this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
788 points (95.9% liked)

Atheist Memes

5532 readers
483 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Spirituality is a base instinct, and most people -need- to believe something. What ever fills that need, whether it's God, Allah, Buddha, Science or Spaghetti... They are all god if they fill that need for people.

I can appreciate spirituality.

People believing that they are the "true" believers is where the problem comes in, and unfortunately, most religions have that as a feature and not a bug.

To be so conceited... An omnipotent being would at least be smart enough to understand how regional culture works, and would present itself to everyone in ways that were culturally relevant. And a lot of religion started out very, very cool, but got changed and corrupted by whoever was ruling that part of the world.

We all believe in the same shit, just in different ways.

Also: There are far too many people in this world that are comfortable exploiting something so basic to being human.

/soapbox

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago (11 children)

This is pretty fluffy, and I guess that's nice, but religion is actually harmful. And as much as religion and science may both satisfy a similar desire to belong to something greater, I think it is dangerously misleading to suggest that the two are equivalent - even in this limited context.

People believing that they are the "true" believers is where the problem comes in

This is incredibly divisive, you're right, but ... you might be due to rewatch the film if you think there aren't foundational problems long before we get to sectarianism.

We all believe in the same shit, just in different ways.

Do we?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Replace species with civilization and intelligence with knowledge, then it fits.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yes. You can't base it on the single species that actually made up religion

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Good to know that all of recorded human history has just been a phase. I mean, shit show that it has been.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I mean recorded history is like, what? 10,000 years? Meanwhile modern humans are about 160,000 years old.

[–] dvoraqs@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

A phase doesn't have to be a small thing, just something we eventually move past

[–] Rubezahl@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Songar87@eviltoast.org 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Rockyrikoko@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Ampersand inciteful

[–] huginn@feddit.it 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Human intelligence has not materially changed since the Advent of religion.

Human intelligence has not progressed since the Advent of atheism.

Human understanding and human culture have changed.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

And most importantly, the tools we use today are nigh infinitely more powerful than before. Very little has done more for the collective intelligence on the planet than computers.

[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I wouldn't rule out that we've become smarter since then. Iirc the average IQ did increase over time. We may not have changed genetically, but many explanations think we can foster higher IQs in our modern environment compared to a 100 years ago.

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're referring to the Flynn effect. But the Flynn effect is a 20th century (post-WWII) phenomenon that describes an increase in the average intelligence test performance (and similar abilities like memory span). There are a number of explanations that have been proposed for this effect, the most convincing ones being improved nutrition and schooling. Either way, this effect does not apply on an evolutionary scale (or even a larger historical one) and it also represents a fairly narrow, gradual change rather than the broad, drastic change suggested in the OP. Also, in recent years, the Flynn effect appears to have reached a ceiling and is even reversing in some countries.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

I don't see how this could be true. It would be analogous to observing a species of bone-thin weaklings that becomes interested in body building over the course of a few hundred years, gaining more muscle mass on average with each passing year, and making the claim that the strength of this species has not changed. Maybe if one of the early weaklings decided to take up their own interest in body building, they may have reached a similar strength to that of their descendants (though even that is debatable since that specific individual wouldn't have access to all the training techniques and diets developed over the course of its species' future); however, it seems like an awkward interpretation to say therefore the strength of the species has not changed.

This is similar to the situation we find ourselves regarding intelligence in the human species. Humans gain intelligence by exercising their brains and engaging in mental activity, and humans today are far more occupied by these activities than our ancestors were. This, in my view, makes it accurate to claim that human intelligence has changed significantly since the advent of religion. Individual capacity for intelligence may not have changed much, but the intelligence of humans as a whole has changed.

Note that my argument does not conclude that human knowledge or understanding has changed over time. These attributes certainly have changed - I'm sure not many would doubt that. It also doesn't conclude that every modern human is more intelligent than every ancient human. Instead, it concludes that human intelligence as a whole has changed as a result of changes in our culture that influence us to spend more time training our intelligence than our ancestors.

[–] emptiestplace@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

I don't see how this could be true.

And even if it were possible, are we smart enough to meaningfully assess and quantify the differences? What if the blueprint is missing a layer?

If you haven't already read it, I think you might really appreciate "Other Minds" by Peter Godfrey-Smith.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

To use your analogy: intelligence is not the size of your muscles, it is the amount of muscle you can have. Just like intelligence the total amount of muscle your body can support is bounded maximally by your genetics. When you bulk up and become stronger you don't increase your quantity of muscle, you change the quality of it. Body building does not create new muscle cells, it rearranges them into stronger configurations.

Similarly learning and intelligence. Intelligence is not changed by learning, learning is your ability to exercise your intelligence. Learning is the strength to intelligence's muscle cell number.

Genetically very little has changed for humans since the Advent of organized religion, which was only 11000 years ago. There have been no major selective pressures and while humans are not in a steady state (obviously) they are still very slow to change.

Humans from 11k years ago would be most likely indistinguishable from the rest of us today genetically.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're taking my analogy too far. Learning isn't your ability to exercise intelligence. It's simply the acquisition of knowledge or skills usually through study or training. You're going to have to provide an argument or a source to back up the claim that intelligence is innate and that it can't be changed by adjusting our behavior. You're going to have to show that intelligence is nearly 100% determined by genetics. Those are the types of claims that eugenicists make regarding intelligence by the way, and I'm pretty sure that would make you uncomfortable given your other comment on IQ tests.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In discussions about intelligence we're always talking about the ability to acquire knowledge, not knowledge itself. Sure colloquially those might be conflated but having knowledge is not the same as being intelligent. There are brilliant minds that have very little knowledge, that doesn't make them less intelligent: it makes them less educated.

We know that intelligence is genetic at some level. We share 98.8% of our genome with Chimps. Somewhere in that 1.2% lies a vast gulf of intellectual capacity that isn't there for a chimp, regardless of the heights to which a chimp might climb intellectually. In order for them to have greater intelligence than they currently possess as a species they must change.

I'm not saying that there is some way to breed for an ubermensch, I'm saying that 99.9% of all humans have the same DNA and that in that encoding there is a maximum level of brain performance possible for any person.

Humans with intellectual handicaps have a lower maximum level of learning than some. Neurodivergent humans (doing some massive hand-waving and generalization here as a member of that community) have some higher possible maximums in some forms of intelligence and lower in others, and we're pretty damn sure Autism has strong genetic components.

What's absurd about the concept of IQ tests is the attempt to boil down a complex and multifaceted topic into a single number that they can tell in a 200 question multiple choice quiz, not that Intelligence (in all its various hues) has nothing to do with genetics.

All of which is to say that Learning is the application of intelligence.

As for saying Intelligence is 100% determined by genetics? I expect there's a lot of external factors that come into it: We know a lot of genetic expression changes through quick reacting epigenetic factors. We also know that brain development can be stunted by nutritional issues.

But we also know that ancient humans had incredibly rich and diverse lives and the more you research about them the more you see the echoes of our same sharp minds reaching out across the gulf of the centuries. They weren't less intelligent than us. Anthropologists classify "fully modern humans" as 30000 years ago.

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In discussions about intelligence we're always talking about the ability to acquire knowledge, not knowledge itself.

I'm not talking about either of these things. I have already stated that I'm not referring to knowledge. Additionally, I do not agree that intelligence is merely the ability to acquire knowledge. Intelligence is famously difficult to define - but I'm working with a definition akin to a capacity for problem solving and pattern recognition. If we can't see eye to eye there, then we're clearly talking past each other.

Thanks for the interesting conversation. I wish you well.

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So... This is based on all the species we know, who practice religion right?

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
[–] JizzmasterD@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

When your idea is so good you gotta bring in the big ghost to sell it

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Sadly, the only way I can imagine to obtain experimental confirmation of this hypothesis would be unworkable.

It would be necessary to take a population of infants, raise them in strict isolation and teach them nothing of religion, carefully excluding anything that even hints at the concept, while giving them the scientific method and lots of understanding of reality otherwise. Then allow them to develop their own civilization and monitor them for several centuries to see if the concept ever emerges.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What other guy said, there could be biological predisposition to religion. Many experts believe that it is a natural anti-depressant.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is pure conjecture, but to me religion has always felt like an extension of parentage and hierarchy. You start off with your parents as your "ultimate superiors" (they decide for you, teach you etc.). At some point you learn that they are also part of a similar framework, with society and the state as their "ultimate superiors". Gods and so on would then be the next step, the superior to all superiors.

This would explain the "natural anti-depressant" - an intact family gives us feelings of safety, protection, and other positive things. An intact society does the same. It seems logical that religion would do the same on an even larger level.

Does anyone know of counter-examples? E.g. religions with gods viewed as below the individual, or religions that don't claim to be the framework in which everything else lives?

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Religion doesn't just provide social safety net which elicits comfort; on the personal level, the act of praying and meditating provides some comfort to the individual.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't talking about social safety nets. My point is that, for example, children usually feel better when their parents are around than when they are not. If religion is an extension of this hierarchy and "parentage" in a broader sense, praying is essentially the same - seeking closeness to the "parent" role, i.e. gods.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, that's what I mean by social safety net. You have someone to rely on when things aren't going well for you. Be it parents, partner, community, or someone imaginary like a god.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago

It wouldn't rule out biological predisposition to religion.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I always figured that religion arose from the natural inclination of the human brain to look for order in chaos (and it's then exploited by those with power as a means of controlling people). Since there will always be circumstances outside our control, I would expect people to at the very least have superstitions, if not full-blown religion, no matter how much scientific knowledge they have. Until the fundamental nature of the human brain changes, at least.

load more comments
view more: next ›