Are atheists the most easily indoctrinated people? Why?

[Anadarsia]

Although, I would say that rather then them saying that they need not concern themselves with the metaphysical they might just say there is no evidence the metaphysical exists.

Correct. Atheism/Anti-theism generally leads into a framework of understanding that is 100% based on physicality for the reason you have stated above. Only physical matters are ever considered.
This being the epistemological prism of analysis used today in Western societies.

[Eol Sha]

No.

Sorry he was a minister, not priest. A Lutheran minister to be exact.

Damn, sorry that was his father. I keep mixing people up

I see. How interesting.

[Genivaria]

Although, I would say that rather then them saying that they need not concern themselves with the metaphysical they might just say there is no evidence the metaphysical exists.

Correct. Atheism/Anti-theism generally leads into a framework of understanding that is 100% based on physicality for the reason you have stated above. Only physical matters are ever considered.
This being the epistemological prism of analysis used today in Western societies.

You're talking about science not atheism.

[Anadarsia]

So basically you are using a definition of atheism that no one else uses. Good to know.

Academia and education are not the status quo. Of course all those things do not take the metaphysical into concern, because every last one of those things has to do with the physical world.

And only the physical is measurable and detectable.

Yep, the 'reign of the quantity' in the words of René Guénon.

[Neanderthaland]

That's not what atheism is. Anti-theist would be a better term and even that doesn't cover everything you think atheism is.

Understood, my apologies, then I refer to 'anti-theists'.

Again, "Materialist" is what you're looking for. Though you have strawmanned even them.

An anti-theist is under no particular obligation to deny the possibility of the metaphysical. See: Sun Wukong.

[Genivaria]

And only the physical is measurable and detectable.

Yep, the 'reign of the quantity' in the words of René Guénon.

Yeah I don't know what you're talking about.

[Anadarsia]

There is a reason why during the Middle Ages, the operative categories to differentiate people were more based over religion and political allegiance rather than race.
The rise of scientific racialism came by XVIII Century people like Carl Linneus, further endorsed by Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire or Immanuel Kant, and finally codified into a cohesive corpus during the XIX Century by the likes of Gobineau.

Phrenology couldn't have happened without the Enlightenment replacing of metaphysical focus for physical focus.

Are they atheists, though? That's the real question.

They spoused a worldview that was built primarily over physicality rather than trying to understand both physical and metaphysical aspects simultaneously as had been the case under Thomism for instance, so I'd say they were. Then again, I suppose you can dispute the label like others have here.

[Neutraligon]

Although, I would say that rather then them saying that they need not concern themselves with the metaphysical they might just say there is no evidence the metaphysical exists.

Correct. Atheism/Anti-theism generally leads into a framework of understanding that is 100% based on physicality for the reason you have stated above. Only physical matters are ever considered.
This being the epistemological prism of analysis used today in Western societies.

Incorrect, atheism says nothing about if there are things other than the physical. There are atheists that believe in ghosts. For those atheists that are skeptics, the reason they do not take anything else into consideration is because there has been no evidence provided that anything other than the physical (and processes created by the physical) that actually exists. And since Christianity and religion is still dominant in Western society I would disagree with your last comment.

[Genivaria]

Are they atheists, though? That's the real question.

They spoused a worldview that was built primarily over physicality rather than trying to understand both physical and metaphysical aspects simultaneously as had been the case under Thomism for instance, so I'd say they were. Then again, I suppose you can dispute the label like others have here.

They dispute the label because you clearly don't know what atheism even is.

[Neutraligon]

Are they atheists, though? That's the real question.

They spoused a worldview that was built primarily over physicality rather than trying to understand both physical and metaphysical aspects simultaneously as had been the case under Thomism for instance, so I'd say they were. Then again, I suppose you can dispute the label like others have here.

Again Linnaeus believed in god. so you are wrong at least there.

[Neutraligon]

They spoused a worldview that was built primarily over physicality rather than trying to understand both physical and metaphysical aspects simultaneously as had been the case under Thomism for instance, so I'd say they were. Then again, I suppose you can dispute the label like others have here.

They dispute the label because you clearly don't know what atheism even is.

A lot of people do not know the definition of atheism, but even the biggest bible believing Christian would not agree with the definition provided here.

[Anadarsia]

Great point, yes.
Anglo-American protestantism, and protestantism at large I'd argue, is quite different in its social outlook compared to pre-Renaissance religions of the world (except perhaps Judaism) in that it does provide for theological support for capitalism and usury.

And consequently I'd argue that since atheists already reject at least part of that cultural 'package' of values associated with Christianity in the West (at this point I'd argue that most Catholics or minority religions have absorbed this 'package' as well), that makes them more likely to question things like capitalism or liberalism or what have you. Whether they actually reject such positions is of course another question, and that actually might explain your perception amongst the people you know - the atheists that have stepped back and evaluated the Western philosophical outlook and decided not to reject parts or all of it may in fact be more zealous than someone who just 'inherited' it. Zeal of the 'convert' and all that.

This is an excellent rebuttal, thank you very much.
Yes, all things considered, religious practise is very filtered by ambiant values and it's by no means a guarantee of doubt versus worldly promises today. And you are also correct that skepticism over cultural baggage may potentially, of course not always, lead to further questioning.

It's a very interesting topic and I believe I'd have to approach it more comprehensively to really get any useful conclusions. I'm really glad to have asked the question here in any case.

Thanks again.

[Neutraligon]

Maybe next time you should ask why people are materialists (I believe the closest word to what you are talking about), an then ask them what the consequences of this belief are. It seems to me you really do not understand the group you are trying to describe, and thus are coming to conclusions that make no sense.

[Anadarsia]

'Conspiracy theorist' is precisely a term used to shun people who dispute official narratives. The label itself being possible to trace to people who have an interest in questions not being asked.

Illustrative of the OP in a way.

It isn't illustrative of the OP at all. In order to prove your point, there would have to be an "official narrative" that the people challenging you all shared. For example, Genivaria and I would have to have the same view of the world. I am pretty sure that's not the case.

You aren't the only person that has your own opinion, and basically the entirety of this thread is just you looking for excuses to talk down to atheists and pretend some kind of intellectual superiority. It's not appreciated.

Using conspiracy theorist as a way to deride people who don't spouse official views, is quite literally following the designed behaviour that the system puts in place.

I am not trying to be accomodating to you nor to be insulting either. I merely had a question to ask and am doing my best to reply to rebuttals and questions being asked. If you find me unworthy of your time, that is alright.

[Anadarsia]

There is a reason why during the Middle Ages, the operative categories to differentiate people were more based over religion and political allegiance rather than race.
The rise of scientific racialism came by XVIII Century people like Carl Linneus, further endorsed by Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire or Immanuel Kant, and finally codified into a cohesive corpus during the XIX Century by the likes of Gobineau.

Phrenology couldn't have happened without the Enlightenment replacing of metaphysical focus for physical focus.

It's interesting how here science is being blamed for things that imitate science without being scientific.

A simple fact is scientific racialism stems from XVIII Century work, and was later codified fully in the XIX Century after the legacy of the French Revolution and the denial of metaphysics had been consolidated. While I don't deny there might have been emnities in the past built over differences, at no point did they reach the point Western Orientalism, based on positivism, did.

[Anadarsia]

It's interesting how here science is being blamed for things that imitate science without being scientific.

It's funny since I believe Darwin was among the first to say that humans where all one race. Before him I think people where dividing humans up into 2,3,4,5...number of groups.

Who? As far as I am aware of, prior to the modernist outlook during the Enlightenment in Europe, no attempts had been made to scientifically differentiate people according to physical features. I think one of Aristotle's disciple tried to do some physiognomic treatise but it was essentially about neighbours of the Greeks.

[Genivaria]

It's interesting how here science is being blamed for things that imitate science without being scientific.

A simple fact is scientific racialism stems from XVIII Century work, and was later codified fully in the XIX Century after the legacy of the French Revolution and the denial of metaphysics had been consolidated. While I don't deny there might have been emnities in the past built over differences, at no point did they reach the point Western Orientalism, based on positivism, did.

I am nearing old age waiting for you to provide a single source.

[Neutraligon]

It's interesting how here science is being blamed for things that imitate science without being scientific.

A simple fact is scientific racialism stems from XVIII Century work, and was later codified fully in the XIX Century after the legacy of the French Revolution and the denial of metaphysics had been consolidated. While I don't deny there might have been emnities in the past built over differences, at no point did they reach the point Western Orientalism, based on positivism, did.

Contemporary scholars agree that "race" was a recent invention and that it was essentially a folk idea, not a product of scientific research and discovery.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_0 ... -02-09.htm

[Anadarsia]

There is a reason why during the Middle Ages, the operative categories to differentiate people were more based over religion and political allegiance rather than race.
The rise of scientific racialism came by XVIII Century people like Carl Linneus, further endorsed by Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire or Immanuel Kant, and finally codified into a cohesive corpus during the XIX Century by the likes of Gobineau.

Phrenology couldn't have happened without the Enlightenment replacing of metaphysical focus for physical focus.

Still not citing anything I see.

These are self-evident facts, familiar to anyone who bothers to study the topic historically.
Are you meaning to tell me you need me to cite specific names to believe that scientific racialism in Northwestern Europe emerged simultaneously with the Enlightenment? If so I think practically any book on the history of scientific racialism will do. It's a mildly interesting topic, I think you could like it.

[Genivaria]

It's funny since I believe Darwin was among the first to say that humans where all one race. Before him I think people where dividing humans up into 2,3,4,5...number of groups.

Who? As far as I am aware of, prior to the modernist outlook during the Enlightenment in Europe, no attempts had been made to scientifically differentiate people according to physical features. I think one of Aristotle's disciple tried to do some physiognomic treatise but it was essentially about neighbours of the Greeks.

You seem to be doing everything in your power to connect racism to the enlightenment no matter how far you have to stretch.
But here I'll do what you refuse to and actually provide a source.

Edith Sanders in 1969 cited the Babylonian Talmud, which divides mankind between the three sons of Noah, stating that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being black, and [it] depicts Ham as a sinful man and his progeny as degenerates."[98] Although the curse of Ham has been used as an explanation for the origin of dark-skinned people since the 3rd century A.D., David M. Goldenberg (2005) writes that this was based on a theory that different climates and sun exposure affect semen composition and through this the physical composition of descendants. Furthermore, the earliest appearance of dark skin as a punishment for the descendants of Ham directly related to "Black Africans" does not appear until the 9th or 10th century (in the Pirqei de-Rabbenu ha-Qadosh). Earlier sources assign the punishment of blackness to Ham himself and make no mention of the people of Kush or their skin being a curse. As well, Goldenberg goes on to explain that the earlier (3rd century) sources understood "dark skin" to include not only sub-Saharan Africa but also:
... the Copts, Fezzan, Zaghawa, Brbr, Indians, Arabs, the people of Marw, the inhabitants of the islands in the Indian Ocean, even the Chinese, as well as the Ethiopians (Habash), Zanj, Buja, and Nubians. In other words, "the coloured people of the world."[99]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#In_antiquity

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

I'm sure at some point you'll make a post that includes a source.
Maybe I should pray for it to happen.

There is a reason why during the Middle Ages, the operative categories to differentiate people were more based over religion and political allegiance rather than race.
The rise of scientific racialism came by XVIII Century people like Carl Linneus, further endorsed by Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire or Immanuel Kant, and finally codified into a cohesive corpus during the XIX Century by the likes of Gobineau.

Phrenology couldn't have happened without the Enlightenment replacing of metaphysical focus for physical focus.

I'm not sure pinning racism on scientific materialism really fits. For the first proponents of the Enlightenment, science itself was a metaphysical discipline - using reason and deduction as a means of understanding God's creation and bringing ourselves more fully in line with his design for the universe. The first 'racists' like Blumenbach, after all, were monogenists - they believed that God had created humanity as a singular creation, but that different races had degenerated into different forms following the Fall of Man. Hence the first justifications for racist policies and imperialism/colonialism - as the race closest to God's creation it was the European's duty to convert and control the degenerate races and bring them into the bosom of Christ so that they might be turned away from their sinful inheritance. The Valladolid debates dealing with the question of how the Spanish should treat the Native Americans way back in the 15th century have the first inklings of that mode of thought, and that was far before philosophical naturalism in its modern for came about. It was only later, when Lamarck, Darwin and company began to elucidate their theories of evolution, did a more 'naturalistic' explanation of race evolve.

[Anadarsia]

I agree with you.
In a way, my impression is that people who have shunned metaphysical concerns are more ready to defend physically-oriented beliefs and principles, than those that don't do that shunning. Somehow migrating the natural 'religiosity' humans have from a higher plane and relocating it in the physical world. A side effect I see of this, is a willingness to believe more the promises made by other people over the future of the world.

What are you talking about?

Transhumanism.
The belief that a better world is being built by the hands of western governments.
The belief that interconnectivity/globalization will over time bring an end to conflict and strife.

[Neanderthaland]

It's interesting how here science is being blamed for things that imitate science without being scientific.

A simple fact is scientific racialism stems from XVIII Century work, and was later codified fully in the XIX Century after the legacy of the French Revolution and the denial of metaphysics had been consolidated. While I don't deny there might have been emnities in the past built over differences, at no point did they reach the point Western Orientalism, based on positivism, did.

You rather miss the point. None of these things that you point to as being the tragic dark side of Materialism (yes, that is the word you should use) are properly Materialistic. They all shun methodological naturalism, and proper scientific discourse in favor of tribal bias.

The Church of Scientology is clearly modeled on Christian churches, and likes to call itself science, but it would be absurd to use it to lampoon either. What you're doing is like that.

[Genivaria]

Still not citing anything I see.

These are self-evident facts, familiar to anyone who bothers to study the topic historically.
Are you meaning to tell me you need me to cite specific names to believe that scientific racialism in Northwestern Europe emerged simultaneously with the Enlightenment? If so I think practically any book on the history of scientific racialism will do. It's a mildly interesting topic, I think you could like it.

Yeah no, that bullshit excuse doesn't work here.

If so I think practically any book on the history of scientific racialism will do. It's a mildly interesting topic, I think you could like it

That passive aggressive bullshit is getting old.

[Eol Sha]

What are you talking about?

Transhumanism.
The belief that a better world is being built by the hands of western governments.
The belief that interconnectivity/globalization will over time bring an end to conflict and strife.

Transhumanism is the idea that technology, not western governments, can bring about a better world. It has little to do with western governments or globalization.