atheist you only have to state “I know there is no God", but you cannot say that because you are a common agnostic. Moreover, any theologian would tell you that the God is the one who created your silly mathematical universe.
Of course it was, but to call Plato a scumbag tells me more about you than you will ever know about me.
We, Greek atheists, hate the guts of that scumbag Plato because we’ve read his work. Have you?
As we should because they were ignorant goat herders. And you are seriously deluded if you think they had it right..
goat herders!! So you are a racist on top of being an ignoramus! The “G" God concept belongs to ancient Egyptians. The Tanakh, the book that the… goat herders wrote, describes the God to be a scumbag of the caliber of Plato, but having got an ape’s mind burdened with the mathematics of the mathematical universe you certainly could do no better.
But your disrespect of not reading and learning something about the history of the emergence of gods into the human society, speaks of ignorance and vanity.
Present the evidence and then we can talk.
As an atheist I care less about the history of religion which has been proved false so many times that to equate that with some kind of serious area of inquiry is absurd. I say God does not exist and you say yes I do, as if you have all the answers.
To be an atheist you have to prove that God does not exist and, that, you can only do through the knowledge of the history of religion, which enables one to show that the God idea is a monumental hoax based on an archaic joke.
If you cannot present an viable alternative to the mathematical function of everything, you have no standing here at all.
Who gives a sh*t about your mathematical function of everything? We are discussing the origins of religion here.
Obviously you know nothing about physics, or you would understand that mathematics is the antithesis to god and religions. No intent, only function. If you don't know the difference then you are the new age ignorant fool, who refuses to learn anything real about the universe, instead of trying to rewrite the history of religious practices, which has no scientific value at all.
I suggest that you see someone about your obsession with the mathematically functioning universe; and it is not about the history of religious practices but about the history of religion, meaning the story of how humans came to believe in the God who created the mathematically functioning universe
But if you so easily dismiss the time I spent on research, you are not worthy of my attention. Good bye and try to be well.
Research on the… mathematically behaving universe, I guess. :roll:
So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests? If I insulted humanity by insisting they worshiped the sun( for lack of any other gods put forth) aren't you insulting humanity even more by insisting that these people believed morons who were telling them the sun was a god?
People are fed mental rubbish while still kids. People can be made to believe anything, but as grownups they do not produce idiotic concepts of the sort of the heavenly immaterial gods. The ancient Celts would lend money on a promissory note for repayment in the next world. That means that they would sell their house agreeing to collect in the other world so that they could buy a house there. How did it happen and they came to believe something so absurd? There is a story behind that belief as it is a story behind the belief in immaterial gods.
After all on the face of it, worshiping the sun "naturally" so to speak is far more endearing(and plausible!) than explaining the people thought the sun was a god because other people told them it was.
OK, I am going to tell you a story now. I am a retired Master Mariner and while a Third Mate I was part of a crew that was sent to Japan to take delivery of a brand new super tanker. On sailing, a Japanese superintendent engineer came along to monitor the engines. Every afternoon I had to go to the bridge to relieve the Chief Mate so that he could go for his dinner. At the time that the setting sun was touching the horizon, the Japanese was on the bridge, facing the sun and slightly bowing while he was whispering something. I have been an atheist by birth, yet his behavior was touching. I do not know whether he was regarding the sun as a god, but he was acting as if he was thanking that thing in the sky providing light and warmth; and that answers your next question:
Besides that, what the heck do you think people thought the Sun was before priests told them it was a god? 40,000 years ago. 60,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?
The concept of gods (the God concept came much later) had to somehow be produced in a society that the god idea did not obtain. That means that we may not say “they deified the sun, the moon, or the lighting". For the ancients the gods were common people and to say that they believed that a common man was on the clouds sending down thunder and lightning, is ridiculous. How the gods’ concept was produced? It is written in the texts: the children of an archaic generation were told that the old kings climbed a ladder each and went to live in the sky. From there on the theologians took over, with the result today’s humans to be able to understand the term “god" only as denoting a superhuman being.
TimB said: Well, at least the video explains the rise of Donald Trump. But I think that it is a leap, correct or not, to say that the chimp had a conception of God. But, yeah, I think it is a step towards that.
But is that not the underlying concept of all Gods? The *unseen and unknown* force that makes things happen, by any name, such as Thor. That little clip tells a very large story, if you analyze it carefully. Apes don't have names for things, but obviously this chimp was *aware* of extraordinary and unexplanable events. The names came later with homo sapiens, but the fundamental story never changed, it just became more sophisticated in expression along with the development of speech, and stories of *talking burning bushes*
Yes, in large part, I think that religions developed as a product of our complex verbal behavior. (If we ever find out that dolphins, for example, who are also highly social creatures, happen to have complex verbal behavior, I would not be surprised to find that they had developed something like religion, also.) It's about narratives.