what makes man religious

[chriscase]

Of course. However, one should not mistake the contingencies of our current knowledge for necessary features or categories of a hypothetical deity. Which parts of our current knowledge are necessary or contingent is no question we can conclusively answer, but one should at least be careful when using said knowledge to make logical conclusions about necessary properties of a deity.

I'd be reluctant to characterise a deity as a profane "observer" as the latter expression seems to imply limitations that would be quite the assumption for a creator god. You've got a point about externalised time variables for atemporal "beings", but we're reaching a point where otherwise common notions seem to break down:
1) Our concept of being is somewhat tied to temporal persistence. What "being" means in case of atemporality or supratemporality is something I haven't really examined yet. (Nor do I see an obvious approach.)
2) If we want to at least tentatively entertain our scientific knowledge as a rough framework then, considering the theory of relativity and its all-in-one treatment of space and time as spacetime, it must be doubted whether a- or supratemporality can be conceived without implying a- or supraspatiality as well. In such a case a supra-spatiotemporal deity would be completely removed from our world of experience and we'd be utterly unable to fathom how its "conduct" works, given that ours is inherently tied to perception of space and time.

PS: I declare supra-spatiotemporal the silly neologism of the month.

I've been more or less ignoring the "deity" part of the question and just trying to imagine what an "atemporal" thing of any kind might be like. Yes you are right, we'd have to stipulate an entity that transcends (and subsumes) spatial dimensions as well. Given we have a number of higher-dimensional models of the physical universe it seems reasonable to claim that such an entity could exist, but I have to say its features seem so alien that the traditional features of a creator-god seem parochial in comparison.

[basics]

I've been more or less ignoring the "deity" part of the question and just trying to imagine what an "atemporal" thing of any kind might be like. Yes you are right, we'd have to stipulate an entity that transcends (and subsumes) spatial dimensions as well. Given we have a number of higher-dimensional models of the physical universe it seems reasonable to claim that such an entity could exist, but I have to say its features seem so alien that the traditional features of a creator-god seem parochial in comparison.

chriscase,

But why do you think like that? Doesn't death make you a little disturbed especially when the experience of others who have died and come back to life show that on the other side there is more when considering the general consensus is that there is nothing more?

[Iskar]

I've been more or less ignoring the "deity" part of the question and just trying to imagine what an "atemporal" thing of any kind might be like. Yes you are right, we'd have to stipulate an entity that transcends (and subsumes) spatial dimensions as well. Given we have a number of higher-dimensional models of the physical universe it seems reasonable to claim that such an entity could exist, but I have to say its features seem so alien that the traditional features of a creator-god seem parochial in comparison.

While passing to/existing in higher dimensions of spacetime would not be actual supraspatiality or -temporality it would indeed still allow to observe those spacetime dimensions used by us externally, a bit like the sphere visiting Flatland.

[Ludicus]

Agnosticism and atheism and theism are not belief systems

Well I have a different opinion. Atheism is not a neutral position, atheism is not a state of non-belief. Atheism is the believe in the nonexistence of God.Any claim to knowledge will ultimately rest on belief - you simply choose to believe that God doesn't not exist: when you say "I don't believe in any Gods" there is a belief in an assumption.
Listen to Dawkins, promoting his atheistic beliefs;in the preface to The God Delusion, he hopes that his book converts religious people to his worldview. He says: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down"
Listen to Hitchens, put it even more succinctly when he wrote: "Our belief is not a belief".

[chriscase]

chriscase,

But why do you think like that? Doesn't death make you a little disturbed especially when the experience of others who have died and come back to life show that on the other side there is more when considering the general consensus is that there is nothing more?

In the context of the grand scheme of the universe, worrying about one's own demise would appear to be a near-canonical example of parochialism.

As far as near-death experiences go, I believe it's been well established that there is electrical activity ongoing in the brain for some time after other life signs have ceased. That's probably more an issue with our current definition of death than it is evidence of anything beyond it.

[Iskar]

I think Himster was getting at a different point, namely that atheism, theism and agnosticism are not particular belief systems themselves but rather possible categories of such: Catholicism is a belief system, falling in the category of theism, buddhism is a belief system, falling in the category of atheism, etc. but both theism and atheism comprise such a wide array of convictions that they cannot be considered coherent belief systems themselves.

[Himster]

Atheism is not a neutral position, atheism is not a state of non-belief.

I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect.
"non" and "a" are synonyms when using words with Greek roots such as theos: non-symmetrical=asymmetrical. non-historical=ahistorical. non-theist=atheist, non-moral=amoral, non-political=apolitical, non-gnostic=agnostic, non-biological=abiological etc. This is pretty basic stuff. I know English probably isn't your first language, but come on.
This is the precise kind of mis-labeling that radical Young Earth creationists and the like have been using for years in order to deliberately obfuscate the issue and lend superficial credence to their drivel.
Stop falling for their bull .

Atheism is the believe in the nonexistence of God.Any claim to knowledge will ultimately rest on belief - you simply choose to believe that God doesn't not exist: when you say "I don't believe in any Gods" there is a belief in an assumption.

Epistemology has nothing to do with atheistic/theistic dichotomy, that is the realm of the agnostic/gnostic dichotomy.
For this definition of yours to be consistent with the rest of the English language we would have to change history and the etymology of the word: meaning that lacking any belief in practically anything would necessarily have to be an active belief in the non-existence of everything that doesn't exist (and/or isn't subjectively demonstrable). It is an utterly absurd idea, it makes a mockery of belief for one thing and would make the prefixes "non" and "a" necessarily mean an active opposition, someone who was apolitical would have to be actively opposed to politics in all of its forms (somehow) the asymmetrical spheroid wouldn't be a lop-sided ball of clay, instead it'd become an entity that actively endeavors to be opposed to all forms of symmetry (somehow). The ahistorical novella I wrote as a boy (where the Spartans fought Emperor Spartacus over Helen of Troy) would be a manifesto calling like-minded individuals to actively rise up against scrutiny and source examination in the field of historical inquiry and bla bla bla bla bla.

It doesn't make sense.
English is a ing hard enough language already without falling for creationist pranks that make words into nonsense.

Listen to Dawkins, promoting his atheistic beliefs;in the preface to The God Delusion, he hopes that his book converts religious people to his worldview. He says: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down"

Yes. HIS atheistic WORLDVIEW. That is not atheism anymore than my grandmother's Catholicism is theism, theism is not a worldview, atheism is not a worldview. I have my atheistic worldview which is different to his in much the same way as another theistic worldview might be to a protestant's or Jewish person's.

Dawkins' worldview is unquestionably active as is most atheists' worldviews.
But atheism in and of itself is not necessarily an active position. It is a lack, it is the absence of theos, it is non-theism, which can of course facilitate an active belief in the non-existence of something, but it does not necessitate it.
Being a non-vegetarian doesn't mean that I necessarily avoid vegetables, but if I do avoid vegetables I am still a non-vegetarian. It is quite simple.


Iskar gets it, this was not the issue I was addressing, but whatever.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ludicus]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Really? Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone! No dark sarcasm in the classroom! (I confess, I just read this- and it's more than enough.)
Edit I couldn't resist,
Himster,

meaning that lacking any belief in practically anything would necessarily have to be an active belief

Exactly.If atheism is just non-belief in God, my car is also atheist-my car does not possess a belief in a deity of any kind.
-----
Let's move on to a more civilized and intelligent post,
------

...buddhism is a belief system, falling in the category of atheism, etc. but both theism and atheism comprise such a wide array of convictions that they cannot be considered coherent belief systems themselves.

Indeed, Buddhism, Confucianism and even some forms of Judaism.

Well, I would like to say that atheism it is also supposed to be coherent...according to Durkheim, religion "is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them" The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

Let's look closer, what are "sacred things" for Durkheim? just anything held dear to the person, namely ideas or values -not necessarily supernatural beings. It seems to me that current atheists actually count as religious under Durkheim’s definition. Oh, and there are atheist churches, with communal "religious" experience. The sacred is conveyed through social rituals, which are now experienced through media,
What happens at an atheist church? - BBC News

[Himster]

Exactly.If atheism is just non-belief in God, my car is also atheist-my car does not possess a belief in a deity of any kind.

Yes, in the same way your car is apolitical.

Let's move on to a more civilized and intelligent post,

Awwww, that's so mean.
Okay, maybe I was a little mean, so...... fair enough. But ouch though.

[Ludicus]

Yes, in the same way your car is apolitical

Are you saying that my car can’t believe anything? you are right. But you are not my car, you are a rational being.
Are you trying to say that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs? that's a different claim, it is a positive claim, an active belief - as you asked before: "lacking any belief in practically anything would necessarily have to be an active belief?
The answer is yes- because you are not my car.

[Iskar]

-----
Let's move on to a more civilized and intelligent post,
------

Indeed, Buddhism, Confucianism and even some forms of Judaism.

Well, I would like to say that atheism it is also supposed to be coherent...according to Durkheim, religion "is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into a single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them" The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1915)

Let's look closer, what are "sacred things" for Durkheim? just anything held dear to the person, namely ideas or values -not necessarily supernatural beings. It seems to me that current atheists actually count as religious under Durkheim’s definition. Oh, and there are atheist churches, with communal "religious" experience. The sacred is conveyed through social rituals, which are now experienced through media,
What happens at an atheist church? - BBC News

Considering that much of the development of civilisation was driven by trying to find more sophisticated means of slaughtering your enemies I might conjecture that Himster's more combative approach to the discussion is in fact rather civilised.
Mine might be better characterised by an intellectual amoeba gently flowing around and engulfing other positions. As such it is rather protozoically primitive.

Anyway, don't you think that Durkheim may be a bit Christiano-centristic in his "general characterisation"? The existence of a coherent, organised "church" institution is not something we find in great prevalence outside traditional Christianity, it is hard to discern in the more decentralised Jewish communities and in Islam only the Shia seems to have some sort of a more or less organised clerical structure with theological authority - let alone non-abrahamitic religions, cults, convictions, etc. Of course one might retreat to calling any religious reference group, however small, a nominal "church" in the sense of the definition, but that would basically deprave the notion of its informational value.

[basics]

Himster's argument is that by evolving we live in a world of chaos where survival takes precedence over anything else if I remember our jousts on the subject of God. The core to being a Christian however is not whether one is a Catholic or Protestant or anything else, rather that it is God our Creator Who by grace has chosen certain people to be His. That is what the Bible teaches. It also teaches that God has kept within fallen man knowledge that He does exist so that man has no excuse for accounting God nonexistent. Therefore when men like Dawkins makes it his life's work to deny that, he has already lost the plot every time he opens his mouth.

[Himster]

Are you trying to say that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs?

Yes.
Possessing the ability to do something does not necessitate the taking of that action: non-action is the default, apolitical is the default, amoral is the default and so on.

that's a different claim, it is a positive claim, an active belief - as you asked before: "lacking any belief in practically anything would necessarily have to be an active belief?
The answer is yes

That is an impractically absurd position to take. Non-belief is active-belief, black is white, up is down, gay is straight, North is South and so on.

Considering that much of the development of civilisation was driven by trying to find more sophisticated means of slaughtering your enemies I might conjecture that Himster's more combative approach to the discussion is in fact rather civilised.
Mine might be better characterised by an intellectual amoeba gently flowing around and engulfing other positions. As such it is rather protozoically primitive.

I'm not ing combative, I'm Irish, you racist. But whatever, thank you Iskar, you always know how to make me feel good, deep deep inside.
But perhaps you're more like a super advanced life form that has evolved passed physical form like Q in Star Trek, except better looking.
Come on, we all know you theists only believe all that gobbldeegook because you secretly want to be some kind of a God, admit it.

Himster's argument is that by evolving we live in a world of chaos where survival takes precedence over anything else if I remember our jousts on the subject of God.

Aren't I little miss popular today?
That wasn't my argument here. But generally my position is slightly different:
Rather than "chaos" I'd be more of a determinist, the laws of nature, physics and so on, quite the opposite of chaos.
Rather than "survival" I'd use the word existence and what existence specifically takes precedence over is essence.
But yes, you've remembered the general gist of our epic back and forths of yester-year.

it is God our Creator Who by grace has chosen certain people to be His. That is what the Bible teaches. It also teaches that God has kept within fallen man knowledge that He does exist so that man has no excuse for accounting God nonexistent.

I see you still have the knack for rattling off nonsense carefully tailored to infuriate me. Ah, good times.

[fkizz]

To the extent that they claim to be the end-all be-all and to have all the answers, to be complete, when they [at best] have some of the answers, I consider that sufficient to constitute "wrong" in the basic sense of the word.

Well you could say marketing agencies started to learn from religions then.

But on a more serious regard, on the surface all religions say that, when you get more deep into theology they sort of admit it's not completly that way, but that they aren't wrong on the choke point issues.
Idea of Divinity is as old as Mankind (aswell as scepticism around it) and it is still somehow discussed for a reason other than "pure eternal randomness".

And that's the reason for my question " what makes man religious?" because atheism has the same fervent qualities that believing in a God has. It appears to be a common bond but why?

Many zealot atheists do. Some pro-atheism groups encourage atheism not due to their scepticism (they can end up showing up as ridiculously superfluous) but due to their belief it's a shortcut to some Utopia or new Golden Age.

Take the word "Enlightenment", for example. Ancient and same meaning in Eastern Cultures, in West got coined with more Church sceptic (yet Deistic and atheistic-hating) movements on purpose..
How ironic it would be the societies pushing for Western Enlightenment performed a lifetime of rituals inspired in old religions...

[basics]

In the context of the grand scheme of the universe, worrying about one's own demise would appear to be a near-canonical example of parochialism.

As far as near-death experiences go, I believe it's been well established that there is electrical activity ongoing in the brain for some time after other life signs have ceased. That's probably more an issue with our current definition of death than it is evidence of anything beyond it.

chriscase,

Now that is surprising as for most people here in the West at least death is something that most make provision for whether natural or nonaccidental as well as accidental if that makes sense. Isn't its first priority to ensure that you get put into the ground or burner without leaving debt behind? Is that really being parochial or is it just plain sense?

Now as to the second part of your response while it may be true that certain things happen even after death it doesn't come close to explaining why the dead person sees extraordinary things outside of the body when they have been declared clinically dead. I would have thought that the average intelligent person would be glad to think that there is life after death but there you go.