I’m sorry if I’m interupting, but I thought this was a nice quip…
Mencken’s Creed
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty…
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech…
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
Wow, you are similar to a theist when it comes to the State. A corporatocracy? No, that’d be what you get when you do have a state, like the US government. That’s a corporatocracy.
No, it wouldn’t. And you’re STILL thinking very narrowly/superficially.
How did you come to your belief? Was it taught to you over and over and over and over and over in a state-run brainwashing facility, i.e. state-run school?
Similar to a theist? Because I happen to realize the ultimate function of government, at it’s most basic level, is organization? I’m sure what someone is going for is the tendency of men to mass power over others. I’m sure that’s a factor. But it doesn’t neglect the benefits of having a centralized authority. Even some of the old theocracies had their benefits.
But am I taking it on faith that we need some form of government. Well, to some degree in the fact that I’ve not researched many cultures without a centralized government, but for the most part such social anarchies take the form of hunter gather sorts. It would take a little bit to back it up, but at present I can’t imagine we could do without some form of centralized administration, not without ditching 90% of the population. We depend on the infrastructure for our very existence. Most of the research in this regard that I’m familiar with is the the devastating effect of nuclear weapons before the idea of nuclear winter was proposed. Being bombed back into the stone isn’t far from the truth.
But much of this isn’t open dialog but attempts to gratify one’s ego, which is very silly.
The US is pretty close to a corporatocracy. We are not actually governed directly by the corporations.
But as far as being similar to theists, I find it frustrating that we have this assertion that disbelief in god(s) is the default, when it seems to be the norm. It’s a very interesting assertion, one which I would want to see the evidence to support. But rather than address it from a sociological or psychological perspective, those I see making it it taking it ON FAITH that without influence from society one won’t develop their own god(s).
I mean, it sounds logical enough, children are born without belief in god(s). That’s rather meaningless as children are burn without the major cognitive and reasoning skills to propose such a proposition let alone draw a conclusion.
No I’m not. I’m struggling to think or cultures that don’t have a centralized form of government. The only ones that some close to qualifying are under gather type societies. Even tribes tend to have some form of centralized administration even if it is most rudimentary. In an ideal world, if we all lived in harmony with each other, perhaps we could get by without it.
In order to play into your state run conspiracy theory, part of it does come from government studies as to the effect of the loss of infrastructure as a result of nuclear war, and without some form of organization basic city services would fall apart. Unless you take it on faith that people would just take it upon them selves to maintain the essential services without outside intervention. But at the very minimum we’re talking about a council.
Yes, in the past it was the norm for societies to create god(s). It seems perfectly natural to personify the world around you in order to relate to it. Simple narratives to help you remember when to plant, when to pack up I’m sure were damn useful. Many of the earliest societies were basically theocracies where it was believed that the leadership had some mystical connection with the universe. Though science and centuries of building on prior knowledge, we understand the sun rises because the earth spins, we understand the seasons are due to the tilt in the earth, and we understand the stars above are suns some distance away. But without this prior understanding, do you assert that a given man wouldn’t attempt to put some order to the universe, create some means of relating to it?
But your assertion that the god(s) served to help found the first bureaucracies is at least interesting. This could be the source of god(s). I can’t deny that divine retribution is powerful motivation to adopt a code of conduct.
Much like religion, the utility of government is a myth, which the young are inculcated into believing. There is little to no proof of it, other than very spurious economic theory which assumes more than it proves (e.g. public goods theory, which assumes the market cannot provide certain goods; why can’t it?) This thread is not the place for the discussion, so I invite you to read Rothbard’s For a New Liberty or the Tannehills’ The Market for Liberty or Murphy’s Chaos Theory, as a starting point. In case you did not know, the majority of us here are market anarchists, and the rest minarchists.
As to the default belief assertion, yeah, and as I have repeatedly stated it’s not what is in contention. No one is disagreeing that most people believe in some god or other. But it’s neither here nor there with regard to where the ontological burden of proof is in rational argumentation.
The function of government is not myth, and it would seem that religion played an important part. Egyptians are a prime example, as are the early Hebrews.
Exactly my point. It’s proposed that atheism is the default belief without external influences. I’m very interested in what evidence there is to support that conclusion. You can rationalize it just fine. For example, isolated Pacific island where the people have never seen an aircraft. You could say it’s it’s their default position that people can’t fly in metal birds, or they don’t belief in big metal birds. But the fact is, they don’t exist in their world, and as such you can’t say they disbelieve in aircraft.
The real question is, without external influences what is the default conclusion.
I guess it depends on how you define god. Buddhists for the most part are atheists. Taoists can be described as shamistic rather than theistic. But that’s beside the point.
In order to really prove the lack of need for some form of government, as in some centralized authority to help organize and administer a given region, you would need to site an example of a culture that doesn’t have this. The Bushmen might qualify, as might the Sami people (Laplanders), though in order to help protect their rights they had to organize, and in the 1980s actually have a flag.
The Amish might fit into your model somewhat, as each congregation has it’s own leadership, but I think technically it’s a geritocracy, but don’t quote me on that. But still, the Amish are an example of a functional society, with perhaps the exception of not nessicarly having a wide enough population base.
There certainly are public schools, however I would enjoy seeing evidence that they are part of a conspiracy to promote the idea that government is necessary. I will buy that they tend to promote the state’s ideals, and how the state’s ideals are superior to the rival state’s ideals. Maybe the whole class exercise of electing a class president could be seen as brainwashing. I always thought it was an illustration or organization.
All things are passed down, including science. It’s someone assertion that atheism is the default position, where the vast majority of societies developed their own respective god(s). That’s irrelevant. If atheism was the default position, it would stand to reason that god(s) would never be developed. So why are gods developed if atheism is the default position?
I know I’m addressing what seems to be atheistic dogma, but really it’s a valid question.
Sometimes, you do have to hold people at gunpoint in order to get them to organize in the way you want them to organize. People seem to have a tendency of doing this on their own. House, Block, neighborhood, social groups, religion, political ideologies.
There certainly are voluntary organizations. Let’s take for example North Dakota, population under a million, about 642,200 in 2000 or about 9 people per square mile. I’d buy that they could hypothetically ditch government all together. They are on coal power, and do have a good quantity of petroleum and ambient winds of about 10mph. There certainly is enough in the way of land to person ratio in order to not only sustain the population, but to trade as well. If their infrastructure totally breaks down, I see little issue starting from scratch. But really starting from scratch it really helps to have a centralized authority so things like irrigation don’t interfere with transport. But the population base is small enough that you’re average fuckup will only affect a small percent of the people.
A state like Washington, not even a top 10 state in terms of population, has about about 6,395,798. people or a density of about 89people per square mile, then I have a hard time believing that government isn’t necessary. There are with the fish population dwindling, oyster population dwindling, shore seaweed population dwindling, you name it. It’s enough people to really have a negative impact on the environment. Streamlining of services is far more critical under these conditions as well as addressing the impact of industry and over farming of natural resources. I’ll have to check my history books on Washington and Oregon as I think during their territory days they did experiment with the idea of voluntary taxes and groups. IIRC it worked rather well until it was flooded by people starting 1890-1910, exceeding North Dakota’s present population in 1910.
I don’t see this as being a case of brainwashing, but rather looking at the population density.
Why do you persist in not focusing on the main point?
No, you need to show that government is necessary.
What do you think they do, Mr. Strawman creator? I didn’t say conspiracy–YOU did. You might want to note that.
Answer the question.
No it wouldn’t. You clearly have no concept of logic. No one is born believing in a god. Therefore, atheism is the default. You’re probably narrowly defining atheism as the outright denial that gods exist, but that’s not strictly true. Atheism is simply not having god-belief. When you understand that no one is born believing that there is a god, and that means that no one is born having god-belief, you see that atheism necessarily is the default.
Now then: since god-belief is either taught or “created”, what is used to continue this belief to be passed down? What do people do? How do they sell it? Do I really have to hold your hand this much? Are you absolutely incapable of abstract thought?
No, it’s your assertion that we don’t need a government. The burden of proof is yours. Show me a functional society without some form of centralized authority, and administration and I’d be pleased to concede.
I’m not the one who proposed that schools perputate the myth of us needing a government, nor did I bring up brainwashing. Again I’ll buy our state vs their state, but again burden of proof is yours. How is the state brainwashing us into us needing a state?
One is born without much in the way cognitive skills. The chair I sit in is without belief in gods, but using my chair as an example is meaningless. It’s logically sound, but pointless. If I were to hazard to describe early childhood development, as far as the understanding of how the world works, I’d have to lean toward mysticism given how common it is for children to wish really hard for things, such as a pony.
I don’t know for a fact that children are born without something that could be described as belief in god(s).
Which is 100% meaningless if you don’t have the cognitive skills to believe in anything, well, anything beyond sucking on a nipple gets sweet milky goodness. What would have meaning are studies of developing children who haven’t been exposed to god(s) making up their own. Can you provide links to any such studies?
Imaginary friends are reasonably common, Would that suggest that shamanism is actually the default or can we accept the fact that the only meaningful data comes from a person after they have finished their early development?
I could be, you’re thoughts are very abstract in the sense that they hold little practical value.
Obviously knowledge is passed down. The question is, if atheism is the default, then why is theism so common place. All these separate societies that had little to no contact with each other, all for the most part created god(s). Not a small percent, not 50/50. I’m not aware of any society that didn’t have some gods at some point. Most common are storm, sun/moon gods, though notably both the Maya and Japanese perceived the moon as a rabbit.
If atheism is the default, why is theism, shamanism, mysticism so common place in developing societies? What are the actual roots to these beliefs.
If atheism is the default, why are there more gods than we can shake a stick at?
Look, I agree that belief in god(s) is foolish, but I know it’s foolish mainly because we know how the universe works to some degree. We understand gravity, we have made observations of the planets in motion. We’ve observed the planets for what they are, and not just wondering stars. Some still believe there is a god behind it all, and that’s all well and good for some. But it would seem without some valid explanation of how nature WORKS that atheism isn’t actually the default conclusion. But if you have evidence to the contrary, or at least a valid explanation why god(s) are invented but just about every society that has ever lived, do share. Otherwise you are just propagating a baseless assertion.
No, it’s your assertion that government is necessary. The burden of proof is yours. Further, you cannot appeal to common practice, i.e. governments exist, therefore governments are necessary (as you tried to do). That is a fallacy.
Yet that is precisely what they do, just as much as churches or preachers are the “embodiment” of the brainwashing for god-belief.
Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
True. And how then does that mean we’re born with god-belief. You see, THAT is the only way for god-belief to be the default.
No it’s not. For you see: it’s not about what the child can or cannot assert; it’s about what the child has and does not have. If you can provide any link to any study showing that children are born with god belief, as that must necessarily be your stance else you concede to me, I would be happy to read them.
No, they hold much practical value. That you are incapable of grasping them due to your ignorance does not mean that they are wrong. You need to stop believing that just because YOU don’t get it that it MUST be wrong. The utter arrogance of that stance is beyond belief.
That’s what I’ve been getting at, little one. Please STOP trying the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum. You do realize that just because a million people believe something DOES NOT automatically make that the default, right? You’re aware of that fact, right?
Please learn some basics of logical argumentation before you respond. If you continue with your fallacies, I shall simply stop responding to you. I have neither the time nor desire to discuss this with someone who cannot grasp the fallacies s/he has been putting forth.
No, I didn’t bring up goverment you see. I questioned the assertion that atheism is the default, I would enjoy seeing some evidence. The burden of proof is yours.
I don’t say governments exist and therefore are necessary. I say show me a society without one. Show me EVIDENCE that we can operate without one. The proof is in the pudding.
I’m not, I didn’t bring up government. I believe it was your assertion that they are not necessary and I’m just brainwashed. You know, I could be. What evidence to you have that brainwashing takes place? What evidence do you have that government isn’t necessary. Can you show me a working model of a society without a government?
With respect, you’re trying to turn my reasonable request into a strawman. I’m not saying governments exist, so they must exist. I’m asking is there a working model?
So anyone that believes in god(s) is just brainwashed?
I’m certainly aware of this fact. What you don’t seem to be aware of is my question, if atheism is the default, where does god belief come from. You spent much time not “understanding” it’s just passed down. You don’t understand I’m asking “passed down from where”. If we take 100 children not previously indoctrinated with belief in gods, what are the odds they will develop some gods?
Actually, I’m not even here to argue the point. I’m asking for someone to present some evidence that atheism is the default. This seems to be a very common assertion, one IMHO requires some proof. I am an apatheist so you can’t claim I’m just brainwashed by some priest or church. The only proof that’s offered is children are BORN without belief in god(s). This “could” be true.
Children are also born without understanding language. That too is taught (taught sounds better than brainwashed). So where does this language come from? If we are to use your logic, that had to have been a wondering language teacher during the early development of man since we are born without language. Perhaps it’s the same group that started brainwashing the need for government and god(s). (Note I didn’t say conspiracy, and yes you do sound that nutty). But given the wide varsity of languages, it would seem that a given social group naturally develops their own given enough time. Developing language is the norm. This would suggest that communication skills are innate. In fact often times a child’s first sounds are something like bababababa, or papapapa, or mamamama. Baba/papa are very common words. IIRC baba is used as father in Swahili (Bantu family) and Suomi (Finno-Ugric family). I’m not suggesting that children are preprogrammed with words for papa and mama, just siting that languages are developed, passed down, refined, etc… etc… As to where they come from, communication skills seem to be innate.
So that brings be back to my question, what evidence do you have that belief in gods is not the default. The only thing you seem to offer is babies are born without god belief. Could be true, but for a “default” it seems rather the norm to develop god(s). Indoctrination into a religion (FYI this sounds less nutty than brainwashing) is required to accept the local god(s) as your own. Absolutely! But where do these god(s) come from. If it’s the default, then why does the need to invent them come up in the first place?
Perhaps you misunderstand my purpose. I’m not here to stroke my ego, or to argue. I’m interested in the proposed notion that atheism is the default, and any evidence that would suggest as such. It strikes me as intellectual dishonesty to say babies are born without belief in gods. But imaginary friends are common in a child’s early development. I could point at that and say, “Shamanism is the default”. The logical fallacy IMHO is presuming that because children are born without culture that they must be indoctrinated into one. The real question is how many generations does it take to develop anything resembling culture.
Take a group of 1000 babies, toss them on an island. What is the probability they will, presuming they survive, after a few generations, develop god(s). That’s your default conclusion. It would seem to be an innate desire to organize the world around us in order to better relate to it, and without a valid plausible explanation as to how the world works, the norm would seem to be accepting bullshit. But you seem to assert this is not true, that atheism is the default. What evidence do you have of this. I’M VERY INTERESTED in ANY study or even reasoning that would suggest that god(s) are not the norm because the overwhelming number of societies started off with some form of theism, mysticism, or shamanism.
I’m not here for ego gratification, or to win arguments, I’m here for information. If you have events that challenges the existing evidence, which is the majority of societies develop god(s), I want to hear it!
But when it was, you said it was necessary. So you have the burden of proof.
And I already have provided the evidence that atheism is the default. When you can show me that we are born with god-belief, you will have provided the evidence that theism is the default.
Yeah, you do.
Show me evidence that we need one. The proof is in the pudding.
You are.
Show me that we need government. I have no need to show a society without a government. None. You need to show that we need one.
You were saying something before about strawmen…?
Then STOP USING THE FALLACY.
Your question is beyond irrelevant.
Yeah, you are. If not–why do you keep responding and trying to convince me?
And why in the world do you keep lying, anyway? The evidence has been presented to you that atheism is the default. Watch: are we born believing in a god? No. Therefore, atheism is the default.
No.
One.
Is.
Born.
Believing.
That.
There.
Is.
A.
God.
Is that clear enough for you? Must I drop every word into one syllable for you? Are you just that dense?
No, you asserted that it wasn’t necessary. I would be very interested in examples of cultures without government. I would like to see a working example of a culture without one. Otherwise it’s just, at best, a theory. Show me a working model of a society without government, or a plausible model. Are you able to do this?
And actually you have NOT provided evidence that atheism is the default conclusion. You assert that we are born without belief in god(s). That is actually something that would be difficult if not impossible to prove as we are born without language skills and few cognitive skills. It’s impressive enough that we are able to suck on a nipple.
An assertion is not PROOF. I submit that whether a child is born with or without belief in god(s) is a meaningless proposition. Trees are without gods, near as we are aware they possess no cognitive skills. IT’S 100% MEANINGLESS WHAT A BABY THINKS.
Actually i’m trying to get some evidence of your assertion. You raise an interesting sociological question.
Firstly for this to have any meaning, we have to define god. Hypothetically speaking, from a baby’s perspective, mom could be perceived as god. She is after all, from the baby’s view, the ultimate authority. She is the giver of food, and provides a whole assortment of services, and shouting in the dark, she magically appears. Mom is real, but it’s the perception of mom that is the key. Is mom perceived as a person? When mom isn’t in the room does she still exist? How does mom come to be when she comes into sight?
This is 100% meaningless as at some point we come to realize that parents are people, and are not infallible, and adults can be wrong. To be clear, your assertion is pretty damn difficult to prove because it requires understanding of the cognitive processes of a baby. There is much we can learn through observation, but it would be hard to ask a baby where does mom go when she leaves the room, by what means does she come back.
Again, you have an assertion, not proof, and the assertion is meaningless.
Later development imagination friends tend to be common. Is shamanism the default? At some point we learn, either through others or observation that these imagined things are not real.
What does have meaning is after a person has developed some cognitive skills, has made some observation of the world around them, then and only then can we really ask the question what is the default conclusion. Given no outside influence, given out indoctrination into any culture or society, no education, what is the default conclusion. Does isolateed Joe attempt to personify the world around him in order to better relate to it, and in doing do develop what could be described as rudimentary theistic, shaministic, or mystical beliefs? If given a group of isolated babies, about 100 or so, presuming the survive isolation and are able to grow and reproduce, what are the odds they will develop theistic, shaministic, or mystical beliefs.
I’m actually not trying to convince you of anything, well, other than your proposition is a bit of a stawman. The fact of the matter is I don’t know the actual probability of a given person or group of developing theistic, shaministic, or mystical beliefs. I do know that it’s the overwelming norm for this to develop. If your assertion is correct, and atheism is the default, at what point in a person’s development does one entertain the possibility of existence of god(s). At what point in a society’s development do god(s) come into play. What ever is most common place is the default conclusion.
Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertion? Can you site any studies done? Is this just a baseless assertion? Is this an observation rather than an assertion, and if so, can you share your observation?
What a baby believes is quite meaningless as babies are not likely to reach maturity without help. What would have meaning is what groups actually postulate and propose as fact.