Peterkin

Butterflies may feel very important when they hear that. But they're really not. Thing is, while everything everyone does or doesn't do (You also didn't kill or rape or abuse anyone, right?) (Right?) has a lasting effect on everything that happens thereafter, the effects of each individual are not equal: some acts are a lot more consequential than others; some people leave bigger tracks than others.

Nothing - for the dead. For the living, it all depends on who and what is dead: food, trophy, relief, inheritance, liberty, grief, logistical problems, financial problems, guilt, loss, family duty, anger, loneliness, nightmares... it all depends on the relationships.

I don't need to define a god, or gods, or deity in order to be absolutely convinced that I do not believe any of the god-stories that I have heard or read so far. I can call myself an atheist, since I actively reject all of the supernatural claims of all of the religions i have encountered - including the ones I find attractive. If a belief system shows up that convinces me of its validity, I am prepared to change my mind ... but there isn't much time left, before I go to what I (sadly, reluctantly) believe is oblivion. If there is Something Out There that hasn't been catlogued and enshrined by organized religion, I'm content to remain ignorant of its existence and irreligious of its potential divinity.

If the earliest known imagery and narrative from human communities is an indication, then, yes, to the best of my understanding, that's how it happened. I don't know. Some kind of ritualistic practices seem to be common - that is, the fact of it, not the details - to all known human societies. As I mentioned before, they bear little resemblance to the ceremonies of the organized religions we know today.

Not for that abstract concept in particular, but for the capacity to abstract ideas. Imagination, projection, association, generalization, categorization. We have a big brain and a long life: time to have a lot of experiences, form a lot of attachments, ask a lot of questions and store a lot of memories. When you walk in tall grass, or a quiet forest, you can hear it whisper your name. Why your name? That's the usual reported one, but it might be the name of the girl you love, or 'sizzling steak' - the point being that your brain makes a meaningful pattern out of random noise. Just as we see pictures in clouds, or giants in rock formations. We make narrative out of experience. Also, we have these mirror neurons. In a sense, we impersonate one another - and that goes both ways: we project our own personality, feelings, desires and intentions onto not only other people, but inanimate objects - attribute malice to furniture we ourselves are guilty of kicking, for instance. How much more intensely we do with a environment that is anything but inanimate! The world around us --- well, not us modern people, so much, but the real people who lived in nature - moves, changes, makes noises, affects us in so many unexpected ways. It's inevitable that our ancestors would attribute human qualities and volition to the forces of nature. And then comes the desire to control. We figured, if the wind and water and and fire are living things like us, we should be able to talk to them, negotiate, bribe, persuade them to treat us well. And on from there.

like cigarettes.... But when you listen the very crude pitch of televangelists who own Lear jets and mansions next door to the Trumps, you have to wonder whether those clever men wasted their efforts; whether flares and trumpets aren't an easier sell.

I would argue back: it doesn't exist in nature - only in human minds. But I also agree: some people have temperaments and proclivities (which afaik have not been isolated, identified and catalogued) that make them more susceptible to belief, while others are by nature more inclined to skepticism. So, the first type of personality would become extremely and happily devout in an environment that rewards unquestioning faith and the second type would ask questions, annoying their religious mentors, which would earn them disapproval and hasten their alienation. So, character, intelligence, imagination, early environment, the caregivers, access to information and experience all play parts.

Depends on the environment. If you refuse to think about it because expressing any hint of disbelief might be hazardous to your health, you may be a closet atheist. If you don't think about it, simply because it isn't around, not claiming your attention, doesn't seem to matter, you're probably agnostic. You won't know which until you do think about it. (Might not take too much of your time)

Now, so would I think that way. When I was much younger, the lines - and knives - were not so firmly drawn. We had some fundamentalists of every stripe in Toronto, but most of the people I knew didn't advertise their belief or go out of their way to insult the people who didn't share it. All that politicization in the US has spilled over, and of course with the mess NATO helped make of the Middle East, that's all over Europe now. People are defensive and offensive and the whole subject is toxic.

I thought of that belatedly and added it on edit: Something you know about their belief had already turned you off, so you look at them and think: "How can you believe that? What's wrong with you?"

That would depend on how they behaved, wouldn't it? They're not colour-coded or labelled, so you can't immediately know when meeting someone whether they are religious, and if so, what brand. Unless they're wearing a habit, turban, yarmulke or hijab, they have to say or do something to indicate their religion. I assume that's what you react to when you become uncomfortable, rather than their physical presence. You also asked whether it was learned. I tried to answer both to the best of my ability. Your own sense of reality. Obviously, I don't know the particulars; everyone's encounters with religion and those who practice it are different. They said something or did something, or you knew something about their belief, that turned you off. Long after I made up my own mind about it, I find that some religious people set my teeth on edge the minute I lay eyes on them or hear their voice (of course, so do some non-religious ones). Some of those garments I mentioned are a factor; footballers crossing themselves all the bloody time; the word God pronounced in a certain way (something like Gawhhd'); a colleague used to raise her eyes to heaven and ask for strength whenever someone disagreed with her... And, of course, the TV preachers are odious from top to bottom - but they're not believers, but they're selling religion. OTOH, I've had enjoyable visits to friends' places of worship and amicable conversations about their moral strictures. In most cases, intel;ligent people cherry-pick their religious convictions; nobody I know is all the way invested in a faith. One of the aforementioned priests conducted useful group discussions about the science/faith problem and a young fellow protester against war was also a missionary - I found these people pleasant and interesting company.

That is a definition of non-religious or areligionist. Atheist means one who does not believe in god or gods. They can still have rituals; they can be animist or tree-worshippers or Buddhist. So do I and have said so above. I was speaking to an adult who hears about religion for the first time. It's rare, I suppose, but if one grew up in a strict Communist, or isolated humanist environment, religion can be news to someone with developed critical faculties. Attempts have been made on quite a large scale in the USSR and China. Not very successfully, because they didn't kill off all the old folks before taking over the young.

If you don't know it, you aren't one - you couldn't even be agnostic or ignostic without holding some opinion on the matter of god(s). You can't be a Muslim or utilitarian or vegetarian without knowing it. You have to be aware of your convictions and beliefs in order to name them. Babies are not unbelievers; they are simply unaware of of the world. When you first heard about religion - presumably just one, to begin with, you decided whether to believe it holus bolus, reject it out of hand, or learn more about it.

As are all reactions. How should I know? It depends on the Dutch poster, their fluency, their degree and manner of bluntness. If you don't fully understand what they mean, it would be wise to ask for clarification before concluding, but sometimes we are unwise and respond emotionally - in any language. Academic Nirvana?

Usually - though not invariably - one of two reasons: We already feel insecure in our grasp of the subject and fear exposure of our weakness. or The impression is correct drawing attention to some shortfall in our understanding really is intended to humiliate. It depends largely on how accurately the other person represented our point, what aspect of it they criticized and how they worded the response.

They are not all the same. I have been comfortable with some deeply religious people, including a couple of Catholic priests, and acutely uncomfortable with many whose religious conviction was outspoken, and yet unconvincing. In both cases, I'm talking about Christians and my superficial observation is that the more sincere the faith, the more lightly they wear it and the less they need to demonstrate it. Most of my life, people's religion was not an issue. In the US, however, it has become increasingly political over the last four decades. What happens in the US, and what is done elsewhere by the US, affects the whole world. All beliefs are learned. Nobody is born with a head full of abstract ideas - only needs and sensations, which later form into yearnings and thoughts. The forming is done by the caregivers and larger environment. For example, a baby whose cradle is in the bedroom of a devout Catholic couple, develops its colour vision on a madonna and a Jesus with open heart and spiky halo; An Indian baby may, at the same time, be learning to focus on a grinning Buddha with a flower garland around its neck; in a secular western house, the baby's first impressions would be of flying fishies and bunnies. Images, as well as language, are imprinted on impressionable minds, so that it may very well seem as if they always had these beliefs. The idea of atheism depends on there being theism to reject or oppose. It doesn't have top be learned - it has to be formulated as a response to something about religion - its implausibility, its internal contradictions, its demands of the faithful, its moral shortcomings, the way its advocates behave - any combination of those factors. When someone brought up in a religious home comes to doubt the belief they've been taught, it takes time to figure what they're doubting and why. They rarely go directly from faith to atheism; there are many stages and soul-searchings to navigate. In that process, people usually consult critiques of their own religion, and apologetics for it, and thus learn the language of unbelief. Only then, having assessed their final response, do they call themselves atheist.

I was pretty sure that article did.

It's meant to be. A PAC is a political action committee - that is, a group of people entrusted with collecting and allocating moneys for a campaign, a candidate or a party. Simple enough, but of course, they couldn't leave it alone. Financial manipulators can never keep things simple. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/political-action-committee-super-pac.asp

This brings to mind the caste system of ants

I said 'likely' as a conclusion form my own experience, not scientific fact. And it turns about I was wrong about red. https://www.theedigital.com/blog/the-color-differences-between-men-and-women-infographic Not to everyone at the same time or for the same reason; therefore, no. The number of species is less significant than which species. I should think the nearest ancestors have the most influence on human development.

Yuck! Who came up with the pink and blue nonsense in the first place? I know that little girls tend to go through a phase of preferring pink and/or purple (and that phase can last into the late teens), but I'm unaware that boys have any preference -- or even colour recognition. When most men are asked their favourite colour, they're likely to say either red or blue. I have to wonder.... What came first? Did girls always like pink, or only since the fashion of adults giving them pink clothes and telling them they looked pretty and showering approval on them for being pink and pretty? Did boys always show such disregard for aesthetics? Did girls always want to imitate mommy in the kitchen - or only since they were barred from the garage? Did boys always disdain delicate, nuanced flavours? If so, where did all the artists and chefs come from?

We all know the sit-com meme of the father and grandfather buying footballs or baseball mitts for a baby. What if it is a boy, who will eventually be happy and comfortable as a boy, but who just doesn't like sports? While lots of girls like football and baseball , but hate kitchens and have no time for dolls. I really hope that mind-set has been overturned in the past 20 or 30 years and adults have stopped making such fools of themselves.

I think middle-class North American parents already hover quite enough over their precious offspring. How about just giving them all some room to explore, experiment, try different roles and costumes, toys and behaviours. They don't need to be dragged to a doctor every time they throw a tantrum when they don't get their own way. But if a pre-schooler is throwing tantrums over the same issue again and again, you might need to examine and discuss that issue. Sometimes it's as simple as he won't wear an item of clothing to daycare because another kid made fun of it, or everybody else has moved on to a different favourite cartoon character. Children are very much influenced by their peers. If a child really has been labelled incorrectly, they're usually very clear about it. And, yet, sometimes it's just envy of something a child of the other sex has or is allowed to do, or imitate someone they admire. If that's the case, it'll pass. Stand back, give them some room, don't micro-manage. Also, of course, there is a wide range of aptitudes, proclivities and temperaments in all human beings - and that's another aspect of the personality they are working out between 1 and 5 years of age. Plus sibling dominance and dependency. They have a lot to figure out. If it's not hurting anybody, let 'em try it. But parents have a whole lot of hopes and dreams, plans and expectations, that they've been carrying since before the kid was conceived - or since they themselves were children. They long for the child to like what they like, want what they want - be like them, or rather their own more perfect incarnation. They can't help being disappointed when the child doesn't play with the toys they've picked out so lovingly, or don't enjoy the activities the father or mother has so looked forward to sharing with them. It's hard to refrain from pushing. It often seems to, again because of how the child wants to be regarded by their peers. If they get no pressure at home, they may still be running into problems with other children. By now, though, I think the caregiver will have been educated to deal with gender variance and discrimination.

That's easy to say from a distance. Parents don't really have the option of letting their children grow however nature intended: they have to be present, protecting, guiding, curbing destructive behaviour, encouraging the child toward social and financial success to the best of their ability and judgment. They themselves are products of a society and culture. Doing the best they know and believe, they may be seen as harmful by people with different views. They may not be aware that they're 'pushing' according to someone else's definition. Because we raise our children to fit into the world as we know it, we raise them incorrectly: we don't know the world they will inhabit.

We'll make a lot of crude oil for some future civilization. Call it by its proper name: "imperialism", and drop its corpse on the doorstep of the shitty people with power and shitty families with enormous wealth. One is that the tribalism isn't petty and the 40,000+ years in which it flourished were not particularly dark. Another: what's referred to as 'the dark ages' were not tribal even in Europe, nor as dark as they've been painted https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/d/Dark_Ages.htm ; and of course neither dark nor tribal https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/06/eac.html in Asia . It seems to me, there are a lot of late 20th century Euro-American assumptions about what's good for humanity, which may not be altogether accurate. Or sustainable. Is the problem of population collapse really not enough babies, or is it not enough white babies?