Quote from ddunbar:
Humans are intrinsically social creatures as classified by social evolutionists. To sub categorizes as tribal only reinforces the notion that homo sapiens are social creatures. In any event, anomalies aside, we should agree on the general attributes of the majority of humans.
Then let's agree on the intrinsic / innate characteristics of humans. But that should not include the direct attributes learned consequentially from those innate characteristics, which is what you are doing.
The point is we were discussing babies innate characteristics, which amount to breathing, pooping, a recognition of hunger and crying - an expression of the innate survival instinct. It can be reasonably assumed they have an innate sense of learning can it not? Some personality traits hard wired exceptional nervousness, distinct curiosity - But that is about as far as it goes in the context we are discussing..
Quote from ddunbar:
Politics is a function of our social nature. It is the natural extension of our social natures. It's how we guide our social interactions. Does a baby possess a political nature? Absolutely, given that politics is just a function of our social natures. But you will only see it manifest when it develops the congnitive reasoning skills to do so. Just look at how children interact in a dayschool or kindergarten. Studies have already been done on this aspect of humanity so I won't belabor it here. But suffice it to say, the disposition is there.
ddunbar come on. The innate part would be that capacity to learn, not the things they learn. They learn they can interact and how to interact and manipulate things to their own advantage. They become 'political animals' as it assists their best interests in survival or satisfies a fancy. Itâs the capacity to learn itself which is innate, not the political results of the process.
Quote from ddunbar:
Ok, sure, the nuances of "todays" politics are complex, but they had far simpler roots going back. Was it survival instinct that started it? I believe it was the combination of the homo sapiens survival instinct as well as his innate social nature that did.
Survival looks to be innate. Social actions are learned in order to facilitate that 'innate' survival instinct. Social groups offer power and strength which assists innate survival. It's not the other way around. Social groups can also bring catastrophe. The base instinct then is to survive first - then secondly to facilitate that. Humans switch groups or run â when driven by the innate instinct to survive - not necessarily to be in a group. The desire to group is driven by innate survival instinct which is secondarily associated with self interest.
Quote from ddunbar:
Correct in part. The susceptibility towards embracing superstition is innate in humans. Always has been. You can even see it in the homo sapiens cousin, the neanderthal. If it weren't, you wouldn't see religion so widespread and so easily accepted in spite of the fact that as a human develops, his congnitive reasoning skills mostly increase.
You are still jumping two fences in one go. Anything, any real threat, or any idea of threats against survival and wellbeing is what would cause superstition. Survival is the first fence which is the innate part. That fear is passed on to others, but in the context we are discussing the innate fear rooted in not being able to survive, not in the superstition that creates. You have already confirmed the superstition itself as manifested in religion is not innate at birth. That people broadly become to find it useful, does not make it innate.
Quote from ddunbar:
Atheism is a conclusion.
Not only a conclusion. As I said previously and we seem to agree at least on this, to a baby, neither theism nor atheism is a conclusion. You therefore say the baby's condition is more precisely described as a state of non-religion. I agree.
But we were talking about theism. Do you make a distinction? If you do not, religion /non-religion and theism/atheism are equal meaning. If you do make distinction, a baby has no theism and is therefore without theism. The word and meaning for that is atheism.
But non-religion that is a privative term. In essence you are indicating the absence of religion which is anyway generally termed as atheism. In those circumstances religion / non-religion, theist atheist. Where one is negated the other applies.
Where both are just not present, which is the case as far as the baby is concerned , simply neither is considered by the baby. There is no privative implication or realization for the baby but there is for you and me and those recognizing the circumstances in the world around it.
I just see you conveniently temporarily ignoring theism (religion) as existing outside the baby's cognition which creates an artificial understanding of what we know is in the world. Whenever describing actual circumstances prevailing , atheistic and theistic represents clear difinitive understanding of what the baby is and more to the point, is not experiencing.
Not having something is the antithesis of having it. To us, the baby does not have theism. The antithesis of theism is atheism. Only personal to the baby is neither considered. My view is theism causes the baby's actual atheism in the world outside its own understandings, by the mere fact only of the existence of theism. If not for theism, babies could not actually be in the state of atheist.
Quote from ddunbar:
All other offshoot definitions of atheism, given the word's etymology, were just necessary attempts to remove the perjorative nature of the word. But to include the state of a new born human into the definition of atheism, while seemingly correct, is IMO, intellectual dishonesty given not only the history of humanity, but the commonly observed nature of humans.
....
Wrong way round. Given the word's etymology derives from ancient Greek atheos. a- "without" + theos "god," , it is clear its base is just that simple. With a god or without a god. Additional connotation comes after that not before it.
I can see no justification for what you are saying. Attempts to remove pejorative terms came later after expressions of the word collected additional various significances. Mostly it can be said, by the baseless claim that to be without God is to be Godless is to be evil or some such like simplistic horseshite.
But at the very root derivation of the word in its original form, it carries no such judgmental meaning.
Atheism is in essence simply the absence of theism.
Quote from ddunbar:
We probably won't agree and that's fine. The current dogma in the atheist community is to state that we're all born atheist. This would be an important position to take if one believes that atheism would be the better doctrine and worldview for humanity going forward.
Perhaps if you were to deliberate more openly on a more careful and considered inspection of the history of humanity, and the commonly observed nature of humans, without the dominating influence of the superstition you have aligned to, always conditioning your mindful investigations to one specific pre conclusion, you might discover we often find words and meanings and actions can hold a far fuller picture of human understanding than might thereunto be appreciated. Then maybe you would not jump so readily to crudely dismiss other group or peoplesâ reasonable viewpoint as dogma in the way you have.
After all, have a thought for those babies. They are atheist too.
