7 of 23
7
Definition of Atheist
Posted: 11 June 2013 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  108
Joined  2013-05-31

@Mike Yohe
Sort of agreeing with you, at least I think so. Ask Write4U to quote the Tao Te Ching.

@Write4U
From what I’ve seen of Bohm via your quotes, I don’t have to argue with him. I don’t know if he ever uses the term “God”; doesn’t matter. That’s just my preference.

Lot of quibbling about semantics.

Quotes from Bohm:

“the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter”

“knowledge of matter (as well as of mind) has changed in such a way as to support the approach that has been described here. To pursue this approach further might perhaps enable us to extend our knowledge of both poles into new domains”

During the process of the various conversations, in these forums, I’ve come to appreciate that God does not exist.  And also, that this does not in anyway change God.

For me the question is, how to improve expression of It.  i.e. Yoga. or Scientific enquiry? 

As Mike suggests:

“... to find the knowledge inside of you, you have to seek it.”

[ Edited: 11 June 2013 09:34 AM by brmckay ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 11:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Brmckay   Post #91
Thanks brmckay for your post.

*This is just a side note for brmckay, it is off subject of the posting.

Nothing gets the people’s interest like a good battle.

The atheists got beat up in the beginning, going back fifty years, of the evolution vs. creation battle. But the atheist evolved and got organized with great thinkers and philosophers and the superpower religion saw this and left the battle field.  The atheists now have all these highly educated philosophers sitting around because the fundamentalist left the field of battle and do not want to fight the atheists.
Doesn’t mean fundamentalist have gone; they just change their methods of management and stay away from the atheist. The super power or organized religions are the ones I am talking about. You still have the individual fundis that come around.

The atheists are at a stand still right now. They need to get ready for another battle or go to bed.

To get ready the battle they need to get their weapons ready. The weapons are knowledge and facts. The delivery system is words. And if they can’t agree on the definition of “atheist” that is understood by everybody, they should give up and go to bed. In understanding the definition of “atheist” one has to understand the definition of “god”. And it is my feeling that many atheist do not.

Once the definition of god and atheist are accomplished then take the battle to the fundamentalist to the point you get the superpower religions back into battle.

And that is easy. Just use what they have been trying to bury for last two thousand years. The true meaning of Gnostic religion. And the atheist will have Jesus on their side. That will confuse the hell out of the people and get their interest.

What would America hope to gain in another battle like the evolution vs. creation battle you may ask?  One giant step for mankind. And the ability to stop the damage of Christian movements, like the war on drugs.

The Christians, Islam, and Eastern religions all have misrepresented forms of Gnostic in them. But it is a major common factor of the Gnostic religious building blocks of those religions that has been misunderstood. 

It is also quite possibly the only god and religion that atheistic would have no problem with and even endorse. 

History has shown us that mankind had created god out of need and has always needed a god. And as mankind has evolved so has god.

[ Edited: 11 June 2013 11:19 AM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 12:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  108
Joined  2013-05-31

Thanks for the peek behind the curtain.

Fingers crossed.  Wars can be messy.

[ Edited: 11 June 2013 01:14 PM by brmckay ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

What are the vehicles of Gnostic transmission?
Jesus preached. It took the Christian religion over 300 years to evolve.
Gnostic never got to evolve. So we have to stick with the main thoughts.

Is this blogging business likely to work?
No, it will have to be picked up by the philosophers for a real war game. We just have to let them know that were ready for them to move us in that direction.
What would that look like?
A lot of new books out on the subject. News coverage. Then the superpowers coming out to disclaim the findings and calling it a new movement, a bunch of lies based upon false theories. Sort of like the evolution vs. creation had to go through at the beginning.

Two things the super churches don’t like are Gnostic and DNA.  You know according to “religious DNA” all things in the bible are true. Talk about misdirection. 
Can any atheist please define to me what “religious DNA” is?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04

I hadn’t heard the term “religious DNA”, but I assume it refers to how cultural belief systems are passed on in an analagous way as are biological traits. i.e., those cultural beliefs that are most beneficial to the maintenace and survival of a particular culture are most likely to be passed on through the progression of time.

Alternatively, it could refer, I suppose, to proclivities toward becoming religious that are passed on by actual DNA.  This would suggest that such proclivities, if they exist, have either been of survival value to our predecesors or that they are at least a spandrel (a sort of by product of evolution that is artifactual but has not been necessary in and of itself to promote survival to reproduction).

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 June 2013 03:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
TimB - 11 June 2013 02:48 PM

I hadn’t heard the term “religious DNA”, but I assume it refers to how cultural belief systems are passed on in an analagous way as are biological traits. i.e., those cultural beliefs that are most beneficial to the maintenace and survival of a particular culture are most likely to be passed on through the progression of time.

Alternatively, it could refer, I suppose, to proclivities toward becoming religious that are passed on by actual DNA.  This would suggest that such proclivities, if they exist, have either been of survival value to our predecesors or that they are at least a spandrel (a sort of by product of evolution that is artifactual but has not been necessary in and of itself to promote survival to reproduction).

I like it. A primitive instinct to fear the tiger in the shadows, which may be beneficial as a survival tool. This defensive tool seems to be present in all mammals.

But as history shows this instinctual belief system is a double edged sword and can be beneficial or detrimental or both.  In humans it can lead to a belief system in an unseen benefactor as well as an unseen enemy. Humans have rituals to worship the beneficial ghost or offer human sacrifice to mollify the detrimental ghost.

In humans ritual has become very sophisticated, in most animals it is unchanged. We have elaborate pomp and circumstance to publicize the ‘sacredness’ of god. An army may “martyr” themselves in service of a holy crusade. A herd of buffalo may drive themselves over a cliff by the sight of a single wolf.

One thing seems to be true, belief (fear) in “unseen” entities has been with us since the very beginning and may well be a result of our “mirror neural network” in the brain.

from wiki,

Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular complex behavior.

An instinct should be distinguished from a reflex, which is a simple response of an organism to a specific stimulus, such as the contraction of the pupil in response to bright light or the spasmodic movement of the lower leg when the knee is tapped. Instincts, in contrast, are inborn complex patterns of behavior that must exist in every member of the species and that cannot be overcome by force of will.[2] However, the absence of volitional capacity must not be confused with an inability to modify fixed action patterns. For example, people may be able to modify a stimulated fixed action pattern by consciously recognizing the point of its activation and simply stop doing it, whereas animals without a sufficiently strong volitional capacity may not be able to disengage from their fixed action patterns, once activated.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

[ Edited: 11 June 2013 04:05 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 04:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9280
Joined  2006-08-29
TimB - 11 June 2013 02:48 PM

I hadn’t heard the term “religious DNA”, but I assume it refers to how cultural belief systems are passed on in an analagous way as are biological traits. i.e., those cultural beliefs that are most beneficial to the maintenace and survival of a particular culture are most likely to be passed on through the progression of time.

Alternatively, it could refer, I suppose, to proclivities toward becoming religious that are passed on by actual DNA.  This would suggest that such proclivities, if they exist, have either been of survival value to our predecesors or that they are at least a spandrel (a sort of by product of evolution that is artifactual but has not been necessary in and of itself to promote survival to reproduction).

I think the evidence clearly points to religiosity being highly heritable. And FWIW, I am inclined to see it as a byproduct of other traits.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 07:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 12 June 2013 04:35 AM
TimB - 11 June 2013 02:48 PM

I hadn’t heard the term “religious DNA”, but I assume it refers to how cultural belief systems are passed on in an analagous way as are biological traits. i.e., those cultural beliefs that are most beneficial to the maintenace and survival of a particular culture are most likely to be passed on through the progression of time.

Alternatively, it could refer, I suppose, to proclivities toward becoming religious that are passed on by actual DNA.  This would suggest that such proclivities, if they exist, have either been of survival value to our predecesors or that they are at least a spandrel (a sort of by product of evolution that is artifactual but has not been necessary in and of itself to promote survival to reproduction).

I think the evidence clearly points to religiosity being highly heritable. And FWIW, I am inclined to see it as a byproduct of other traits.

I, too, can see how “religiosity” could be a passed-on by-product of other biological traits.  And I suppose that neither of us completely rules out the possibility that “religiosity” has been inherited due to past-survival-to-reproduction-advantages.

However, it seems clear to me that the particular religions that exist, do so, primarily, due to the adoption of rules, dogma, ritual, or other practices that support the cohesion, maintenance, and/or growth of the particular religious groups.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Religious DNA, I guess that would be RDNA, but I have never seen it used that way.
The first time is seen it used was in story about the Jewish religion. I was written by a top Rabbi, I didn’t copy because I got to many files now. I have seen it used many times but always in relationship to Israel and the Middle East.
The Palestinians were claiming closer DNA roots to Israel than most of the Israelis and Rabbis and they wanted to do a DNA test. They were claiming most of the Jewish people in Israel were originally from Europe and Russia and the DNA test would prove it.
Israel came back with religious DNA for proof that Israel has always been theirs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2013 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
Mike Yohe - 12 June 2013 10:00 AM

Religious DNA, I guess that would be RDNA, but I have never seen it used that way.
The first time is seen it used was in story about the Jewish religion. I was written by a top Rabbi, I didn’t copy because I got to many files now. I have seen it used many times but always in relationship to Israel and the Middle East.
The Palestinians were claiming closer DNA roots to Israel than most of the Israelis and Rabbis and they wanted to do a DNA test. They were claiming most of the Jewish people in Israel were originally from Europe and Russia and the DNA test would prove it.
Israel came back with religious DNA for proof that Israel has always been theirs.

Well, that is another way of using the term that didn’t occur to me.  Judaism is unique among the Abrahamic religions in that it is comprised mostly of Jews who can theoretically trace back their biological heritage through the maternal lineage.  One could be Jewish and be an atheist, but they would still share DNA in common with other Jewish people.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 02:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Mike Yohe - 01 June 2013 06:33 PM

[What about the definition of “theist”?]

In today’s world I would have to throw theist in the same box.

History shows us that man did not always have this problem.

All gods had names, most had wives and children. And the use of terms like atheist and theist would have presented different problems depending on the Gods.
Note, of course earlier god were animals and some were part human and part animal. I am not going that far back in history for this answer.

How much do we understand god today?
Answer some simple questions.
a.  When did your religion begin?
b.  How many gods are there in your religion?
c.  What other religions is your religion related to?
d.  Who was the first man to go to heaven?
e.  Who was the first man to go to hell?
f.  Who was the first man to go to heaven and hell and return?

Who do you think would be most likely to have looked for these answers, an atheist or a theist?

Duh? An Atheist. You’d likely find that more self-claimed atheists know relatively way more than the average believer of any particular religion popular within their region. The reality is that most ‘believers’ are actually secular in their attitudes and only believe they believe in some common faith that they find obsessively too boring to bother investigating!

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Mike Yohe - 02 June 2013 02:15 AM

Sr. Member,
“An atheist is one who LACKS a belief in any god or gods.”

That’s good.
And I have always seen and understand what you are saying.

But,

In ten thousand years of religion, we have had atheist for what, a couple hundred years.

I am just saying, mankind created gods. History shows us that man needed gods before he need pottery.

And look at the red ochre burials, that show up everywhere on earth, some going back over 100,000 years.

I just think that there is the possibility that as gods have changed so much that people do not believe in today’s gods. I know I don’t.

I called myself an atheist for years. Mainly because I don’t believe in belief. I want facts and knowledge. 

Today I have a harder time calling myself an atheist, mainly because of the studying of the Gnostic word and older religions history. I just get a feeling that I am not 100% correct in calling myself an atheist.

So, what has changed?  Well mainly my views of what god is and should be.

Now, look at the Gnostic Jesus, just a man. A man telling us to learn and seek knowledge.  And that we are all part of god.
The Gnostic Jesus never said god created everything or there was a heaven or hell.

So, if the Gnostic Jesus’ god is built on knowledge and not belief, and you and everyone on earth is part of god. Then god is found by using knowledge.

Then your statement
“An atheist is one who LACKS a belief in any god or gods.”

Will work for everyone except the Buddha, Hindus and Gnostics.
Now I might be 100% wrong on that last statement. But I would have a hard time calling the above groups atheists because their thinking itself is in a way god like.

Sorry for using so many words to get my thoughts out. It’s the first time I’ve been vocal about these thoughts.

You’re confusing the concept of “Gnosticism” of a particular religion (the belief that God can only be known, understood, or experienced by a particular prescribed set of ‘knowledge’) to the generic term, “gnostic” (knowledge). A good example may suffice: the term, abracadabra was derived from the religious Gnostics of Egypt that mimicked the idea that their words, as secret wisdom, could cause reality to occur. The Gnostic roots are also revealed in, “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the word was God.” Since writing was rare due to its expense and intensive investment to create in ancient times, it was seen as having power in and of itself. This phrase indicated that (?)John believed that probably the evidence of the written word either predated God’s existence or that the word had spoken God into existence metaphysically. Or, it makes God and “The Word” interchangeable (the literal manuscript of God’s story is God itself).

“LACKS” is the inappropriate word to describe an atheist because it suggests they are missing something. An atheist would be better described as anyone who proposes the the position of their absence of belief in theistic principles or claims of truth about the world based precisely on them because the support for such beliefs do not provide sufficient evidence to justify their claims either directly or indirectly; Also, for those atheists who have invested learning in it can easily find sufficient reasons to justify that theistic beliefs have equally valid human sources of origins or creation without requiring the content to be based on reality.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 03:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Mike Yohe - 11 June 2013 02:09 PM

...
Two things the super churches don’t like are Gnostic and DNA.  You know according to “religious DNA” all things in the bible are true. Talk about misdirection. 
Can any atheist please define to me what “religious DNA” is?

Religious DNA is a reference to the proposed God Gene a gene that may presumably predispose one to spiritual or mystic experiences. I think it’s too vague and abstract to credit any gene to complex religious thought. It could have been just as easily been labeled the Creative Gene and its logic fits with that too: a gene that predisposes one to creative or imaginative experiences, taken lightly as anything you speak on the top of your mind that doesn’t fit with reality to serious schizophrenic hallucinations. It would be the idea that God is somehow fixed to be known within your DNA that the fundamentalists would want people to latch on to. Then things like Atheism is a real aberration because then we would be truly considered to be going against our scientific nature.

Familiar DNA within religious cultural groups are only arguments regarding the legitimizing of land and resources. Obviously, Jewish Israelis would love to provide more reason to justify their unappealing actions to the world at large by demonstrating DNA connections that link them directly to the historical lands of Palestine. It also gives them better self-justification for whatever injustices that they possibly perceive themselves to be doing to the Palestinians.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 03:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2232
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 12 June 2013 04:35 AM
TimB - 11 June 2013 02:48 PM

I hadn’t heard the term “religious DNA”, but I assume it refers to how cultural belief systems are passed on in an analagous way as are biological traits. i.e., those cultural beliefs that are most beneficial to the maintenace and survival of a particular culture are most likely to be passed on through the progression of time.

Alternatively, it could refer, I suppose, to proclivities toward becoming religious that are passed on by actual DNA.  This would suggest that such proclivities, if they exist, have either been of survival value to our predecesors or that they are at least a spandrel (a sort of by product of evolution that is artifactual but has not been necessary in and of itself to promote survival to reproduction).

I think the evidence clearly points to religiosity being highly heritable. And FWIW, I am inclined to see it as a byproduct of other traits.


religiosity is passed on through memes rather than genes.


A meme [1] is “an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.”[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

a b Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (2 ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 192, ISBN 0-19-286092-5, “We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to ‘memory’, or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream’.”

Wikipedia.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
Lois - 13 June 2013 03:20 AM

religiosity is passed on through memes rather than genes.


A meme [1] is “an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.”[2] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

Lois,  I think that you would be correct about this, if you had said that “particular religious cultures”  are passed on through memes.  And you may be correct, to some extent, in asserting that “religiosity” (which I consider to be a bias or proclivity toward seeing the world in religious terms) is passed on by memes.  However, I think that you should not rule out that “religiosity” is an inherent quality in humans.  The ubiquity of religiosity across the world, and across human history and even, seemingly, prehistory, suggests the possibility of something being in play beyond just memes.

If nothing else, at some level, our ability to produce memes is a product of evolution.  But I suspect that “religiosity” involves more than just our ability to produce memes.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 23
7
 
‹‹ A Thitd Sex?      Excellent definition ››