Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

dhanzboy · Apr 6, 2016

juliuscalica23 said:
Ask ko lang po for Atheism.
Is there any Scientific Research or Explanation either,
that a man or anything can be possible exist
without Creator?

Or it Can be Done by only accident?
is there any research here?

Thank you

try to search for human evolution and this might get you enlighten even just a little bit

Stormer0628 · Apr 6, 2016

PERSPECTIVES: Religion and the Nature of Cultures that Spawn Them

I have always held a special interest in how a specific culture contributes to the kind of religion that would emerge amidst any society. In the larger scheme of things, it enables me to draw some conclusion, or perhaps generalities—or the beginning of some inklings or clues—to the major forces that shape the life of humanity in the planet. In the end we hope to understand, and let it not be thrown at us that we did not make any effort to work with any data we have toward that goal. And in the end, knowledge is an end in itself. At least for me, that is.

The following is an excerpt that I wish to share with those who, like me, wish to know more about the world we live in.

==========================================================================================

Culture Conceives Religion

The term "culture" can be considered as the social fabric for a community. The community's culture describes its lifestyle and the social behavior conventions expected of its members. Different cultures will develop different religions, with each religion capturing some of the essential components of that culture.

Anthropology is the study of human history. From an origin many, many years ago in Africa, humans eventually scattered and multiplied to cover the world. As they settled in new areas, a local culture evolved as they adapted to the lifestyle required in their new environment. In some areas, a nomadic lifestyle was continued, where the people would continue to move as new pastures would be required for their livestock. In other areas, an agricultural society arose, where the growing of certain crops could sustain a larger population. A very small tribe would typically have a very simple religion, if any, as they would be quite concerned with the daily survival. As populations grew, a more complex religion could develop as the people spent more time considering their place in the universe. Whoever became or inherited a leadership position in a community would require some control over the religious practices so order in the community would be maintained, and inevitably so their leadership position remained intact.

A recent op-ed compared the cultures in China of those growing wheat to those growing rice. Scientific American also provided a recent article about this comparison between two cultures based on agriculture in near proximity to each other, but with two different primary crops.

Both of these articles were based on the same research article published in Science in May 2014. Its abstract (access to the full paper requires a Science membership):

Cross-cultural psychologists have mostly contrasted East Asia with the West. However, this study shows that there are major psychological differences within China. We propose that a history of farming rice makes cultures more interdependent, whereas farming wheat makes cultures more independent, and these agricultural legacies continue to affect people in the modern world. We tested 1162 Han Chinese participants in six sites and found that rice-growing southern China is more interdependent and holistic-thinking than the wheat-growing north. To control for confounds like climate, we tested people from neighboring counties along the rice-wheat border and found differences that were just as large. We also find that modernization and pathogen prevalence theories do not fit the data.

Several societies in China and India were dominated by what has been called the Rice Culture, as so many people were involved in the cultivation of rice to sustain the populations in these areas. The cultivation of rice led to the development of an economic lifestyle centered around agriculture: plowing/seeding in spring, weeding in summer, harvesting in autumn, and hoarding in winter. The management of the irrigation levels requires vigilant control over water levels. This requires cooperation between all those managing the rice paddies, as each group monitors their paddies, so everyone must work together to maximize the rice harvest. The rice cycle involves a community working together, through the seasonal cycles.

Wheat cultivation is much less labor intensive - over its growth cycle. Its success is not driven by water levels like rice; the wheat just needs an adequate amount. Therefore the success of each wheat crop is driven more by the land management skills of the individual farmers, and much less on any collective contribution by the community.

It is interesting that most of China became dominated by Confucianism up until Buddhism came to China from India. Confucianism emphasizes the cultivation of virtue and the maintenance of ethics, not a focus on one or more gods. Unlike a number of other cultures (noted below) China seems to have stuck with these non-theistic religions; polytheistic religions were rather common among many different ancient cultures.

Many of the other ancient world's cultures practiced what is known as agricultural economics, dealing with the land usage for both crops and livestock. When manure is used to improve/sustain soil quality for crop growth, the two efforts work together.

The ancient Incan civilization has been called a vertical archipelago. Only a small portion of the region is arable and yet a huge civilization prospered over a wide area. The indigenous people formed small centers of self-sufficient communities which focused on the crops and livestock that could flourish in the particular climate and soil. These small communities practiced Ayni, the mutual help between members of a community. This is similar to the concept of specialization of labor present in larger, contemporary economies. The Inca Empire brought the communities together through the use of barter and trade. The religion that arose out of this culture firmly grounded in the environment was polytheistic, with some deities being more important than others, like Pachama the mother of the Earth. The worship of nature and its cycles was the focus of the religion and daily life.

The Mayan people developed an agriculturally intensive, city centered civilization, with numerous independent city-states. This development was similar to that by the Incas as the trade between centers supported the integrated communities. Also like the Incans, the Mayan religion was polytheistic. The Maya believed that the gods were an integral part of their daily lives. Their religion also included very long cycles of creation and destruction, with each cycle spanning about 5200 years.

The cultures across the Americas do not have as long a history of those in Asia and Europe because the Americas were settled by humanity only after populations grew enough in Asia to offer an impetus for the migration and after a land bridge between Asia and North America made it easier for people to make that migration. The initial settlers must have been nomads, those having a mobile lifestyle to travel such distances. Anthropologists break up North American into ten different cultures. Some continued to be nomads (like in the Subarctic or across the Great Plains) while others developed small farming and fishing villages on rivers or on the ocean. Even with such cultural diversity, many native American religions were focused around nature. As many were passed orally, not by written scriptures, their complexities are not fully realized.

The life of a nomad is different than that of someone living in a settled community. The nomadic community moves often, either when following seasonal patterns for hunting and gathering or when following seasonal patterns for grazing their livestock. As a society totally dependent on the forces of nature, the Mongolians worshipped the various elements of nature, praying to their ancestors who have been transformed into mythical spiritual animals to provide them with good weather, health and success.

The Bedouin were the nomadic tribes wandering the Arabic and Syrian deserts. Their communities were based on the kinship between the families and the tribe. They also could be sustained through earning income by transporting goods and people across the desert, so their prosperity was tied to those in communities not having any kinship to theirs. As with other nomadic people, their religion was polytheistic.

The life and times of the early Jews began with their settling in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, but their history was subsequently marked by several notable interruption: their enslavement by Egypt (ruled by a Pharoah), followed by captivity by the empire of Babylon (reached its apex under Hammurabi), then subject to the Greek Empire (the time of Alexander the Great), with a brief period of independence called the Hasmonaean Dynasty, and then the Roman Empire when conquered by the Roman general Pompey which Herod the Great designated the ruler for the region.

Over time perhaps as a result of this repeated subjugation to other states, the religion of the Jews evolved into one of monotheism, with only one god. At the time of Jesus, the Jews held a strong expectation of another Messiah, who would deliver them to independence from their Roman rule just as the Maccabees had delivered them after the Greek rule.

Christianity, the religion based on the interpretations of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ (where Christ is another term for messiah), arose at this interesting confluence of events. After the death of Jesus, a Roman named Saul experienced a life event (with various interpretations) and began to teach his own interpretations of Jesus to the non-Jews in the region.

Paul was raised a Roman, within the Roman empire ruled by a strong army occupying many different cultures, and he interpreted the life of Jesus and his teachings from that context. His emphasis was on faith, the belief in God and the teachings of Jesus, not on following Jewish traditions. In Paul's system, the faith in God is critical to one's place in the afterlife. After the passing of Paul, his teachings formed the basis for Christianity, a non-Jewish religion based on both the ancient Jewish scriptures (what became the Old Testament) and on various writings that attempted to capture the life and teaching of Jesus and of his early apostles, especially Paul who was teaching to the Gentiles not the Jews (what became the New Testament).

Though Christians were initially persecuted by the Romans as this new religion did not conform to the polytheistic religion practiced in Rome, eventually Christianity became a state religion. On 25 December, 800 Pope Leo III crowned Charlesmagne as Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire spanned much of Europe, influencing many generations in the Western world.

Christianity is an individualistic religion. The focus is on the individual's personal connection with God and on an afterlife. The opposite is a naturalistic religion, one where each person recognizes their connection with nature and the natural cycles. In the brief summary above describing a number of different cultures and their religions, many polytheistic religions were noted. In so many primitive societies, when nature cannot be explained or understood there is an inclination to believe in unseen forces at work and those forces are then named as deities.

By being individualistic, Christianity is a natural choice for any political leader seeking more power. A popular uprising, with many in a community uniting for their common cause against their oppressors, is the fear for any ruler. By emphasing a religion that values each individual, not their relationship with others in the community, it is much easier for the divide and conquer ruling technique, as the natural diversity in people presents many opportunities to divide into groups the members of a community, city, or state, to create useful conflicts to aid in governance.

Islam is also based on the interpretations of ancient Jewish scriptures (noted as significant prophets are Abraham, Moses, and Jesus), but recorded in the Quran, and is also monotheistic - and is also individualistic, with a belief in the Day of Resurrection and with judgment rendered on one's deeds.

I consider religion as the perspective on the meaning of life, with one's religion offering the answer to the question: why am I here?

The Western religions are dominated by the monotheistic religions, with the main god typically described like a monarch or tyrant. Life is an individual endeavor, with the goal of an after life in paradise. Each person has an individual connection with god - the community has no role in that, nor in the anticipated attainment of paradise after death. The answer to why am I here is: I am here only until I pass to the afterlife.

The Eastern religions are polytheistic or even non-theistic (like Buddhism), and are based on enlightenment, instead of on God's judgment. Life is more of an adventure, like in the Buddhist 8-fold path: helping others and taking care to avoid hurting others. The answer to why am I here is: I am an integral part of the universe.

The Western cultures are often individualistic - and frequently those being raised in that context will find comfort within a religion offering that same perspective.

The Eastern cultures are less individualistic, like that noted in the Rice Culture - and so frequently those being raised in that context will find comfort within a religion offering that perspective.

In this time of the 21st Century and globalization, the individualistic cultures like in America are dominant. Their lack of an inclination toward a connection with nature and our fellow human beings is significant in that dominance. A human being is a social creature, innately connected to those in his/her community through our natural capacity for empathy. That emphasis on empathy is sorely lacking in both their cultures and their religions, and that is one reason why contemporary society is rife with so much misery for so many.

NOTE: Source

juliuscalica233 · Apr 6, 2016

dhanzboy said:
try to search for human evolution and this might get you enlighten even just a little bit

Ang Gusto ko sanang malaman Sir,
Hindi yung sa Evolution,
Ang tanong ko kasi Kung Walang Gumawa?
Posible ba na Mag Exist yung isang bagay from NOTHING?
kasi nabasa ko yung Big Bang came out from NOTHING to SOMETHING?
then nagsama sama yung NOTHING and nag explode?
SCIENTIFIC po ba yun?
0+0+0 = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 planets,stars, and other creature such as man,animals and plants?
sa MATH kasi hindi uubra yun e.

Stormer0628 · Apr 7, 2016

juliuscalica233 said:
Ang Gusto ko sanang malaman Sir,
Hindi yung sa Evolution,
Ang tanong ko kasi Kung Walang Gumawa?
Posible ba na Mag Exist yung isang bagay from NOTHING?
kasi nabasa ko yung Big Bang came out from NOTHING to SOMETHING?
then nagsama sama yung NOTHING and nag explode?
SCIENTIFIC po ba yun?
0+0+0 = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 planets,stars, and other creature such as man,animals and plants?
sa MATH kasi hindi uubra yun e.

FIRST, let us be clear about the concept of NOTHING.

From the emergent picture of reality as we come to know it, our understanding of the concept of NOTHING is so far removed—and different—from the technical definition of NOTHING. In our everyday terms, nothing means absolutely that of devoid of anything. In scientific terms, and in the language of quantum physics especially, nothing is the state of rest mass of every known field and particle in the universe. What does it mean? It means, contrary to our common understanding, that rather than ABSOLUTE NOTHING, what we have is everything pretty much CANCELLING each other out. In other words, the exact opposite is happening: in technical terms, nothing is everything hidden from our field of view.

Even a perfect vacuum, which is defined as the absence of particles, will still have quantum fields. And these fields are always vibrating. Space looks empty because the vibrations cancel each other out.... The cancellation requires the full set of vibrations; a subset won’t necessarily cancel out. But a subset is all you ever see.

If an idealized detector just sits in a vacuum, it will not detect particles. However, any practical detector has a limited range. The field will appear imbalanced to it, and it will detect particles in a vacuum, clicking away like a Geiger counter in a uranium mine. In 1976 Bill Unruh, a theoretical physicist at the University of British Columbia, showed that the detection rate goes up if the detector is accelerating, since the detector loses sensitivity to the regions of space it is moving away from. Accelerate it very strongly and it will click like mad, and the particles it sees will be entangled with particles that remain beyond its view.

SECOND, let us look at the math.

There are many ways to look at it, but the essential thing is that we always come up with zero—0:

1. M - M = 0 where M is matter and -M is antimatter.
2. M = 0 = -M by transposition

At the initial stages of the universe, matter and antimatter are created in equal numbers. When matter and antimatter are brought together, they annihilate each other, and all their energies and momentum are converted to photons. We scratch our heads because if the universe operates in perfect symmetry, then there shouldn't be anything in the universe aside from photons, but here we are begging to understand why there is leftover matter from such annihilations.

At the moment scientists are afoot to understand why there has to be some leftover from such annihilations to account for us stubborn humans. One of the things they are looking at is called CP violation (charge-parity violation) to explain why we're here to ask these nagging questions about existence and all.

I hope it answers your question. You might want to go from here to the next important topic related to this: why quantum fluctuations in the BIG BANG account for everything else, as Penrose (?) and Hawking envisioned them.

rueryuzaki · Apr 7, 2016

juliuscalica233 said:
Ang Gusto ko sanang malaman Sir,
Hindi yung sa Evolution,
Ang tanong ko kasi Kung Walang Gumawa?
Posible ba na Mag Exist yung isang bagay from NOTHING?
kasi nabasa ko yung Big Bang came out from NOTHING to SOMETHING?
then nagsama sama yung NOTHING and nag explode?
SCIENTIFIC po ba yun?
0+0+0 = 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 planets,stars, and other creature such as man,animals and plants?
sa MATH kasi hindi uubra yun e.

It's too vague. What's your definition of it?

Yung "Nothing" ba na tinutukoy mo is walang-walang-wala? Actually, binago na ng concept ng science (thanks to Quantum Mechanics) ang nothing mo. Isa na syang Something.

Okay, stick tayo kay Nothing. Nagkaroon ng physical experimentation ng Nothing -- The Casimir Effect. Sa loob ng isang vacuum chamber, merong dalawang plate na 1mm or 1cm ng Nothing sa gitna. As in wala. The idea of that experiment is -- dapat magdidikit ang dalawang plate sa loob ng chamber. After some time, nagdikit nga sila and that proves that there is SOMETHING inside na nagpush sa dalawang plates para magdikit sila. The experiment was repeated several times.

If you removed everything in physical reality of space, it would be technically NOTHING. But ang natira na lang is yung Vacuum and it's an inherent property of space. So the Vacuum Energy exist there unless you put stuff in the vacuum.

So all the matter came from the condensed form of energy. The energy matter equivalence proves it (e=mc^2). After few minutes from BBT, the baby universe cooled down and there goes your first element, Hydrogen. The other big elements form from the Supernovae (death of a star). The simplest term would be nucleosynthesis.

There's this thing called Quantum fluctuation that supports the idea but it's too complex. Stormer may explain it to you in detail.

Try to read/watch Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. All is there.

----
Note: Isa lang po akong science geek. Pakicorrect po ako kung may mali, Stormy :lol:

juliuscalica23 · Apr 7, 2016

rueryuzaki said:
It's too vague. What's your definition of it?

Yung "Nothing" ba na tinutukoy mo is walang-walang-wala? Actually, binago na ng concept ng science (thanks to Quantum Mechanics) ang nothing mo. Isa na syang Something.

Okay, stick tayo kay Nothing. Nagkaroon ng physical experimentation ng Nothing -- The Casimir Effect. Sa loob ng isang vacuum chamber, merong dalawang plate na 1mm or 1cm ng Nothing sa gitna. As in wala. The idea of that experiment is -- dapat magdidikit ang dalawang plate sa loob ng chamber. After some time, nagdikit nga sila and that proves that there is SOMETHING inside na nagpush sa dalawang plates para magdikit sila. The experiment was repeated several times.

If you removed everything in physical reality of space, it would be technically NOTHING. But ang natira na lang is yung Vacuum and it's an inherent property of space. So the Vacuum Energy exist there unless you put stuff in the vacuum.

So all the matter came from the condensed form of energy. The energy matter equivalence proves it (e=mc^2). After few minutes from BBT, the baby universe cooled down and there goes your first element, Hydrogen. The other big elements form from the Supernovae (death of a star). The simplest term would be nucleosynthesis.

There's this thing called Quantum fluctuation that supports the idea but it's too complex. Stormer may explain it to you in detail.

Try to read/watch Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. All is there.

----
Note: Isa lang po akong science geek. Pakicorrect po ako kung may mali, Stormy

Hi sir,
opo yun kasi tinuro sa school namin nung elementary e
that when you say "nothing" as in walang wala talaga,
it defines ZERo,
hindi ko kasi alam ang term ng Atheist sa word ng Nothing.
na may Something pla dun so
ibig pong sabhin,
big bang is not means of nothing to something?

pkicorrect nlang po ako.
pakitagalog nalang mahina ako sa Ingles po e.
salamat ng Marami.

rueryuzaki · Apr 7, 2016

juliuscalica23 said:
Hi sir,
opo yun kasi tinuro sa school namin nung elementary e
that when you say "nothing" as in walang wala talaga,
it defines ZERo,
hindi ko kasi alam ang term ng Atheist sa word ng Nothing.
na may Something pla dun so
ibig pong sabhin,
big bang is not means of nothing to something?

pkicorrect nlang po ako.
pakitagalog nalang mahina ako sa Ingles po e.
salamat ng Marami.

Hello po. Okay sige tagalog para masaya.

Pinaka-basic pa kasi ang pinag-aaralan pa sa Elementary (Wala pa yatang origin ng matter, sa HS pa yata yun). May Physics and Chemistry subject ka na ba nung Elementary years mo ba? Ask lang para may idea ka sa sinasabi po namin dito.

Kaya po natin nalaman na may something sa Nothing ay dahil sa mga scientific experiments na nakikita ng mga instrumento at kagamitan(example nito ay microscope at telescope at marami pang iba. )
At yung mga tools na yun ang nakakakita ng mga hindi nakikita ng ating mga mata or naamoy ng ating ilong.

Halimbawa ulit. May nakikita kang bakal tapos napansin mo nakakabit sa kawad ng koryente. Syempre hindi mo hahawakan kasi alam mong may koryente. Pero paano mo talaga malalaman kung may koryente talaga? Dyan ka ngayon mag-tutuklas. Pwede mong hawakan kung matapang ka o gagamit ka ng instrumento kung meron nga. Pero Hindi natin nakikita ng kabuuan ng koryente. Nakikita lang natin sya madalas sa kabuuan ng mga ilaw at liwanag.

'0', 'zero' o kaya 'wala' ang tawag natin doon ayon sa lingwahe ng tao kasi "nakikita" mo sya as 'Wala' gamit ang mga mata natin.
Pero kung gagamit ka ng instrumento, may makikita ka. Meron, meron at meron.

Sana po hindi kita nalito.

Stormer0628 · Apr 7, 2016

juliuscalica23 said:
....hindi ko kasi alam ang term ng Atheist sa word ng Nothing.
na may Something pla dun so
ibig pong sabhin,
big bang is not means of nothing to something?

pkicorrect nlang po ako.
pakitagalog nalang mahina ako sa Ingles po e.
salamat ng Marami.

Ah, eto, linawin lang muna natin: walang word na NOTHING galing sa atheists. Galing ito sa definition ng science—sa branch ng science na quantum physics—pagkatapos ng ilang pag-aaral ng ilang siyentipiko.

Katulad ng sinabi ni Ryu, at gaya na nga ng pinakita sa pag-aaral ni Casimir, kung saan malinaw na pinakita nya na sa VACUUM—ang NOTHING na tinatawag natin—ay umiiral ang quantum fluctuations na nagiging factory ng pares ng matter at antimatter (or antiparticles). Anumang oras ay nangyayari ito, at pagkaganun, nagkakaroon din ng tinatawag na annihilation (spontaneous destruction) sa bawat pares, na nagreresulta sa paggawa naman ng photons (light).

Ang quantum fluctuations nagmumula sa vacuum of space ay tinuturing na dahilan ng pagkakaroon ng matter sa buong universe, mula sa Big Bang hanggang sa kasalukuyan. Ang isa na lamang na iniimbistigahan ng mga scientists ay bakit nagkaroon ng excess or sobra sa matter gayong kung mayroong perfect symmetry mula sa simula, then wala dapat sobrang matter hanngang sa ngayon at dapat ay puro photons na lamang ang makikita sa universe. Nabanggit ko sa taas ang tungkol sa CP violation bilang isa sa tinitingnang dahilan kung bakit nagkaron nga ng sobrang matter....

juliuscalica233 · Apr 7, 2016

Salamat sa pagunawa mga sir ;-)

dapat pala hindi nothing ung term dun kasi nakakalito e.
sa Miriam Webster Dictionary kasi Iba magkakontra sila.
tapos sa term ng author ng Big Bang yung Nothing (yun yung mga bagay na hindi nakikita ng mata ng tao?)
so the Idea of Big Bang po is not literally means Nothing to Something?
So ang Conclusion po Something to Something po pla yun?

mas mdaling maintndhan kapag tagalog po
kasi may mga term pala ang science na iba pala ang definition
kya tagalog nalang sana para sa mga nakakbasa madaling maintndhan

jecht · Apr 7, 2016

saan kaya si dragon ball goku?? hintayin ko yun. puro ingles yun eh THE GOD. hintayin ko yun.

Stormer0628 · Apr 8, 2016

PERSPECTIVES: The Idea of Evil and Human Aspirations

=======================================================================

How did evil evolve, and why did it persist?
By Lucy Jones
4 April 2016

SUMMARY: Often we feel that something that is "evil" is against the natural order of things, or "at odds with everything one might hope for," but perhaps the opposite is actually true: it is "bad" behaviour that is natural and successful. What's surprising is how amazingly well (though still very imperfectly) human beings have tried to reverse this natural arrangement."

=======================================================================

'Evil' behaviours can be categorised into four basic groups—and they are far from being unique to our species

Evil, it can seem, is all around us. Hitler. The Rwandan genocide. Ted Bundy. Every time you read the news or watch television, bad behaviour that causes harm is on display.

Is being evil advantageous in some scenarios?

These days, the word ‘evil’ has religious connotations. It’s tied up with morality and transgressions against the will of a divine being. But in its original Old English it meant anything that was simply bad, vicious or cruel.

Assuming we stick to this broader non-religious definition—that evil involves acting in a malevolent way—it’s reasonable to ask why it came into existence. We know that humans evolved from apes and, ultimately, from much simpler animals. That means we get many of our behaviours from our animal ancestors. Does this include evil behaviours—and if it does, is this because being evil is advantageous in some scenarios?

Or to put it another way, can we trace the evolution of evil?

Many forms of 'evil' behaviour can be identified in animals

There are many different definitions of the ‘nature of evil’ but we will define it as acts that cause intentional suffering, destruction or damage to B for the benefit of A. To explore further, we can break down those intentional actions into four basic categories: the Dark Tetrad.

Machiavellianism involves using intelligent strategy and cunning to gain power and get one up on a rival

A group of psychologists including Del Paulhus at the University of British Columbia and his student, Kevin Williams, first came up with these categories about 15 years ago. Initially they defined a Dark Triad, which included Machiavellianism (manipulative, self-interested, deceptive), Psychopathy (antisocial, remorseless, callous) and Narcissism (grandiose, proud, lacking empathy). Paulhus later extended the Triad to a Tetrad, to include Everyday Sadism (the enjoyment of cruelty). Why do these behaviours exist in humans? And can they be seen in other animals?

Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism involves using intelligent strategy and cunning to gain power and get one up on a rival. It is a normal part of political life, of course—even if the individuals playing politics aren’t human.

Every individual monkey seems to have the capacity for Machiavellian behaviour

Dario Maestripieri of the University of Chicago has found intriguing, Machiavellian-like behaviours in rhesus monkey societies during his studies over 20 years. Alpha males engaged in threatening behaviour and violent tactics to protect sleeping spaces, females and food.

The dominant monkeys used unpredictable bursts of aggression to rule over subordinates. Alliances were formed and female monkeys looked out for their own daughters by mating with the alpha male—but they also mated with other males behind his back to ensure they would be protected if the alpha male died or was deposed.

In fact, every individual monkey seems to have the capacity for Machiavellian behaviour, says Maestripieri. "It's part of who they are. It's not that there are Machiavellian individuals that do it all the time and others who never do it. Just like humans, it's part of our nature, which doesn't mean we have to do it all the time."

Rhesus macaques act in this way because they desire power, and Machiavellian behaviours are an effective way to establish and maintain dominance, or alliances with dominant individuals. It's not a risk-free strategy, though. If they’re caught cheating there is punishment, says Maestripieri. If a group member was spotted attacking baby monkeys, for instance, they faced retribution.

Where tasks are done cooperatively, Machiavellianism could work in virtually every task you're trying to do

Even so, the many pros of adopting Machiavellian strategies may outweigh these cons, particularly in highly social animals like monkeys or humans.

"Where tasks are done cooperatively, it could work in virtually every task you're trying to do," says Samuel Gosling, professor of psychology at the University of Texas, in Austin US, and a leading researcher into personality types in non-human animals. "Whether it’s foraging, feeding, caring for the young or defending the group."

In fact, you could argue that simpler animals are capable of a rudimentary form of Machiavellianism too. The viceroy butterfly protects itself by mimicking another species that is toxic or disgusting to birds. The anglerfish is so named because of a long filament protruding from its head, with a growth on the end which resembles a fish or a worm. It deceives smaller fish into an unwise attack—they are then quickly gobbled up.

In other words, there is good reason to believe that the intentional deception underlying Machiavellianism has very deep evolutionary roots. It is just such a useful survival strategy.

Psychopathy
It might come as a surprise, but some animals seem to be genuinely unpleasant individuals.
The primatologist Frans de Waal had a chimp in his Arnhem Zoo colony called Puist who he said was "two faced and mean" and "deceitful or mendacious”. She was the universally disliked by researchers and compared to a witch.

Jane Goodall, meanwhile, studied a mother and daughter pair of chimpanzees—Passion and Pom—who systematically cannibalised eight infants over four years. Goodall called Passion a "cold mother."

But are these apes psychopaths?

According to the psychologists Peter Buirski and Robert Plutchik, they might be. In 1991 the pair used the Emotions Profile Index, an observational measure, to study Passion. The index includes "deceptiveness, callousness, aggressiveness, absence of emotional ties, and fearlessness"—and it suggested Passion showed socially deviant behaviour.

Some chimpanzees may display psychopathologies

A 2006 study on psychopathology of great apes also considered Passion and Pom. The chimpanzee pair "cannibalised with such persistence that a human psychiatrist is tempted to render this as antisocial personality 'disorder',” wrote the researchers.

They cautioned against pinning too much significance on the word 'disorder' though, writing that, "Whether infanticide is a behavioural abnormality or an adaptive reproductive strategy has been a matter of controversy."

A study in 1999 took 34 chimpanzees in captivity at a research centre in Georgia as the subjects of its 'Chimpanzee Psychopath Measure'. The chimpanzee living quarters were filled with toys, ladders, tyres and plastic barrels for the animals to play with.

It is not just chimps that have been suggested to show psychopathic tendencies

The chimps were examined for traits such as being boredom-prone, failing to learn from punishment, being likely to throw temper tantrums, and likely to tease others. In combination, such traits might suggest a psychopathology.

The researchers were asked to pick the trait that fit best from the Big Five dimensions (Agreeableness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience). The Big Five is a model still used by psychologists to describe human personality.

The team found that there was "evidence for the psychopathy construct in chimpanzees," and concluded that certain features of human psychopathy, such as risk-taking and absence of generosity, were found in great apes. As in humans, male chimps received higher scores than females.

It is not just chimps that have been suggested to show psychopathic tendencies: so have dolphins.

Ben Wilson of the University of the Highlands and Islands in Inverness, UK, was part of a team who observed evidence of violent interactions between bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises. Porpoises washed up on the coast of Scotland, then, later, Wales, Southern England and Monterey Bay in California, showed signs of injuries inflicted by the dolphins.

The idea was put around that there were a couple of freaky dolphins, poisoned or psychotic

"The idea was put around that there were a couple of freaky dolphins, poisoned or psychotic," says Wilson.

But it is difficult to back up that idea without more information on the attacks—especially as there are alternative ways to account for the behaviour.

For instance, it is possible that the dolphins were in competition with porpoises for prey, so they simply wanted to get rid of their rivals. However, Wilson points out that dolphins also have a similar diet to seals—and yet they don’t attack the seals.

Alternatively, the porpoise attacks could have something do with infanticide, which has been observed in bottlenose dolphins.

We know that there are good biological reasons for various mammals to kill young. It will happen in lion societies, when a male lion takes over a pride. Maybe there's an equivalent in bottlenose dolphins, suggests Wilson. Getting rid of offspring can be a smart idea because it allows the female to be available to reproduce if she is not looking after a cub.

"If you go to attack a dolphin with a mother defending it, it's a dangerous thing to do—so you might need some practice and a porpoise is a good thing to pick on," says Wilson.
Ultimately, we don't know why bottlenose dolphins sometimes attack porpoises. "There isn't evidence for one theory being right or one single view. All reasons had pros and cons and information that was missing," says Wilson.

Sadism
In the Dark Tetrad, everyday sadism is defined as taking enjoyment in cruelty.
Sadism may allow a person to maintain power and dominance, suggests Paulhus. "It seems like vicious politicians [who] maintain power become more and more sadistic over time and maybe they have to, to stay in power."

He gives the example of Vlad the Impaler who was able to deter enemies from entering his kingdom by hanging bodies on the border, showing invaders what might happen to them if they continued.
Is sadism a behaviour we can recognise in non-human animals?

Wilson says he has seen dolphins swimming under the water popping off seagulls that are sitting on the surface. This behaviour could be interpreted as a deliberately annoying one, but "sadism" carries very moralistic overtones that Wilson rejects—particularly since we do not know for sure that the dolphins are aware of the annoyance they are causing to the birds.

"It's like us popping bubble wrap," he says. The dolphins might behave this way simply for the personal pleasure it brings without recognising that the behaviour is also cruel to the birds.

Perhaps adult animals that act sadistically are actually fixated at the play stage of childhood

"It could just be good practice, effectively play is practice or it could be good fun. Dolphins will barrel boats for ages. It's a very obvious behaviour and still pretty hard to explain apart from that it looks like good fun," he says.

We might associate some of the purest forms of fun with childhood play—and, says Paulhus, perhaps this is one ultimate origin of sadism.

"If you look at animals that play with their victims, they don’t kill them, they torture them," he says. "Maybe that's the connection, to learn to be an adult animal you have to play first and somewhere between play and becoming an adult who has to kill, there's a line. That play aspect carries over to some adults, they're actually fixated at the play stage, they never got over it."

So perhaps sadists are really displaying a form of arrested development. If this is the case, it might seem odd that the behaviour can exist over the long term in adult societies.

Paulhus has a theory. "You could consider the dark personalities to be parasites in different ways," he says. "In animal communities parasites do serve a very positive function. One argument that could be made is they clean up the less adaptive individuals, those in the herd who didn’t quite have the qualities to contribute."

It is a morally troubling argument, but perhaps Dark Tetrad behaviours are, paradoxically, beneficial to human and animal societies by encouraging other individuals to be on their guard and think carefully about their trust. "They are keeping the species fit in a way," says Paulhus.

Narcissism
The vanity associated with narcissism would seem to be a purely human characteristic. But is it? Can we draw any comparisons between the charm and charisma of a narcissist and the lengths some animals will go to in order to draw attention to themselves?

A male peacock with his beautiful tail, the scented pheromones of a fox, the dance of the bowerbird. We can’t be sure that non-verbal animals are purposely grandiose, but do these ostentatious displays give us some indication of how narcissism evolved?

Explaining the extreme selfishness often associated with narcissism might be easier if you take a gene’s view of evolution. Famously, of course, Richard Dawkins wrote about the selfishness of genes—arguably their one and only "goal" is to perpetuate down the generations, and it matters little to genes if their success comes at a cost to other genetic sequences—or the organisms they are housed within.

Explaining the extreme selfishness often associated with narcissism might be easier if you take a gene’s view of evolution

While humans have partly over-ruled their original selfish urges and broken out of the governance of selfishness through cultural influence, all livings things are "gene survival machines"—and to a degree this can help explain not only the evolution and survival of narcissism, but also of the other components of the Dark Tetrad.

"There are a variety of avenues to reproduction," says Paulhus. "Some of them we might [now] consider to be unacceptable but they worked apparently in the past."

For instance, the psychopath and the Machiavellian may have—or have had in human history—more sex than most people because of some tendency towards promiscuity associated with their behaviour. "You can persuade and manipulate partners a lot better if you think strategically without empathic concern for hurting another's feelings," says Paulhus.

"The narcissist feels special and exudes confidence that people react to, and that provides opportunities for reproduction," he says.

Why sadists might have a reproductive advantage is harder to explain, he concedes. "Presumably in the past [sadism] allowed you to exude more power—and power leads to reproduction."

"Nature, red in tooth and claw," wrote Tennyson, about the violence of the natural world. There are certainly many examples to support his description. In Brazil, the margay cat mimics the sound of a wounded baby pied tamarin monkey, to deceive and entice its prey.

The female praying mantis will often chomp the head off and eat her mate after sex, sometimes even in the middle of the act. Hyena cubs will kill siblings from the moment they are born. Even plants use deception: the bee orchid tricks the male bee into pollinating it by mimicking the female insect.

Arguably the real mystery lies not in the origin of "evil" behaviours but in the fact that humans now generally view these behaviours as distasteful—even though deception, selfishness and other "evil" traits appear to be widespread in nature, and generally beneficial for the survival of genes, animals and species.

John Armstrong, a British writer, and philosopher at The School Of Life, sees a gulf between human aspiration for justice and ethics and the laws of nature. Often we feel that something that is "evil" is against the natural order of things, or, as Armstrong put it, "at odds with everything one might hope for”.

But perhaps the opposite is actually true: it is "bad" behaviour that is natural and successful. "What's surprising is how amazingly well (though still very imperfectly) human beings have tried to reverse this natural arrangement," he says.

NOTE: Source

jcgerald21 · Apr 8, 2016

cguro atheist din aq for i don't believe that a GOD or GODS exist

ScyllaJEN96 · Apr 9, 2016

juliuscalica233 said:
Salamat sa pagunawa mga sir

dapat pala hindi nothing ung term dun kasi nakakalito e.
sa Miriam Webster Dictionary kasi Iba magkakontra sila.
tapos sa term ng author ng Big Bang yung Nothing (yun yung mga bagay na hindi nakikita ng mata ng tao?)
so the Idea of Big Bang po is not literally means Nothing to Something?
So ang Conclusion po Something to Something po pla yun?

mas mdaling maintndhan kapag tagalog po
kasi may mga term pala ang science na iba pala ang definition
kya tagalog nalang sana para sa mga nakakbasa madaling maintndhan

para po masmadali nyo pong maintindihan yung "nothing or wala" na sinasabi ni Boss Ryu @ Boss Stormer

-kuha ka po ng timba na walang laman, saka nyo po takpan.
-alam mo po sa sarili nyo na wala talagang laman yung timba.
-pero hindi ibig sabihin na dahil sa walang laman yung timba ,ay totally na wala talagang laman yun.
-yun po yung sinasabing "something" ni Boss ryu, dun sa "nothing"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

padaan lang po mga atis

Dreamer · Apr 16, 2016

jcgerald21 said:
cguro atheist din aq for i don't believe that a GOD or GODS exist

Don't jump on this group bandwagon, honestly seek in your heart!

Watch debates on youtube of Prof. Richard Dawkins and Prof. John Lennox on "Delusional God" and many more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0U...g7mq-ONgB_Q3fcu1i--6tithDkNIncm0n-gERvjX4r2tA

https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&...pt.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFJWgpFquamwDMP1MoT10-dlzmBxw

rueryuzaki · Apr 18, 2016

jcgerald21 said:
cguro atheist din aq for i don't believe that a GOD or GODS exist

You would know that if you go to school more often.

I learned that the hard way.

Stormer0628 · Apr 19, 2016

PERSPECTIVES
========================================================

How Childhood Trauma Created Christian Myth— And Why It Matters to Atheists
by Benjamin Abelow

Amid heated debate about religion, a simple fact with profound implications has gone almost entirely unnoticed: that the myths underlying some of the most widespread religions portray themes related to childhood corporal punishment, abandonment, and neglect. Perhaps the presence of such themes should not be surprising, given that the world’s major religions arose from historical contexts where abusive and traumatizing childrearing practices were a cultural norm. Of the religions widely practiced today, the traumatic themes are most transparent, pervasive, and close to the surface in the myths of Christianity—hence the focus of this article. To begin, we’ll briefly review evidence pertaining to childhood corporal punishment in the West, with an emphasis on the ancient world in which Christianity arose. We’ll then explore how themes of childhood trauma are reflected in Christian myth. At the end, I’ll offer my thoughts about how these ideas may be of particular value to those who embrace atheism, rationalism, and humanism.

* * *

Although patriarchy has been the dominant form of social organization in many cultures, patriarchy in the ancient Roman world, which provided the most immediate setting for the writing of the New Testament [1], was exceptionally explicit and well defined, forming a central element of Roman law, ethics, and self-perception. We can gain insight into how this patriarchal context affected children by considering two contemporary sources on the laws of patria potestas (“fatherly powers”), which were central to both jurisprudence and self-identity in the Roman Empire. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek teacher of rhetoric who lived in Rome from 30 to 8 BCE, wrote:

[T]he founder of the Roman constitution gave the father unrestricted power over his sons. That power was to remain until the father’s death. He might imprison or beat him, chain him up and send him to work in the country, or even execute him. [2]

Gaius, in his influential second-century CE textbook of Roman law, describes how the same laws applied to both slaves and children:

Some persons are legally independent, some are subject to another. [O]f those subject to another, some are in potestas [power]…. Slaves are in potestas of their masters. This potestas rests on universal law, for it is observable that among all peoples alike, masters have power of life and death over their slaves…. Also in our potestas are any of our children who are the offspring of a lawful marriage. This right is peculiar to Roman citizens, for there are virtually no other peoples who have such power over their children as we have…. [3]

These two quotations are of special significance to us because they chronologically bracket the roughly 100-year period (ca. 50 to 150 CE) when virtually all the books of the New Testament were written.

While the execution of children by fathers was probably extremely rare, harsh corporal discipline of children, especially sons, was common and is attested by numerous sources. A few examples follow, arranged in rough chronological order, starting in the century before the birth of Christianity. TheRhetorica ad Herennium (1st century BCE) advocates that parents and teachers “chastise [corporally punish] the young with special severity” (4.17.25) to shape them for a virtuous life. Cicero (106-43 BCE) indicates that boys could be beaten by fathers, mothers, grandfathers, and teachers [4]. Seneca (3 BCE-65 CE) explains that children are beaten for the same reason that animals are, “so that the pain overcomes their obstinacy” (De Constantia Sapientis 12.3). Seneca also describes how the father’s role was primarily disciplinary, in contrast to maternal nurturance (Essay on Providence 2.5). Quintilian (35-95 CE) indicates that, during beatings, Imperial Roman children often became so terrified that they lost bowel or bladder control. “When children are beaten,” he writes, “the pain and fear often have results which it is not pleasant to speak of and which will later be a source of embarrassment.” (Institutio Oratoria, 1.3.16). The medical authority Galen (130-200 CE) indicates that corporal discipline could begin in infancy: once children reach about one year of age, they “can be made to obey by the use of blows, threats, reprimands, and admonishments” (Oribasius, Libri incerti, 17). The New Testament itself asserts that corporal punishment by fathers was actually universal, at least among legitimate male children. The book of Hebrews, written around 65 CE and reflecting Roman cultural norms, states flatly that “all” sons are punished and then asks, “For what son is he whom the father does not chastise?”—and answers: “If you are without chastisement…then are you bastards and not sons” [Hebrews 12:7-8]. Similar norms probably existed among Jews, as they did in many other cultures. For example, the two most important first-century CE Jewish sources, Philo and Josephus, both write approvingly of Mosaic laws that make offenses against one’s parents a capital crime. Regarding punishment for ordinary childhood disobedience, the well-known spare-the-rod type admonitions of Hebrew wisdom literature, in particular Proverbs and Sirach, were almost certainly operative [5]. Although most of our historical focus in this article is on the early formative period of Christianity, when the books of the New Testament were being written, it is important to note that similar patterns of corporal punishment persisted throughout Western history and, too often, have continued into the present.

Holding in mind these endemic patterns of childhood corporal discipline in the ancient world, especially that inflicted by fathers on sons to enforce obedience—the stereotypical pattern—let us consider the writings of the New Testament, looking both at the New Testament’s core theological narrative and its primary salvation teaching.

A central theme of the New Testament’s narrative is that the Son, Jesus, suffers corporally according to the will of his (heavenly) Father. A few examples follow. According to Paul, the Father “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all” [Romans 8:32]. In John’s Gospel, Jesus rebukes Peter when he tries to prevent Jesus’ capture by the Romans: “the cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” [18:11] The cup, of course, represents the suffering that Jesus knows awaits him. In John’s Gospel, the Father, speaking in “a voice from heaven,” indicates his direct role in the crucifixion [12:27-28]. The Acts of the Apostles states that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” [Acts 2:23]. In fact, Acts explicitly says that all human participants in the crucifixion were merely intermediaries who were “were gathered together” by the Father to carry out His plan [Acts 4:27-28]. In describing the heavenly Father as the source of his Son’s suffering, the New Testament closely tracks the actual historical situation of ordinary children, especially sons, in the ancient world.

The New Testament narrative also reflects the inner psychological reality of the child. At Gethsemane, Jesus grapples with thoughts of his impending Passion. In the Gospels of Matthew [26:38] and Mark [14:34], Jesus is “very sorrowful, even to [the point of] death.” In Luke’s Gospel [22:44], Jesus is in emotional “agony.” In the book of Hebrews [5:7], Jesus emits “loud cries and tears.” Responding to these intense inner states of devastation and desolation, Jesus begs his Father not to proceed: “Father, all things are possible for you; remove this cup from before me” [Mark 14:35-36; Matt. 26:39, Luke 22:42]. These portrayals of the Son parallel the emotional agony and desperate pleading of ordinary children when faced with corporal punishment. In the end, Jesus resigns himself to his fate, saying, “Father…not what I will, but what you will” [Mark 14:36; Matt. 26:39, Luke 22:42]—a posture of filial submission much like that forced upon corporally punished children since time immemorial. Thus, in the image of Jesus, we encounter an almost perfectly formed mythic representation of the external circumstances, feeling states, behavioral reactions and, ultimately, volitional collapse of the corporally punished child.

Reflections of childhood fears of a punishing father are likewise present in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Luke [12:4-5], Jesus says of the Father: “I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!” The letter to the Ephesians [2:2-3] makes clear that the Father’s wrath arises in response to the disobedience of his human children. In the very first lines of the earliest known Christian text, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, ca. 50 CE, we read of the central role of fear in early conversions to Christianity: the Thessalonians turned from idols to God and waited for “Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” [1 Thess. 1:9-10]. Almost three and a half centuries later, Augustine asserts: “Very rarely, no never, does it happen that someone comes to us with the wish to be Christian who has not been struck by some fear of God” (On Catechizing the Uninstructed, 5.9). These extraordinary statements provide deep insight into the psychological world within which Christianity first spread—a world that appears to have been pervaded by fear of the father, a fear that was readily displaced onto the theological realm.

Remarkable parallels with ordinary childhood are also present in the New Testament’s most important and explicit salvation teaching. When children are punished, the proximate cause may be quite varied, depending on the particular circumstance and the nature of the parental demand that has been violated. But the ultimate cause is general and homogeneous: the child is punished for disobedience. Disobedience is the quintessential “crime” of childhood. Conversely, the essential and required route for avoiding punishment, and for obviating the escalation of punishment once punishment has begun, is obedience. Notice that if a child is punished because of disobedience, and punishment is obviated because of obedience, the child is effectively saved from punishment by obedience. The theological parallels are obvious: disobedience—Adam’s sin in the Biblical garden—leads to Paternal punishment for humans; whereas obedience to the Father—the behavioral and attitudinal stance of Jesus—leads to salvation. This concept is expressed most clearly in Paul’s letter to the Romans, which became foundational for Christianity:

Then as one man’s [Adam’s] trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s [Jesus’] act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. [Romans 5:18-19]

Observed that for both the child within the family and the believer within the Pauline framework, salvation is attained through filial obedience, that is, obedience of the child to the parent, especially to the father. The parallel is rendered yet more precise by the fact that human beings are, within the Christian framework, themselves considered children of the heavenly Father. Thus, in both ordinary childhood and Christian teachings about damnation, it is children who are subject to punishment by the father/Father. The parallelism is found deeper still when we note that Adam himself, who is understood to be the source of disobedience, is considered to be “the Son of God” [Luke 3:38] and, as many commentators have observed, his sin has a distinctly child-like quality to it [6]. Thus, the clear connotation of the biblical text is that Adam’s sin is a specifically filial disobedience.

Understood on its own terms, the central function of Christianity as a salvation religion is to provide a metaphysically constructed process by which the believer, who is mythically construed as child, replaces filial disobedience with filial obedience. This objective is epitomized in the phrase: “to die to the self and be reborn in Christ”—which means: to die to the innately disobedient self, which is identified with Adam, and to be reborn in the preternaturally obedient Child, Jesus. When one recognizes that Adam and Jesus represent and personify, respectively, filial disobedience and obedience, the underlying meaning and psychological import of the Christian salvation structure becomes clear: it is a system that mythically recapitulates a central traumatic theme from childhood, providing the believer a way to escape punishment by metaphysically realigning him or herself from a state of disobedience to one of obedience. By mythically renouncing the disobedient childhood self, and becoming totally obedient in and through Christ, the believer, conceptualized as a child, seeks to avoid punishment—punishment that for most of history, and too often still, was unavoidable in actual childhood.

These same concepts are evident in the Christian ritual (or, more specifically, sacramental) structure, which embody and give behavioral expression to the underlying salvation myth. This is most obvious within the context of Paul’s baptismal theology, which conceptualizes immersion as a ritually constructed death of the old, willfully disobedient self, which is identified with Adam, and emersion as a rising, in new life, with or in the fully obedient Christ-Child. In fact, this sequence of ritually constructed death (of the willful childhood self) and birth (of the new, obedient, Christ-like self) is often understood as being mystically tied directly to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus: the disobedient self is said to be crucified with or through Jesus, just as the new self is resurrected with or through him [Romans 6:3-4]. Here it should be pointed out that in attempting to sacramentally effect a change of identification from disobedient Adam to obedient Jesus, the individual is, without conscious awareness, undertaking voluntarily, on the level of symbolic myth, the very process of inner transformation that the child, under threat of punishment, was forced to enact during childhood. For those familiar with the mechanisms and manifestations of psychological trauma, I will add that for the individual who was subject to the coercive suppression of the will during childhood, this sacramental process, in its self-directed and self-empowered retracing of a prior victimization, shows remarkable parallels with the phenomenon of post-traumatic behavioral repetition.

Broadly stated, we have been considering a process by which religious myths, including both narrative and salvational myths, engage individual minds and the culture at large by evoking powerful childhood emotions and a shared sense of ultimate truth in response to endemic, stereotypical childhood traumas. Remarkably, fundamental features of this process were recognized almost three centuries ago by Susannah Wesley—a devout religionist and the mother of John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Christian Methodism. In a letter of 1732, Susannah explained her views on corporal punishment:

I insist on conquering the will of children betimes [i.e., early in life], because this is the only strong and rational foundation of a religious education, without which both precept and example will be ineffectual. … This is still more evident if we further consider that religion is nothing else than the doing the will of God, and not our own….[7]

In this extraordinary passage, Wesley posits that the child’s enforced submission to the will of the parent lays a necessary psychological and cognitive foundation for the later development of a belief system centered on submission to God. Wesley lived in a world very different from our own, and her ideas reflect a staunch advocacy of physical punishment. Yet her fundamental insights are profound, and are almost entirely concordant with the ideas we are considering here.

In the history of Western culture, childhood corporal punishment has consistently been viewed as both necessary and beneficial. Furthermore, the potential for psychological harm, even in the context of severe and potentially life-threatening physical punishment, has been at most dimly and inconsistently perceived. In this cultural context, it was not possible to grasp consciously or communicate literally about one’s subjective experiences of trauma because the necessary foundation of understanding was lacking. However, a symbolic “language,” such as that provided by Christianity, could fill the gap—making it possible to express, however indirectly and inadequately, the experience of endemic childhood suffering and its persistent effects in adults.

These same ideas pertain to the long history of child abandonment and neglect. Although less well known to most people than the history of corporal punishment, the abandonment and neglect of children has been endemic, even normative, in the West from ancient times almost to the present. Regarding the Roman Empire, which as we have noted provided the immediate context for the writing of the books of the New Testament, the late Yale historian John Boswell estimated that of all children born in Rome during the first three centuries C.E., between 20 and 40 percent were abandoned [8]. High levels of abandonment persisted throughout the medieval period and much of the modern period as well. Writing primarily of the 18th and 19th centuries, the anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy [9] notes that European abandonment affected not tens or hundreds of thousands of babies, but millions; and historian and anthropologist David Kertzer [10] has shown that in mid-19th century Europe over 100,000 babies were abandoned annually. Various forms of “temporary abandonment” (e.g., the sending away of babies to wet nurse, or of young children to apprentice or work as maids), as well as overt physical and emotional neglect, have also been widespread.

In this context, consider the gospel portrayal of Jesus’ so-called Cry of Dereliction from the cross—“My God, My God, why have you abandoned me!” [Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34] This cry was taken verbatim from Psalm 22 in the Hebrew Scriptures and, in the Gospels, placed into the context of a Father-Son relationship. No longer is it a Hebrew’s generic lament to God; it is a Son crying out to his Father—just as we might expect of the countless children abandoned or neglected by their fathers. Thus, with respect to both corporal punishment and abandonment—two quintessential traumas of childhood—we find in the Passion of Jesus tight thematic parallels with the “passion” of ordinary children. This image of a Child abandoned by his Father provides a powerful resonance for any person who was neglected in childhood—something that remains all too common even in our own time and cultural circumstances. In previous centuries, when actual abandonment was widespread, the resonances likely were even more powerful.

to be continued.....

Stormer0628 · Apr 20, 2016

PERSPECTIVES
========================================================

How Childhood Trauma Created Christian Myth— And Why It Matters to Atheists
by Benjamin Abelow

continued... (previous)

Finally, we can see in Christian myth something that adds yet another layer of emotional power, depth, and resonance: an inversion of the actual childhood reality, one that “undoes” the real-world trauma it represents. I am speaking here of the Easter myth of resurrection, which portrays the child’s desperate need to believe that the horrors that he or she experienced were not ultimately real, permanent, and irreversible. Through the believer’s intense psychological identification with Jesus (understood within Christianity as a sharing in the life of Christ, or even a metaphysical merger or union with Christ) the reversal of Jesus’ corporal pain and abandonment becomes the believer’s as well. Thus, the potent resurrection vision of a loving, non-punitive, and endlessly enduring Child-Parent reunion can readily function as a powerfully attractive balm for the often-unmitigated terrors, longings, and permanent tragedies of this-worldly childhood. I suspect that it is this psychological substitution of a longed-for happy ending for an irremediable childhood actuality that explains the exaltation experienced by so many Christians in connection with the Easter vision of resurrection.

Thus, the Christian ideational structure, encompassing crucifixion, resurrection, and the closely intertwined salvation teachings of Paul, provides the believer, on the level of myth, both a powerful repetition of the original trauma and a means to “undo” or prevent it. This explanation is remarkably simple in its essential features. Yet it goes far in explaining not only the original development of the Christian myth in its ancient context but also the underlying motivation of the entire Christian religious endeavor for the past two millennia. It addresses the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of Christianity and ties them quite precisely to the historically documented realities of this-worldly childhood.

Before concluding, we need to briefly consider how the “translation” from the realm of childhood to the realm of myth could have occurred. We can parse the explanation into two groups of processes, which for simplicity we can describe as those that create mental content deep within the mind and those that bring this newly formed mental content into the outer world of human interaction and text creation.

In the first group, a variety of psychological mechanisms are relevant, including: (a.) the human mind’s natural tendency to create symbolic narratives that reflect the realities of life (evident in both figures of speech and dreams); (b.) the processes of early childhood memory, which retain mnemonic recollections that are highly durable yet are “non-autobiographical” in form (i.e., they are stored in memory without a clear connection to a sense of “self”) and can thus be experienced in other contexts; (c.) the fragmentation of memory that occurs with psychological trauma, followed by the reconstitution of the traumatic memory fragments in thematically related settings; and (d.) the “transference” of powerful childhood emotions into entirely different contexts, including much later in life. All these mechanisms and more likely played and continue to play a role. Individually or together, they provide the psychological foundation required for the mythicization of childhood themes.

In the second group of mechanisms—those that bring the newly formed mental content into the outer world of human interactions and text creation—at least two well-known processes likely played a role: the experience of “revelation,” such as those to which Paul attributed his knowledge of Christ and the gospel, and the oral transmission of narratives, such as that through which early stories about Jesus were passed by word of mouth before they were ultimately written down in the Gospels starting around the year 70. An experience perceived as revelation is a quintessential example of how an internal source of information can be misconstrued as arising from an external source, including an imaginary one; and oral traditions are well-recognized to be highly susceptible to ongoing modification in response to the needs and hopes of the community and individuals doing the transmitting. When occurring along with the foundational psychological mechanisms we described a moment ago, revelation experiences and the oral transmission of narratives can provide a ready vehicle for incorporating childhood themes into religious traditions and written texts, including those that later become canonical.

Finally, it is important to note that, in describing how symbolic and other psychological processes that pertain to childhood ultimately shaped Christian myth, I am not asserting that Christian myth arose through a psychological creation ex nihilo. Rather, the mythic structure of Christianity appears to have arisen largely through the modification, combination, and re-contextualization of preexisting religious and cultural elements. We have already noted Jesus’ Cry of Dereliction in the Gospel story—which is rooted in a specific, directional modification of a verse from the 22 Psalm of the Hebrew Bible. As another example, consider Isaiah’s image of a suffering servant [e.g. Isaiah 53], which many scholars believe provided a literary model for New Testament images of Jesus. In Isaiah, the servant is an ill-defined righteous innocent who suffers according to the will of God. But in the New Testament, the servant becomes a Son who suffers according to the will of his Father, thus more accurately reflecting the experiences of children in the New Testament’s formative context. Many similar examples could be offered. We thus can say that a pattern of stereotypical childhood trauma within a culture can act as an “organizing principle” in the formation of a religious myth, building thematically precise, emotionally resonant narratives from the cultural materials at hand.

* * *

I hope by now it is clear just how strong is the logical, evidential, and theoretical basis of the argument I am making. From a cultural and scholarly perspective, it is difficult to overstate the importance of these ideas, given that Christianity has so fundamentally shaped the West’s literature, philosophy, art, architecture, the structures and patterns of daily life, and much of the West’s political and military history as well. The broadest implications of the argument presented here is that our entire culture and world has been shaped, even in some sense arisen in response to, the abuse of children.

Beyond their general importance, the ideas presented in this article may provide insights of particular value to those who embrace atheism, rationalism, and humanism. To conclude this article, I suggest that these ideas can provide:

1. More powerful naturalistic explanations for religion. Many naturalistic and scientific attempts to understand religion are rooted in an abstract or idealized understanding of what religion is, and they have relatively little to say about the particularities that form the actual substance of religions themselves. The ideas presented here can help account for the specific themes of religious myths, and the nature of their associated rituals and sacraments, by showing a point-by-point correspondence with well-documented patterns of human social interaction—in particular, patterns from the cognitively and emotionally formative period of childhood. These ideas are broadly applicable and can enrich a variety of perspectives on Christian origins. For example, they do not presuppose a particular position on the question of whether an “historical Jesus” can be excavated from (or was ever even present) beneath the layers of mythicization evident in the New Testament. In terms of cultural-evolutionary understandings of religion, including those that make use of the meme concept, the ideas in this article point to a highly important and largely unrecognized selective pressure that can influence the development, survival, and spread of religious ideas among or between cultures.
2. A deeper understanding of psychological motivations for religious belief. Debates between theists and atheists often take the form of arguments over questions of historical truth. It is thus understandable that, from the rationalist perspective, the religious world-view is often seen as having arisen, ultimately, from cognitive misperceptions. The approach I present here focuses attention on the powerful emotional and personal factors that may underlie and account for religious belief, and which may render the religionist’s misperceptions resistant to change. For atheists who are trying to persuasively communicate a secular and humanistic vision of the cosmos to religious believers, the ideas in this article help make clear that the cognitive dimension of religious belief may be merely the visible tip of the iceberg.
3. Insight into the roots of religious trauma. As Dr. Richard Dawkins has repeatedly, powerfully, and eloquently emphasized, specific religious teachings, such as Christian ideas about hell, can have a deeply traumatizing effect on children. The ideas presented in this article can help one better contextualize and comprehend the source of these traumatic aspects of Christian myth. They make clear that trauma underlies trauma—that historically endemic patterns of childhood corporal punishment, enacted in a patriarchal context, ultimately explain the Christian emphasis on punishment by the heavenly Father. Here I should note that other scholars, especially the social historian Philip Greven (see, for example, his Spare the Child) have explored the link between childhood corporal punishment and the fear of hellfire in depth; engagement with this scholarship can benefit those who wish to better understand these concepts.
4. Increased recognition of our shared humanity. Given the broad cultural climate, at least in the United States and other places where Christianity is still ascendant, and the great harm done by certain religious teachings to children and others, it is easy to understand how atheists might see themselves as an embattled minority confronting a dangerous and overwhelmingly powerful cultural force. On an individual level, the believer may even be viewed as an enemy of sorts, an “other” who represents and embodies a vast and powerful “them.” The ideas presented in this article can help one recognize that believers, through their embrace of the Christian mythic structure, may actually be expressing, without conscious awareness, a profound sense of vulnerability, victimization, and need. Once this possibility is recognized, it becomes easier to see the believer as someone who, like oneself, is trying—too often in the face of horrific childhood experiences and long psychological odds—to flourish emotionally, or even merely to endure. With this insight, the sense of eviscerating judgment may drop away and be replaced by a feeling of interpersonal connection. By drawing attention to the shared experience of childhood, an awareness of our shared humanity can come to the fore.

====================================================================

NOTES:

[1] Most biblical scholars agree that the books which compose the New Testament were written in the broader Roman empire (not in Palestine) and that the language of composition was Koine (Hellenistic) Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman world.
[2] Gardner & Wiedemann (1991), p. 12
[3] Gardner & Wiedemann (1991), p. 5
[4] Discussed in Saller (1994), p. 147.
[5] Philo and Josephus endorse, and actually expand the scope of, the prescription of Deuteronomy 21:18-21. For Philo, see The Special Laws, 2.232 and 2.248. For Josephus, see Against Apion, Book 2:28. For Proverbs, see 13:24, 22:15, and 23:13. For Sirach, which was influential in Hellenistic communities in the first century BCE and very likely later, see 30:1-3 and 30:12.
[6] Of many examples, see e.g., Gunkel (1901/1997), pp. 1, 14, 19, 32; Speiser (1964, p. 25); Abelow (2010).
[7] Greven (1973), p. 48.
[8] Boswell (1990), p. 135.
[9] Hrdy (1999), p. 303.
[10] Kertzer (1993), p. 10

SOURCES
Abelow, B. J. (2011) The Shaping of New Testament Narrative and Salvation Teaching by Painful Childhood Experience, Archive for the Psychology of Religion (Brill), volume 33, no. 1, p. 1-54

Abelow, B. J. (2009). Religious behavior as a reflection of childhood corporal punishment. In J. R. Feierman (Ed.), The biology of religious behavior: The evolutionary origins of faith and religion (pp. 89-105). New York: Praeger.

Abelow, B. J. (2010). Paradise lost: childhood punishment and the myth of Adam’s sin. In A. Kille & D. Daschke (Eds.), A cry instead of justice: The Bible and cultures of violence in psychological perspective(pp. 19-41). New York: T&T Clark.

Boswell, J. (1990). The kindness of strangers: The abandonment of children in Western Europe from late antiquity to the renaissance. New York: Vintage.

Gardner, J. F., & Wiedemann, T. (Eds.). (1991). The Roman household: A sourcebook. London: Routledge.

Greven, P. (1973). Child-rearing concepts 1628-1861: Historical sources. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Greven, P. (1992). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of child abuse. New York: Vintage.

Gunkel, H. (1997). Genesis (M. E. Biddle, Trans.). Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. (Original work published 1901)

Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon.

Kertzer, D. I. (1993). Sacrificed for honor: Italian infant abandonment and the politics of reproductive control. Boston: Beacon Press.

Saller, R. P. (1994). Patriarchy, property and death in the Roman family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Speiser, E. A. (1964). Genesis: Introduction, translation, and notes, Vol 1, The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.

theycallmeGhie · May 3, 2016

Napadpad lang po ako sa thread na to.

I believe i am not well informed pagdating sa atheist and agnostics.
I've tried to read some articles na nakapost dito. but then it leaves me hanging and more confused.
I'm sorry pero nacucurious po ako sa inyo and i think ang interesting din unawain ang atheist and agnostics.

May question lang po ako.
Ang basis ba ng mga atheist and agnostics ay sa humanity?

Interested lang ako malaman ang perception nila sa mga bagay-bagay.

Thank you.

Stormer0628 · May 3, 2016

theycallmeGhie said:
Napadpad lang po ako sa thread na to.

I believe i am not well informed pagdating sa atheist and agnostics.
I've tried to read some articles na nakapost dito. but then it leaves me hanging and more confused.
I'm sorry pero nacucurious po ako sa inyo and i think ang interesting din unawain ang atheist and agnostics.

May question lang po ako.
Ang basis ba ng mga atheist and agnostics ay sa humanity?

Interested lang ako malaman ang perception nila sa mga bagay-bagay.

Thank you.

First, welcome sa thread.

The thread itself is a long one. Wala pa ako actually mahaba na to

I tried backreading to some point to get a feel of the group, and I would advise anyone else to do the same. Marami na masyado articles nakapost dito. May pang beginners, intermediate, at advanced level, if I may say so, kaya kung itatry mo, cguro start ka lang dun sa familiar sayo before trying the others.

In all appearances, di naman cguro ganun kacomplicated kaming atheists. Unang-una most of us grew up under the same familiar situations. I myself dress and behave like everyone else, have a group of friends from all belief systems that I could think of, and we go along well despite the differences.

Under the skin, simple lang din naman tingin ko sa pananaw namin: we try to look at the world without the blinders and filters of religion, of gods. So the usual fare: no gods to create the world, morality based on rationality and choice instead of just obedience, living within society as responsible—and responsive—to the realities of each society we individual atheists find ourselves in. The rest follows from these basic things. So, to your question kami ba ay sa humanity? Yes. And only for this life and the human situation now. Not later thru the belief in afterlife. AT least for me, that is :lol:

Have I made a good presentation of it yet? If not, please feel free to ask some more of your questions about us.

theycallmeGhie · May 5, 2016

Stormer0628 said:
First, welcome sa thread.

The thread itself is a long one. Wala pa ako actually mahaba na to I tried backreading to some point to get a feel of the group, and I would advise anyone else to do the same. Marami na masyado articles nakapost dito. May pang beginners, intermediate, at advanced level, if I may say so, kaya kung itatry mo, cguro start ka lang dun sa familiar sayo before trying the others.

In all appearances, di naman cguro ganun kacomplicated kaming atheists. Unang-una most of us grew up under the same familiar situations. I myself dress and behave like everyone else, have a group of friends from all belief systems that I could think of, and we go along well despite the differences.

Under the skin, simple lang din naman tingin ko sa pananaw namin: we try to look at the world without the blinders and filters of religion, of gods. So the usual fare: no gods to create the world, morality based on rationality and choice instead of just obedience, living within society as responsible—and responsive—to the realities of each society we individual atheists find ourselves in. The rest follows from these basic things. So, to your question kami ba ay sa humanity? Yes. And only for this life and the human situation now. Not later thru the belief in afterlife. AT least for me, that is

Have I made a good presentation of it yet? If not, please feel free to ask some more of your questions about us.

Thanks sa pagsagot

Pero may follow up questions po sana. How did you become an atheist? How did you lose your faith?
Curious ako pano nagsimula eh. Malinaw explanation nyo. But then I've come up with a few more questions pa. sorry ah hehehe

Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

Symbianize Elder

Symbianize Angel

Recruit

Symbianize Angel

Symbianize Elder

Recruit

Symbianize Elder

Symbianize Angel

Recruit

The Martyr

Symbianize Angel

Recruit

The Devotee

The Fanatic

Symbianize Elder

Symbianize Angel

Symbianize Angel

Novice

Symbianize Angel

Novice