Evolutionist/Atheist Mano Singham interviewed

[NLN]

A new interview with evolutionist/atheist Mano Singham can be found here. To quote him:

 

"Once you concede the idea of a god, you have ceased to think rationally in that area of your life, and are prey to those who preach extreme forms of religion. Of course, most people do not go so far, but that is because most people are not really that religious, though they say and act like they are. In the TV show House, someone asks the title character whether he is an atheist and he replies "Only on Christmas and Easter. The rest of the time it doesn't seem to matter." I think he is right. Most people are just nominally religious and unlikely to go off the deep end. It is the deeply religious who can be persuaded to do appalling things in the name of god because it is only they who will let their humane and ethical and common senses be overridden by the idea that god wants them to commit specific acts."

[HydrogenBond]

If you compare creationism to evolution, the evolutionists have the upper hand because they have spent a lot of time and effort backing up their claims with data and scientific investigations. I have no problen rendering onto Caesar what is Caesars, in the debate of evolution-creation.

 

But when it comes to the question of whether aetheism is a religion, the shoe is on the other foot. The aetheists are sort of the creationists, which based their perception on the Adam and Eve of science; Darwin and Freud. Religion has pondered philosophies and religions for thousands of years and are sort of analogous to the evolutionists, when it comes to religion. They have a much better handle of how religion has evolved and how various religions have come and gone. Aetheism is not really new, but these pseudo-creationists don't have a enough long term data to determine if they are a religion or not.

 

For example, some eastern religions, that are fairly old, did not have a formal god but saw the way as connected to developing the mind. This may have been the aethist model for religion, which has been modernized to recruit membership. To determine, if aethesim is another religion requires calling the religious experts, since they have far more expertise in the nature of religion. Allowing the aetheists self policing is like allowing business to determine whether they wish to classify themselves as charities so they can be tax exampt. One know how that ends.

 

If the experts determine aetheism to be a religion, then the separation of church and state needs to apply in America. Everyone has the right to practive their religion, but no religion can recieve federal funding. We need to render onto Caesar, and make sure he is not paying for religion. Science is developed enough to see what is physically possible, while religion is developed enough to see which belief systems are religions. This is a question that the experts in religion need to address if they wish to be continue being considered the experts in such matters.

 

In a very simple analysis, the word God appears in most religious writtngs, although the name is often different. If you read any aetheist doctrine, the word God also appears.

[ughaibu]

The aetheists are sort of the creationists, which based their perception on the Adam and Eve of science; Darwin and Freud

Which is which?

[HydrogenBond]

I would make Darwin, Eve, since his theory had a connection to mother nature. Freud was dealing with the human spirit or mind, which is the realm of the symbolic masculine principle. This makes them sort of a gay Adam and Eve pair. What that did was alter the natural feminine principle in favor of a masculine rendition of female instinct. It sort of analogous to a gay male who acts like an exaggerated female, who appears to be more of a stereo-typical women than most of the women, themselves.

 

This feminine rendition contains much more male projection of what they think a women is or what they would like a woman to be. The males, influenced by this exagerated woman, become more of a projection of what females think males should be. This is a feminine type male that contains female projections of their ideal rendition of a male. It is sort of the blind leading the blind, with the male trying to increase his desire and the female increasing security. One could have concluded the natural would get abberated as males and females break with nature.

 

With the natural gone, anything is possible as long as masculine desire and female security appear to be the result of the abberation. The aetheist need to get rid of God, since this concept gets in the way. But the looser male causes security problems for the females, so they need to increase regulations in an attempt to circumvent the increasing chaos. But with the males more feminized, there is a decrease is strong masculine type impulses, such that a type of progressing balance has appeared.

 

If you look at Darwin and the existing theory of selective advantage, this is more of a male projection of nature, which goes along with how males have traditionally interacted in culture. The dominant male sort of controls the rest of the males and has a preferential affect on the females, since his power is assumed to mean better genes, that females want for their children.

 

A feminine version of natural selection is not the same. The females have a softer spot for the underdog. They want security in the male dominated culture, but once the securit is set, they often will put more time into the child that needs extra support. These could be the sick child or the spoiled rotten child, neither of which correspond to the male version of selective advantage. These types of genetic changes have a selective advantage with females, since they will often recieve additional care.

 

The complete picture of selective advantage, which includes both male and female instinct, is a combination of the dominant, the rebel and the even the weak. The dominant come to the front in a steady state environment, whereas the rebel and weak may require an alternation within the environment before they can come into their own. Let me give an example, say a salt water fish developed the genetic ability to live in brackish water. In the salt water world, this fish have a disadvantage that could make it sick and weak all the time. The female may protect it against the dominant males. It may eventually be forced out when it gets too old for the mother to protect. If it find a new environment that has brackish water, now it has a selective advantage. If had been dominated and destroyed within the old environment, due to being weak and sickly, its new evolutionary capability may never have surfaced.

 

In that brackish environment, if the dominant male of the salt water environment decided to end the sickly genetics, and went after him, he would find himself in a brackish environment where he feels weak. Now he is the weak and sickly one. His selective advantage was only dominant in the salt water, where he was the big dog. The former weakling is now the king of the hill in this new environment. If the female instinct had not protected him, this new genetics would have been lost. This suggests that animal migration was an important part of evolution. The females may have protected the genetic aberration with the instinctive hope they would find their niche. This addendum to evolution makes better use of female instinct, compared to traditional Darminism which is more geared to the masculine side and evolution within a very narrow eco-system. The migration of the humans eventually allowed them to find their niche.

 

Some times the odd ball is better adapted to the flux of change since their genetic changes may be anticipating a new environment, but may not work out to well in an environment that is at steady state. One merely needs to pertubate an eco-system and sometimes the king of the hill is lost and odd members lower on the totem poles begin to flourish. Thanks to the female instinct nature is always ready for the change.

[ughaibu]

The amazing thing is, you're probably serious.

[InfiniteNow]

This is a wonderful dialog:

 

The Four Horsemen - Hour 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869630813464694890

 

The Four Horsemen - Hour 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-225595257312538919

[NLN]

We mustn't forget that atheism isn't "something"; it is the lack of something (i.e., religion).

[InfiniteNow]

We mustn't forget that atheism isn't "something"; it is the lack of something (i.e., religion).

 

Huh? Of course it's something. Have you drunk too much jesus juice?

 

 

Even nothing is something. Now, that's a true paradox.

[NLN]

I meant that atheism is the lack of belief in god. It is not a belief in-and-of-itself.

[InfiniteNow]

I meant that atheism is the lack of belief in god. It is not a belief in-and-of-itself.

 

And, in response, I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post. Upon clarification, it turns out that we are in complete agreement.

 

 

Members should check out the discussion I linked above. Open, articulate, and based in the spirit of kindness and curiosity.

[NLN]

Yes, the "Four Horsemen" talk is excellent. I think you'll get a kick out of this parody as well.

[C1ay]

But when it comes to the question of whether aetheism is a religion, the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Not really. Religion is a belief system. A system of beliefs, values and practices by which followers live their lives. Atheism is none of that.

 

This does not mean that all atheism is free of belief or faith though. By definition a·theist simply means not·theist. This means that everyone that is not a theist, someone that believes in a deity, is an atheist. There are different shades of atheists though. Some simply lack a belief in deities, weak atheists, while others affirmatively believe there are no deities, strong atheists. Strong atheists have a belief that is based in faith as much as believers in religion do. Even so, it does not make their belief a belief system, i.e. a religion.

[jedaisoul]

Not really. Religion is a belief system. A system of beliefs, values and practices by which followers live their lives. Atheism is none of that.

 

This does not mean that all atheism is free of belief or faith though. By definition a·theist simply means not·theist. This means that everyone that is not a theist, someone that believes in a deity, is an atheist. There are different shades of atheists though. Some simply lack a belief in deities, weak atheists, while others affirmatively believe there are no deities, strong atheists. Strong atheists have a belief that is based in faith as much as believers in religion do. Even so, it does not make their belief a belief system, i.e. a religion.

The distinction between lack of belief in god(s) and a belief that there are no gods is very interesting. I agree that the lack of belief in gods is not a religion, but I'm not so sure about the belief that there are no gods.

 

For example, taking it out of the religious context for the moment, what about the belief whether (or not) there is a giant asteroid on a collision course with the Earth? Surely that is a belief that may affect the way in which you chose to live your life?

a) Someone who has never heard of asteroids, or does not care one way or the other, does not base their life on the likelihood of asteriod impact. They are neutral, neither "believers" nor "non-believers".

:) Someone who believes there is a high likelihood of a catastrophic impact within their lifetime we may call the "believers".

c) Someone who believes there is no likelihood of a catastrophic impact we may call the "non-believers".

 

So the impact on the way they chose to live their life may be comparable (although different) for the "believers" and the "non-believers". Does that "make their (respective) belief a belief system, i.e. a religion"?

 

On the other hand, there is a difference between believing that an asteriod impact is imminent, and starting a religion based on the presumed existence of an asteriod god that needs appeasing. Perhaps that is the difference you (C1ay) are suggesting?

 

Anyway, I think the most important distinction is not whether someone is religious or not, but whether they respect the right of others not to agree with them. That distinguishes the religious zelot (of whatever persuasion) from the rest of us.

[C1ay]

On the other hand, there is a difference between believing that an asteriod impact is imminent, and starting a religion based on the presumed existence of an asteriod god that needs appeasing. Perhaps that is the difference you (C1ay) are suggesting?

 

All I'm saying is that the single belief that there is/are no God(s) is not a belief system (a system of beliefs, values and practices by which followers live their lives) in and of itself and is therefore not a religion.