Yeah I would agree with that and similarly I'd charitably apply it to theists. There's some logical reason they believe what they do so "belief" is a non-starter for any proposition. It's necessarily entailed with anything one says even if conditionally.

@Shwah
Aristotle taught us how to think more than what to think. To spend a few weeks carefully reading his “Metaphysics”, and never proceeding until the paragraph your reading is understood, is to become a different thinker. His Prime Mover is one of many rational conclusions with “God” at the end.

You are spending a lot of time here arguing with potheads and uneducated bigmouths.

When your thinking becomes evolved, one of the benefits is to spot a wannabe thinker immediately, which will save you from wasting time on them.

I spent some time here looking for a thinker to interact with. I found only one or two.

Most posters here are Internet trolls who Google their asses off to plagiarize and sound intelligent.

Flee …

Love would mean nothing without gods having created it. They had good reason reason for creating it. I will explain this in an upcoming short story. They didn't take something into account. And they could had known...

Most posters here are Internet trolls who Google their asses off to plagiarize and sound intelligent. — Joe Mello

Seems you are one of them...

There's some logical reason they believe what they do so — Shwah

Do you reject out of hand that its a response to primal fears?

Primal fears are logical or are properly consequential or derivable. I wouldn't say primal fears can meaningfully speak about religions in anything less than a shallow sense though.

I spent some time here looking for a thinker to interact with. I found only one or two. — Joe Mello

Why do you need any such interaction when you receive direct revelations from your god?
Stay Mello Joe, you are displaying too much ungodly emotional content for such a paragon of intellect.

Primal fears are logical or are properly consequential or derivable. I wouldn't say primal fears can meaningfully speak about religions in anything less than a shallow sense though — Shwah

But could they be a source for the human need of god as a 'benevolent protector' from primal fears.
Why would such be 'shallow' if they are so deeply felt to earn the label primal as in 'first' or 'important' or 'fundamental.'

Love would mean nothing without gods having created it — EugeneW

Do you think only humans experience and dispense love as we define the various manifestations of it?
If an animal can experience and dispense love, then does this means god owes them its benevolence as well? Do you think god owes us benevolence if it is responsible for our existence and do you 'believe' that god, as you perceive it, loves us?

Sure but it's hard to speak about love or charitability in fear except at most on a shallow level. It's much easier to speak about charitability in terms of love rather than fear.

In addition to that, I think the first stage of religion is the burial cults which are derived in animals today from extreme love and then grief at loss. It'd be hard to consider those feelings in terms of fear except derivatively for some people.
Animism, what I assume is the second stage of religion, seems almost entirely impossible to speak of in fear in the later developments (such as shintoism) but even in terms of late-stage hunter-gatherer totem animal animism, the fear of the animals if predicated off the beings (in whichever interpretation) and not the subject or foundation itself.

I suppose epistemologically it may seem more accurate for some but the ontological narrative informs the epistemological narratives.

@Shwah

Now read the last two replies to me from the Internet troll you are wasting time trying to have a philosophical discussion with, and you will see what a poor thinker looks like.

I have written that I spent 5 years in a monastery and “received” direct revelations from God, but he wants to phrase it as me saying that I still “receive” such revelations.

And who would claim that God doesn’t want us to display emotions but a mental midget?

Flee … he’s probably stoned and here to giggle to himself like an idiot.

Do you think only humans experience and dispense love as we define the various manifestations of it? — universeness

Absolutely not. Even elementary particles. The gods had a reason creating them. That gives love meaning. Await the final word to be told my fellow Earthling! :wink:

I get your point but I'm just here to talk about philosophy and I try to avoid conversations that are dead-ends.

It'd be hard to consider those feelings in terms of fear except derivatively for some people. — Shwah

What about the Egyptian Pharaohs are their large memorial pyramids. Do you think they had such built out of aspirational love or primal fear of their ever-impending oblivion, despite their personal wealth and power.

Flee … he’s probably stoned and here to giggle to himself like an idiot — Joe Mello

I suggest you do your own running Joe. If you drop your disrespectful commentary then I will take my finger off the trigger as well. If you can't do that then run boy run!

I would say pyramids are a development of the burial cult stage with developments past animism towards paganism.
Some spiritual traits about pyramids: they are built high to bridge the path between earth and the sun (heaven), the bodies are not burned to get closer to heaven, dead pharoahs may become gods if they reach their path (and get haloes which are just suns over your head), embalming is an understanding of the body and which are most important (which influences early surgery).
So a lot of ethical, scientific discoveries are from this. I think it would be hard to define these meaningfully in terms of fear.

Absolutely not. Even elementary particles — EugeneW

Are you sure your not a secret panpsychist EugeneW?

The gods had a reason creating them. That gives love meaning. Await the final word to be told my fellow Earthling! — EugeneW

Ok, at least you have always sounded pantheist which is my favorite flavor of theism, if I had to choose one.

Consider me a psychopantheist, universeness.

I would say pyramids are a development of the burial cult stage with developments past animism towards paganism.
Some spiritual traits about pyramids: they are built high to bridge the path between earth and the sun (heaven), the bodies are not burned to get closer to heaven, dead pharoahs may become gods if they reach their path (and get haloes which are just suns over your head), embalming is an understanding of the body and which are most important (which influences early surgery).
So a lot of ethical, scientific discoveries are from this. I think it would be hard to define these meaningfully in terms of fear — Shwah

All interesting points, but I am not convinced that you do not attribute most ancient and even some modern burial traditions with human 'hope' for a further existence after death.
Almost a plea to their gods for more life or renewed life. All the effort put into such rituals were in my opinion, attempts to demonstrate respect and subservience to what they perceived as the wishes of their god(s). Such hope for further existence in preference to oblivion has to be due to human primal fear. If you simply won't accept that then I must accept that your non-acceptance is for reasons you earnestly believe and is not mere philosophical window dressing.

Consider me a psychopantheist, universeness — EugeneW

:rofl:
I consider you a joy to exchange views with!

I mean you have to define gods to fear them and people, even if it's a fear-worshipping cult, don't fear them all equally. Fear is definitionally a predicate of the religion and not one that is necessary to have the religion. In that, fear is defined by the religion/gods and not the other way around. A better metric is probably "being" and humans grasp to that based on love initially and a more developed "spirituality" later.

Edit: Can fear lead to spirituality? I think it's possible definitely, even to love, but I think fear-based love/spirituality cannot fully express either and would remain shallow if it is used as the guiding variable for either.

Ok then let me try another angle. Do you think humans would consider the existence of gods if we did not die (immortal, if you like) or do you think gods would still be posited if humans had no primal fears such as a fear of death or more importantly, personal non-existence?

atheism literally has no ontology or epistemology to speak of. — Shwah

Well, isn't that because atheism isn't a philosophical system? Apart from the positive dogmatists, isn't atheism simply the view that there is no good reason to accept the proposition that god/s exist.

I think it's definitely possible. Sex could be an opening towards it (as in tantric sex) and definitely love still.

"No good reason" is tangential here but as for the question "does God exist" no human/conscious creature can arrive at the negative position.

I think it's definitely possible — Shwah

What exactly are you saying is definitely possible? That gods may not be considered/needed if we were immortal (which transhumanism and future technologies may take us a lot closer towards) or if humans had no primal fears? or are you saying something else? I didn't understand your sentence about sex.

That people can arrive to the concept of theism, but also spirituality, without death. They can use love or sex (as in tantric sex which is spirituality development through sex from the Hindu tradition).

"No good reason" is tangential here but as for the question "does God exist" no human/conscious creature can arrive at the negative position. — Shwah

Could not the same thing be said about Russell's teapot or any number of things we can invent but not assess? I don't think it is tangential, surely the point is what reason do we have for believing a given thing?

The point, for Russell's teapot, is whether it's verifiable or not - not whether we have reason to believe it's there or not (which was the point of Russell's Teapot).
Russell's Teapot was for Russell unverifiable (before the space age) but it can be verified today given some effort. Atheism, on the other hand, has nothing to verify. Theism does (a conception of God).

Surely the point is we can speculate about any number of things - aliens, celestial teapots, god/s - but why believe in any of them if there is no good evidence?