NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic came up as a tangent on a recent thread:

One learns a religion. But, does one learn 'religion'?

We can map religious experiences in a brain. Might some people not have a brain 'design' that is more likely to process those experiences? I don't have the answer - but, if there can be tendencies towards addictions, why can't there be 'tendency' towards 'being religious'?


So the question of the thread is…

Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?

Just as some people are born with a predisposition for things like musical talent or alcoholism, might some people be born with a predisposition for religion?

There's a biological tendency towards most things, why should religion be any different.

Human nature is, as I have always argued, partially fixed.

I'm just going to post a couple of possible points of interest for people to mull over. I didn't want to include all this in the OP, because I never personally bother to read through massively long OPs. :D

Functional imaging technology (such as fMRI or PET) has made it possible to study brain activity that is related to particular behaviors and thought processes. Recent research has been performed by observing brain activity during prayer or meditation, and has led to the identification of brain regions that appear to be most strongly involved in religiosity or spirituality.

In particular, the posterior superior parietal lobule has been strongly implicated. This region of the brain is known to be involved in differentiating “self” from “non-self.” Activity in this region decreases during mediation/prayer, so one possibility is that deactivation of this region may lead to a sort of dissolution of the self. This would be consistent with the frequently-reported sensation of “oneness with the universe” that is often described by individuals who have entered “spiritual states” of consciousness.

Now, this is just pure speculation here, but it theoretically could be possible that individuals have significantly different baseline levels of activity in areas of the brain that are responsible for religiosity. We know there are individuals who have brains that are inclined toward addictions, for instance, or brains that are inclined toward “thrill-seeking” at least partially because of their neurochemical make-up, so it is theoretically possible that some individuals have a predisposition for religion.

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is another interesting phenomenon. In TLE, individuals experience seizures concentrated in the temporal lobe of the brain. One of the most interesting symptoms of this disease is hyperreligiosity. Individuals who weren’t particularly spiritual or religious before the seizures can become extremely devout and almost obsessed with religious matters. They will often report mystical experiences during seizures.

Some famous historical religious figures are suspected of having experienced TLE or related seizure disorders. For instance, the famous conversion episode of Saul/Paul in Christianity is almost a textbook description of a seizure. Saul experiences a bright flash and falls to the ground, and then hears a voice speaking to him. His vision is impaired for some time afterward, and he does not eat or drink for several days.

Dostoyevksi had his first seizure at the age of nine, and included no less than thirty epileptic characters in his novels. As an adult he collapsed every few days. He described lights flashing before his “inner eye,” and an almost supernatural happiness before losing consciousness.

True, there may be a genetic tendancy towards a 'spiritual feeling' but choosing any one religion? It's probably a case of nurture over nature.

This topic came up as a tangent on a recent thread:

So the question of the thread is…

Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?

Just as some people are born with a predisposition for things like musical talent or alcoholism, might some people be born with a predisposition for religion?

Like most things, the reason some of us are religous, has a little bit or genetic dispoistion, and a little bit of cultural bias in it. How much of each now?

I am the oldest of 16 of us, and only me and one of my sisters so any aplutude for religoin.

What does this show? well I guess it makes a strongish argument that Atheim may well be geneticly pre-determined, so why not religoin too huh?

From a personal POV I can tell you that I am religos because the 'Why?' questions have always held more interest to me than the 'How?' questions.

Perhaps then it is just this distinction?

I do indeed believe this to be true.

Its just being "Gullible".

Part of being a human, really.
Folks often WANT to believe it, so they do.

Its pretty much been that way since the dawn of Homo Sapien, when we worshipped animals, or our ancestors.
Our minds often cannot accept concepts wich are frightening, so a psychological defense mechanism would be to invent an explanation as to "where we go when we die", since dying is scary.

True, there may be a genetic tendancy towards a 'spiritual feeling' but choosing any one religion? It's probably a case of nurture over nature.
Yeah, that's the distinction made in the OP.

One's PARTICULAR religion is not going to be "biologically" determined or genetically coded or something. But the question is, do people in general, or certain people in particular, have a kind of built-in predisposition to religiosity itself?

We can map religious experiences in a brain.We can map religious fantasies in the brain.
It may well be that some folks are born with a predisposition for religion. That might explain why for some it is impossible to overcome the respective religion they were fed and replace the fantasies by reason. The question then comes up what medication could be developed against religiousness.

We can map religious fantasies in the brain.
It may well be that some folks are born with a predisposition for religion. That might explain why for some it is impossible to overcome it and replace the fantasies by reason. The question then comes up what medication could be developed against religiousness.

Annnnd again we get the inevitable tirad, equating religioness with mental illness.

So then you believe nothing that you cannot objectivly show to be true huh?

There seems to be considerable evidence that a shared faith was a survival characteristic when almost all humans were members of scattered tribes. The bonding between members of the tribe engendered by common religious practices helped build tribal cohesiveness, which in turn led to greater mutual support, and thus improved survival.

Annnnd again we get the inevitable tirad, equating religioness with mental illness.illness is the word you chose. however, if there is indeed a predisposition, then religious as well as non-religious folks would surely like to know, whether this predisposition could be endorsed, constrained, manipulated.

So then you believe nothing that you cannot objectivly show to be true huh?Such as?

There seems to be considerable evidence that a shared faith was a survival characteristic when almost all humans were members of scattered tribes. The bonding between members of the tribe engendered by common religious practices helped build tribal cohesiveness, which in turn led to greater mutual support, and thus improved survival.but this inner tribal cohesiveness automatically went along with enmity among different tribes. so religiousness is the ultimate root of war?

We can map religious fantasies in the brain.
It may well be that some folks are born with a predisposition for religion. That might explain why for some it is impossible to overcome the respective religion they were fed and replace the fantasies by reason. The question then comes up what medication could be developed against religiousness.

And that's when we start sounding like fascists. :rolleyes:

They don't believe the same thing as me? Give 'em drugs!

Freedom of conscience is one of the rights we must hold to be most sacrosanct and inviolable. If we were to attempt to restrict it...dear me, dear me indeed.

I am a religious person. I grew up in the church, I went through a period of time where I was not religious, I referred to myself as agnostic. Then, when my first daughter was born, I wanted to have her baptised...mainly to make my parents and in-laws happy. When she was 2 months old, she got a respiratory virus, and spent 12 days in pediatric ICU, we didn't know if she was coming home. She was very sick, and crashed more than once. I never prayed harder than I did at that time. The minister of the church where we were having our daughter baptised came and sat with me, and prayed with me every day. I have chosen to go back to the church.

I read all these threads where the people who are athiests seem to attack the christians thinking that what they are really taking issue with are the fundamentalists. I am a christian, Congregational to be exact. We believe in evolution, as a denomination, we accept with open arms people who are GLBT...we have a lay speaker at my church, who comes every time the minister is on vacation. He used to be a she. He spoke when he was a woman, and even the elderly people in the church ask for Jonathan to come and speak.

We believe the Bible is a book written by men. It was written in context of the beliefs of the time, regarding men, women and the rights of each. We believe that God made things such as evolution possible. You can't argue science, and God gave humans the ability to understand the science. I take a lot of issue with people who say you can't have a reasonable argument with a christian...especially because I agree with most of what the athiests are arguing about. Yes, I often read about the fundamentalists, and shake my head...wondering how they can take the bible so literally. But, hey....that's what they believe...terrific. Do I want them to push it in my face, no. I have a friend who is pagen, and raising her children pagen. There is a fundamentalist family in the school who harass the child unmercifully, telling her she is evil, etc...and have their parents consent to do so. I don't try to "convert" people...when people ask about my church, I tell them...when people feel frustration, because they were raised in a church, but have realized they are gay, and no longer welcome in their church, I let them know that there are Congregational churches that will accept them with open arms. This is the most I have ever written about my personal beliefs, because, to be honest...I don't think people care all that much. It seems to be a hot topic here, and I don't know if it's because people don't know the difference between all christians and fundamentalists, or if they just don't care to learn the difference. Whichever it is, I think that religion is something you choose...as I have chosen both, being religious and being not religious. I even dabbled in Wicca for a while. (which, I guess you can put in the category of religious.)

so, that's my 2 cents, take it for what it's worth.

It's a good argument, but on the other hand people tend to create supernatural explanations to phenomena they do not understand. For instance, I don't think that any one still believes that lightning is a sign of God's/a god's anger, or that germs and diseases are created by demons, or that when you sneeze your soul escapes your body.

So in that sense, these people who have suffered from these seizures have sought to explain the seizures. Unequiped with an extensive medical trainning they have resorted to religion to provide answers. Now if it can be demonstrated why these people feel they way they do when they have these seizures and if it can be explained why these seizures happen then perhaps people will not resort to religion to such an extent.

As someone who has had mystical experiences, I would like to reply as intelligently as possible.

There is the possibilty that my experiences were solely the product of neurochemical activity. As in the studies using functional imaging technology, there was the definite awareness/impression that I was part of the universe, and that the universe, made entirely of energy, is one vast single thing. To paraphrase the Sufis: all things that are, are light; and the light that I am and the light that I am not are the same light.

However, I do not think that it was solely a product of my brain. I will explain why I feel this way. When exploring other realities through the use of hallucinogenics, dream states, or meditation, I was always aware of being in a separate reality from the consensual one in which we are currently interacting. I was able to differentiate between my inner reality and my outer reality by asking myself a simple question: am I surprised? Real people and events surprise me. Those that are the products of my imagination do not.

My mystical experiences were definitely in the former category. Therefore, I believe them to be as real as the current reality in which we interact.

Has it made me more devout? That would depend on waht you mean. I am no more inclined to listen to the ritual intoned by the man in the robe. I am no more likely to believe the mythology written in an old book. To me, religion is a social construct that has more to do with cultural cohesion than it does with anything that is actually spiritual. So these experiences have not made me more religious, in that sense.

But I can see how it would make others who already have a context of sorts to infuse such an experience with their own beliefes. If I had already been somewhat devout before the experiences, I would be a raging fundamentalist by now, I am sure.

And I think that many people probably do have an overdeveloped temporal lobe or whatever that causes them to be more receptive to such experiences. And I also think that there is also probably some sort of biological and evolutionary tendency towards religion as a social construct. These two things together definitely make up a recipe for neurochemical religiosity. However, I do not think that these two things are enough, or else I would be standing on a street corner preaching to single mothers about their eternal soul. There is also the social and familial environment that influences this, and in my opinion, it is probably far stronger.

And that's when we start sounding like fascists. :rolleyes:
They don't believe the same thing as me? Give 'em drugs!I suppose the current president of the US would surely like that... imagine a de-islamisation-drug he could drop by helicopter over Afghanistan and Iraq...

There seems to be considerable evidence that a shared faith was a survival characteristic when almost all humans were members of scattered tribes. The bonding between members of the tribe engendered by common religious practices helped build tribal cohesiveness, which in turn led to greater mutual support, and thus improved survival.

yeah but why should that need to be passed on through genes? it seems more likely to me that those survival (at first) traits were passed on by teaching, and tradition. langage is also a survival characteristic, and I really don't think it's passed on through genes. a lot of what we are is decided by experience. we learn langage from our environment (mostly parents, although they always wonder where their kids learned those words...), and we also learned our culture that way, and our religion (or lack thereof).

in short, I'd say religion is only brought to people through their education.

Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is another interesting phenomenon. In TLE, individuals experience seizures concentrated in the temporal lobe of the brain. One of the most interesting symptoms of this disease is hyperreligiosity. Individuals who weren’t particularly spiritual or religious before the seizures can become extremely devout and almost obsessed with religious matters. They will often report mystical experiences during seizures.

Some famous historical religious figures are suspected of having experienced TLE or related seizure disorders. For instance, the famous conversion episode of Saul/Paul in Christianity is almost a textbook description of a seizure. Saul experiences a bright flash and falls to the ground, and then hears a voice speaking to him. His vision is impaired for some time afterward, and he does not eat or drink for several days.

Dostoyevksi had his first seizure at the age of nine, and included no less than thirty epileptic characters in his novels. As an adult he collapsed every few days. He described lights flashing before his “inner eye,” and an almost supernatural happiness before losing consciousness.

I think this is evidence, like most things, including addiction which you mentions, that there is a biological component as well as a social or controlled component.

They have made interesting progess in this area, but are still at the chicken or the egg stage. For example, if I had you spend you childhood focused on math more than other subjects you'd show unusual development in that area. Religious people show some different development than others who are not, but the results aren't particularly consistent or controlled.

I read all these threads where the people who are athiests seem to attack the christians thinking that what they are really taking issue with are the fundamentalists.

I really, seriously hope that this thread is not perceived as an attack on religion. It is not intended as one.

I think this question is an interesting one, particularly when you start seeing parallels to our discussions about things like homosexuality and choice.

There are a lot of ways you can look at answers to this question.

For instance, let's say (just for argument's sake) that religiosity is something that the human brain can be "wired for" at birth. Now, some people could point to that and say, "It's a mental illness to be cured!" Other people could say, "It's proof that God wants us to believe, and has built Faith into our bodies!" And that's just two extremes.


This is the most I have ever written about my personal beliefs, because, to be honest...I don't think people care all that much. It seems to be a hot topic here, and I don't know if it's because people don't know the difference between all christians and fundamentalists, or if they just don't care to learn the difference.

For whatever it's worth, I'm curious about what you believe and what you think. Not that I know anything about you, personally, but I'm always interested to hear a fresh voice.


Whichever it is, I think that religion is something you choose...as I have chosen both, being religious and being not religious. I even dabbled in Wicca for a while. (which, I guess you can put in the category of religious.)

Thanks!

I really, seriously hope that this thread is not perceived as an attack on religion. It is not intended as one.

I think this question is an interesting one, particularly when you start seeing parallels to our discussions about things like homosexuality and choice.

There are a lot of ways you can look at answers to this question.

For instance, let's say (just for argument's sake) that religiosity is something that the human brain can be "wired for" at birth. Now, some people could point to that and say, "It's a mental illness to be cured!" Other people could say, "It's proof that God wants us to believe, and has built Faith into our bodies!" And that's just two extremes.And what about those who would subsequently see the "not-wired-for" people as unworthy before their respective god? Would it not automatically lead to an ultimate ideology of predestination doctrine?

langage is also a survival characteristic, and I really don't think it's passed on through genes. a lot of what we are is decided by experience. we learn langage from our environment (mostly parents, although they always wonder where their kids learned those words...), and we also learned our culture that way, and our religion (or lack thereof).

We learn our PARTICULAR language or languages, but the human brain is also "wired" to acquire language in general. The brains of very young children are particularly good at learning new language, and there are physical mechanisms behind this.

I really, seriously hope that this thread is not perceived as an attack on religion. It is not intended as one.

I think this question is an interesting one, particularly when you start seeing parallels to our discussions about things like homosexuality and choice.

There are a lot of ways you can look at answers to this question.

For instance, let's say (just for argument's sake) that religiosity is something that the human brain can be "wired for" at birth. Now, some people could point to that and say, "It's a mental illness to be cured!" Other people could say, "It's proof that God wants us to believe, and has built Faith into our bodies!" And that's just two extremes.

I see no attack, if that helps. It is very comparable to homosexuality in that it can only be viewed as an illness if it is proven to create a problem for the individual. In the case of the seizures the problem is apparent, but in just general religiosity there really is a lot of room for interpretation. I don't see what would be dangerous about discovering a genetic root.

I think it's a very interesting question and I'm glad you asked it. I'd really like to see some more people weigh in.

We learn our PARTICULAR language or languages, but the human brain is also "wired" to acquire language in general. The brains of very young children are particularly good at learning new language, and there are physical mechanisms behind this.But what exactly is a religiously wired brain wired for? Any kind of religion? Then the predisposition is of no greater relevance. Only certain types of religion? Then such a predisposition could easily become a criterion of distinction. So what would be the interpretation of such a predisposition?

And what about those who would subsequently see the "not-wired-for" people as unworthy before their respective god? Would it not automatically lead to an ultimate ideology of predestination doctrine?

No more than our knowledge of people with more or less abilities with reason, learning, mental illness, left-handedness or any number of other genetic predispositions. Like them it will be used by those who want it to be a support for the ideology as a support for their ideology and for the rest of not you it will be used to analyze the situation and figure out how that plays into our actions as human beings.

I think this is evidence, like most things, including addiction which you mentions, that there is a biological component as well as a social or controlled component.

They have made interesting progess in this area, but are still at the chicken or the egg stage. For example, if I had you spend you childhood focused on math more than other subjects you'd show unusual development in that area. Religious people show some different development than others who are not, but the results aren't particularly consistent or controlled.
Agree, but that's why I find TLE so fascinating.

Individuals who didn't have any particular history of religiosity suddenly go from zero to sixty. This is true of individuals who had "vanilla" religious upbringings, as well as people who were brought up agnostic or atheist.

I'm also interested in studies of religious hysteria and spiritual euphoria. These studies look at what is physically occurring in the brain during such experiences, and some of the responses are quite similar to brain responses following the use of opiates and related drugs. This raises what I believe to be an important question: is religious euphoria addictive? If it is, is that necessarily a bad thing? I'm not one of the sort who automatically assume "If it feels good, it must be bad," so is it necessarily bad if people can get themselves "high" on faith?

I see no attack, if that helps. It is very comparable to homosexuality in that it can only be viewed as an illness if it is proven to create a problem for the individual. In the case of the seizures the problem is apparent, but in just general religiosity there really is a lot of room for interpretation. I don't see what would be dangerous about discovering a genetic root.

I think it's a very interesting question and I'm glad you asked it. I'd really like to see some more people weigh in.
Whew, I'm glad it didn't come across as an attack. I realized, belatedly, that there has been a particularly high level of tension surrounding religious topics lately, so maybe this was an ill-timed post for me to make.

But I'm just so damn curious!!

Agree, but that's why I find TLE so fascinating.

Individuals who didn't have any particular history of religiosity suddenly go from zero to sixty. This is true of individuals who had "vanilla" religious upbringings, as well as people who were brought up agnostic or atheist.

I'm also interested in studies of religious hysteria and spiritual euphoria. These studies look at what is physically occurring in the brain during such experiences, and some of the responses are quite similar to brain responses following the use of opiates and related drugs. This raises what I believe to be an important question: is religious euphoria addictive? If it is, is that necessarily a bad thing? I'm not one of the sort who automatically assume "If it feels good, it must be bad," so is it necessarily bad if people can get themselves "high" on faith?

I think the answer to whether it is addictive is undoubtedly yes. I think it is like anything else that lets us escape from dealing with the mundane things in our life. It can be a healthy part of our life, but for some people it will always just be an escape. God took my mother? I don't have to deal with it because God did it. No money for bills. I don't have to worry because God will provide. And so on.

For the rest of us, we treat it like being in love or having the occasional drink or going for a run. It's just a part of our life that we enjoy and that makes us who we are.

Whew, I'm glad it didn't come across as an attack. I realized, belatedly, that there has been a particularly high level of tension surrounding religious topics lately, so maybe this was an ill-timed post for me to make.

But I'm just so damn curious!!

Oh, come on. It's an interesting topic, and aside from a few people who will try to twist this to support their views, it's not really all that loaded.

As for being ill-timed, well, I don't buy that we should be worrying as much as we have about that.

But what exactly is a religiously wired brain wired for? Any kind of religion? Then the predisposition is of no greater relevance. Only certain types of religion? Then such a predisposition could easily become a criterion of distinction.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, here.

If the human brain were "wired" for religiosity in general, then the particular religion a person ends up in would kind of be a secondary aspect.

The only comparison I can think of is that there are families with a strong tendency toward "addictive personalities." One member of the family may be addicted to alcohol, while another is addicted to gambling, but the areas of the brain that are involved and the circuits that are most responsible for the addictive behavior are pretty much the same.

(NOTE: I am not trying to say that religiosity = drug addiction, I just couldn't think of another parallel off the top of my head.)

I think the answer to whether it is addictive is undoubtedly yes. I think it is like anything else that lets us escape from dealing with the mundane things in our life. It can be a healthy part of our life, but for some people it will always just be an escape. God took my mother? I don't have to deal with it because God did it. No money for bills. I don't have to worry because God will provide. And so on.

For the rest of us, we treat it like being in love or having the occasional drink or going for a run. It's just a part of our life that we enjoy and that makes us who we are.
My mom once said something about drug use that really stuck with me.

"Drugs are a fun place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."

I think addiction is really about this distinction. Some people can try a drug, or a religion, or love, and yet still can have a life outside of that drug, religion, or love. Other people "move in" to their addiction, and no longer have much of a life beyond it.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, here.

If the human brain were "wired" for religiosity in general, then the particular religion a person ends up in would kind of be a secondary aspect.

The only comparison I can think of is that there are families with a strong tendency toward "addictive personalities." One member of the family may be addicted to alcohol, while another is addicted to gambling, but the areas of the brain that are involved and the circuits that are most responsible for the addictive behavior are pretty much the same.

(NOTE: I am not trying to say that religiosity = drug addiction, I just couldn't think of another parallel off the top of my head.)but there have always been an awful lot of types of religiosity, some of which I would characterize as more "addictive" than others, and also more demanding than others.
Are you saying that even if a predisposition did exist, the result would still depend on a person's upbringing?

illness is the word you chose. however, if there is indeed a predisposition, then religious as well as non-religious folks would surely like to know, whether this predisposition could be endorsed, constrained, manipulated.

You are correct, I used the word that you only intemated at.



Such as?

Well I don't know I was asking you?



but this inner tribal cohesiveness automatically went along with enmity among different tribes. So religiousness is the ultimate root of war?

Ya see and this is what infuriates me more than anything else from the 'relegion is irrational mental illness' camp.

Here we see what can only be described as an irrational emotional attack on somthing that this chap just does not like.

It must be other wise if we where to follow the fella's rational logic we would be moved to declare, land grabing the ultimate root of war, or perhaps food, or even music, you know anything that brings people together and tries to foster group empathy.

Shit then if we follwed all of this to it's conclusion, we are only left with the declaration that people are ultimatly the cause of war.

but there have always been an awful lot of types of religiosity, some of which I would characterize as more "addictive" than others, and also more demanding than others.

Interesting! Can you expand on this?


Are you saying that even if a predisposition did exist, the result would still depend on a person's upbringing?
Well, I'm completely speculating here, but that's probably what I would expect.

I mean, if a person who has a predisposition for musical talent is reared in a family of sports nuts who are tone-deaf, they are a hell of a lot less likely to actually become a musician...regardless of their "innate tendency."

There's a biological tendency towards most things, why should religion be any different.

Human nature is, as I have always argued, partially fixed.

Good point. And I think that some of the problems humans have in dealing with themselves and others in a complex, modern, technological society is that some parts of human nature became fixed during the time of the Ice and the mammoths. We're always struggling with our inner ancestors.

Ya see and this is what infuriates me more than anything else from the 'relegion is irrational mental illness' camp.

Here we see what can only be described as an irrational emotional attack on somthing that this chap just does not like.

It must be other wise if we where to follow the fella's rational logic we would be moved to declare, land grabing the ultimate root of war, or perhaps food, or even music, you know anything that brings people together and tries to foster group empathy.

Shit then if we follwed all of this to it's conclusion, we are only left with the declaration that people are ultimatly the cause of war.Soldiers Incorporated implied that it was shared faith within a tribe that constituted the understanding of "we" (as a group). And I concluded that this then also constituted the distinction between "we" and "they".

We're talking about 'stickiness' here.

Some religions are more 'sticky' than others, so are some drugs.

Some people are more susceptible to that stickiness.

It can be due to genetics or it can be due to circumstances.

Think of our brains as a graphic equalizer - we all hear roughly the same sound but the bass through to treble are set differently for each person across a very wide spectrum.

We learn our PARTICULAR language or languages, but the human brain is also "wired" to acquire language in general. The brains of very young children are particularly good at learning new language, and there are physical mechanisms behind this.

yeah, but at most that tells us that the human brain is wired to learn... be it langage, religion, political doctrines, science, you name it.

You are correct, I used the word that you only intemated at.




Well I don't know I was asking you?




Ya see and this is what infuriates me more than anything else from the 'relegion is irrational mental illness' camp.

Here we see what can only be described as an irrational emotional attack on somthing that this chap just does not like.

It must be other wise if we where to follow the fella's rational logic we would be moved to declare, land grabing the ultimate root of war, or perhaps food, or even music, you know anything that brings people together and tries to foster group empathy.

Shit then if we follwed all of this to it's conclusion, we are only left with the declaration that people are ultimatly the cause of war.

wich is actually true.

Soldiers Incorporated implied that it was shared faith within a tribe that constituted the understanding of "we" (as a group). And I concluded that this then also constituted the distinction between "we" and "they".

We can only get rid of "we" if we get rid of "they". Family. Goodbye. Society. Goodbye. Sports. Goodbye. Love for anything. Goodbye.

And then we'll all have to be blind, because there will be visual differences. And deaf so we can't hear each other.

"We" is a part of being human. So is "they".

yeah, but at most that tells us that the human brain is wired to learn... be it langage, religion, political doctrines, science, you name it.
Erm...not exactly.

My point was that we have concrete evidence that certain regions of the brain, certain circuits, certain chemicals, etc etc etc are involved in PARTICULAR types of learning.

For instance, we can identify particular areas and processes involved in learning to throw and catch a ball. We can also identify particular areas and processes involved in learning a new language. They are not the same.

The brain isn't one homogeneous blob. Learning isn't just one uniform process. Different individuals may have brains that are better suited (for some reason) to particular types of learning. Different individuals may have higher sensitivity to particular inputs. Etc.

Soldiers Incorporated implied that it was shared faith within a tribe that constituted the understanding of "we" (as a group). And I concluded that this then also constituted the distinction between "we" and "they".


'but this inner tribal cohesiveness automatically went along with enmity among different tribes. so religiousness is the ultimate root of war?

Well I guess that does sorta go with what you say above, but somehow that all gets lost in the sarcasm inherent in that last sentance.

Still, it just means I guess I can get away with saying, you started a logical process equating religion with the root cause of war, and I concluded there fore that all enterprises desinged to foster group coheivness must then also foster hatred from other groups.

wich is actually true.

Heheh yes, which is actualy true!

Ahh ya see, never write in anger. I started out going for sarcasm, and ended up with ironic!:eek:

Erm...not exactly.

My point was that we have concrete evidence that certain regions of the brain, certain circuits, certain chemicals, etc etc etc are involved in PARTICULAR types of learning.

For instance, we can identify particular areas and processes involved in learning to throw and catch a ball. We can also identify particular areas and processes involved in learning a new language. They are not the same.

The brain isn't one homogeneous blob. Learning isn't just one uniform process. Different individuals may have brains that are better suited (for some reason) to particular types of learning. Different individuals may have higher sensitivity to particular inputs. Etc.

Please read this article - religion occupies the same place in the brain as urban legends - it's memes and stickiness

http://holysmoke.org/kh/kh326.htm

We can map religious fantasies in the brain.
It may well be that some folks are born with a predisposition for religion. That might explain why for some it is impossible to overcome the respective religion they were fed and replace the fantasies by reason. The question then comes up what medication could be developed against religiousness.

And yet should someone suggest that atheism should have a vaccine, you would disagree violently.

Erm...not exactly.

My point was that we have concrete evidence that certain regions of the brain, certain circuits, certain chemicals, etc etc etc are involved in PARTICULAR types of learning.

For instance, we can identify particular areas and processes involved in learning to throw and catch a ball. We can also identify particular areas and processes involved in learning a new language. They are not the same.

The brain isn't one homogeneous blob. Learning isn't just one uniform process. Different individuals may have brains that are better suited (for some reason) to particular types of learning. Different individuals may have higher sensitivity to particular inputs. Etc.

indeed, learning is not uniform. but we can identify particular areas for langage and throwing a ball because they are not the same processes. the first requires a bit of coordination from the mouth, but is mainly mental, whereas the second is about movement. you can't identify a particular area between learning to catch a ball, and actually doing it.

apart from that, it's true that people are not equal when it comes to learning, but that doesn't mean that there is a genetic code saying you will be good at math and suck at music. those individuals suited for this or that discipline may be so because of the way their brains built themselves from the start.

Please read this article - religion occupies the same place in the brain as urban legends - it's memes and stickiness

http://holysmoke.org/kh/kh326.htm
While I very much appreciate the posting of a source, I gotta say...

Ouch. Lack of paragraph breaks + endless jargon = yipe. But I'll try to wade through it as best I can. There does seem to be some interesting substance in there.

And yet should someone suggest that atheism should have a vaccine, you would disagree violently.
Is that surprising or somehow inconsistent?

People tend to like the idea of the polio vaccine. People tend to not like the idea of a "vaccine" that causes children to be born with polio.

I'm not saying religion is a disease, but there are people who DO perceive it that way. It makes perfect sense for them to support a "vaccine" for religion while not supporting a "vaccine" for atheism, because (in their view) one cures a disease while the other would be inducing it.

And yet should someone suggest that atheism should have a vaccine, you would disagree violently.
Well, I would of course tend to favor a vaccine to stimulate reason.

It's not really directed at you per se, I quoted because it was the last post that addressed the topic,

For a simpler read, there's Made to Stick by Chris Heath and his brother, Dan or Dave or something - one's a behaviourial psychologist at Stanford (I think) and the other, well I can't remember the other,

indeed, learning is not uniform. but we can identify particular areas for langage and throwing a ball because they are not the same processes. the first requires a bit of coordination from the mouth, but is mainly mental, whereas the second is about movement.

Both are "mental." Both are learning, occurring in the brain.


you can't identify a particular area between learning to catch a ball, and actually doing it.

Yes, you can. Just as you can identify the difference between learning a language and speaking it.


apart from that, it's true that people are not equal when it comes to learning, but that doesn't mean that there is a genetic code saying you will be good at math and suck at music.

Actually, it is quite likely that genetics does play a role in this.


those individuals suited for this or that discipline may be so because of the way their brains built themselves from the start.
This seems to contradict the rest of what you are saying. Maybe I'm missing something?

but there have always been an awful lot of types of religiosity, some of which I would characterize as more "addictive" than others, and also more demanding than others.
Are you saying that even if a predisposition did exist, the result would still depend on a person's upbringing?

Of course it somewhat depends on upbringing. But you will find a lot of people who have broken away from what they were taught to either come to their own understanding or philosophy, as well as people who, after research and (pardon the expression) soulsearching, convert to another belief system than the one they were raised with.

That ability to turn away from religion altogether, to accept what one has been taught wholeheartedly, or to convert to a belief system different from the one taught to a person is why I consider religiousity to be, ultimately, a choice.

Of course it somewhat depends on upbringing. But you will find a lot of people who have broken away from what they were taught to either come to their own understanding or philosophy, as well as people who, after research and (pardon the expression) soulsearching, convert to another belief system than the one they were raised with.

That ability to turn away from religion altogether, to accept what one has been taught wholeheartedly, or to convert to a belief system different from the one taught to a person is why I consider religiousity to be, ultimately, a choice.Agreed. However, the question remains, how much this choice is helped by predisposition (or predestination, if you chose a religious perspective on the question) and whether or not there are people who simply cannot overcome their predisposition.

Well, I would of course tend to favor a vaccine to stimulate reason.

And, of course, you'll be first in line for said vaccine, no?

Hyperantireligiosity is irrational as well.

Of course it somewhat depends on upbringing. But you will find a lot of people who have broken away from what they were taught to either come to their own understanding or philosophy, as well as people who, after research and (pardon the expression) soulsearching, convert to another belief system than the one they were raised with.

That ability to turn away from religion altogether, to accept what one has been taught wholeheartedly, or to convert to a belief system different from the one taught to a person is why I consider religiousity to be, ultimately, a choice.

This could have been written easier as:

We are predisposed
The form of religion does depend on upbringing
We do have a choice

And, of course, you'll be first in line for said vaccine, no?

Hyperantireligiosity is irrational as well.

No, it's extraordinarily rational

Anyway, I'm off

Both are "mental." Both are learning, occurring in the brain.


Yes, you can. Just as you can identify the difference between learning a language and speaking it.


Actually, it is quite likely that genetics does play a role in this.


This seems to contradict the rest of what you are saying. Maybe I'm missing something?

hum, that last sentence was supposed to mean that brains are building themselves all the time, from their experience, and I think their initial state (if there is actually one) has little to do with it. hence, genes may not be the primary factor here. then again, what I know of the brain is what I remember from readings done long ago...

Is that surprising or somehow inconsistent?

People tend to like the idea of the polio vaccine. People tend to not like the idea of a "vaccine" that causes children to be born with polio.

I'm not saying religion is a disease, but there are people who DO perceive it that way. It makes perfect sense for them to support a "vaccine" for religion while not supporting a "vaccine" for atheism, because (in their view) one cures a disease while the other would be inducing it.

I find it inconsistent, because a good deal of why many atheists seem to be so upset with the religious is because they have met up with dickheads who say that something is wrong with atheists because they do not believe in God.

I see nothing wrong in having different beliefs. I think that calling a different belief a disease or mental illness or cause for damnation is simply being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.

Agreed. However, the question remains, how much this choice is helped by predisposition (or predestination, if you chose a religious perspective on the question) and whether or not there are people who simply cannot overcome their predisposition.


I agree also.

I think that there is a certian amount of genetic predipostion to religion, but I don't not think that ultimatly it is anything other than personal choice. So yes relgious people can become unreligious and the unreligious, religious.

Out of curiosity, if one were to create a vaccine that stimulates reason and this increased relative levels of religiosity, what then?

No, it's extraordinarily rational

Anyway, I'm off

Well, that's a profound argument. I'm compelled by it, no doubt.

Saying you know for sure one way or the other is not a rational claim. It's really that simple. If you can show me a rational way to arrive at "I've proven there is no God", you'd definitely be in line for some kind of science award, seeing as this question has plagued mankind forever.

Out of curiosity, if one were to create a vaccine that stimulates reason and this increased relative levels of religiosity, what then?

will people be able to view all religious text critically?

Well, I would of course tend to favor a vaccine to stimulate reason.

Atheism does not necessarily equal reason. Neither does religion.
I'm religious, and hold two degrees and had a GPA of 3.77 (at a secular college I might add).

There seems to be a prejudice that anyone who is religious is somehow disdainful of science, logic and reason. I can assure you that I and everyone I know accept evolution and think ID is a crock of shit and has no place being taught in public schools.

I find it inconsistent, because a good deal of why many atheists seem to be so upset with the religious is because they have met up with dickheads who say that something is wrong with atheists because they do not believe in God.

I see nothing wrong in having different beliefs. I think that calling a different belief a disease or mental illness or cause for damnation is simply being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.

And, well, it, of course, goes both ways. If we say that people can say being religious is a disease and isolate for it, we can "cure" atheism too. Do we really want to go down that road?

will people be able to view all religious text critically?

As this is a part of reason, I would have to say yes. By critically, this would, of course, include the people who illogically say it has to be literal in order to disprove it.

This could have been written easier as:

We are predisposed
The form of religion does depend on upbringing
We do have a choice

I'll let you know when I feel the need for a speechwriter.

I find it inconsistent, because a good deal of why many atheists seem to be so upset with the religious is because they have met up with dickheads who say that something is wrong with atheists because they do not believe in God.

I see nothing wrong in having different beliefs. I think that calling a different belief a disease or mental illness or cause for damnation is simply being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.
I rather think that most atheists seem to be so upset with the religious because they have taken a closer look at what these religious folks believe in, and then have discarded the issues of these beliefs through reason, e.g. by comparing the ideas held within a belief with the perceived world.

I voted that it is a choice, though certain things can influence you in one direction, it is still always a choice deep down.

Well, that's a profound argument. I'm compelled by it, no doubt.

Saying you know for sure one way or the other is not a rational claim. It's really that simple. If you can show me a rational way to arrive at "I've proven there is no God", you'd definitely be in line for some kind of science award, seeing as this question has plagued mankind forever.

*not threadjacking this*

And, well, it, of course, goes both ways. If we say that people can say being religious is a disease and isolate for it, we can "cure" atheism too. Do we really want to go down that road?

I think the second part of what I said --

I see nothing wrong in having different beliefs. I think that calling a different belief a disease or mental illness or cause for damnation is simply being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.

---should have made it clear that I don't consider either belief or nonbelief to be a disease, and I believe either side calling it a disease is being rude for the sake of being rude.

This topic came up as a tangent on a recent thread:

So the question of the thread is…

Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?

Just as some people are born with a predisposition for things like musical talent or alcoholism, might some people be born with a predisposition for religion?

Yes. In fact, I've noticed that quite a few people do have a predisposition for religion.

On the more general question of whether or not religiosity is a choice...

For some, it's simply a cultural/familial institution that they grow up with and continue to hold to at least in some nominal way for social reasons rather than out of devotion to the ideals of the religion or out of an interest in genuine self-improvement.

For a few, it's a way of explaining their own personal mystical experiences (whether those experiences are drug-induced or simply a product of normal brain functions for them) and legitimizing them within the context of their society.

On a rare occasion, it's a genuine intellectual and ethical choice on the part of the religious person.

In particular, the posterior superior parietal lobule has been strongly implicated. This region of the brain is known to be involved in differentiating “self” from “non-self.” Activity in this region decreases during mediation/prayer, so one possibility is that deactivation of this region may lead to a sort of dissolution of the self. This would be consistent with the frequently-reported sensation of “oneness with the universe” that is often described by individuals who have entered “spiritual states” of consciousness.

As someone who has done a fair amount of meditation, I'm not particularly surprised at this.

But I can see how it would make others who already have a context of sorts to infuse such an experience with their own beliefes. If I had already been somewhat devout before the experiences, I would be a raging fundamentalist by now, I am sure.

I've had some incredibly powerful mystical experiences (without the aid of drugs or meditation or a high degree of visual or other sensory stimulation) at a time when I was devout, though certainly not expecting anything of that sort to happen.

I didn't become a raging fundamentalist by a long shot. In fact, the experiences pushed me away from anything of the sort.

Agree, but that's why I find TLE so fascinating.

Individuals who didn't have any particular history of religiosity suddenly go from zero to sixty. This is true of individuals who had "vanilla" religious upbringings, as well as people who were brought up agnostic or atheist.

I'm also interested in studies of religious hysteria and spiritual euphoria. These studies look at what is physically occurring in the brain during such experiences, and some of the responses are quite similar to brain responses following the use of opiates and related drugs. This raises what I believe to be an important question: is religious euphoria addictive? If it is, is that necessarily a bad thing? I'm not one of the sort who automatically assume "If it feels good, it must be bad," so is it necessarily bad if people can get themselves "high" on faith?

I've known some people in religious circles to get a regular high from faith-based activities, as well as some individuals who experienced sudden "conversions of heart" that I found highly suspect. Perhaps TLE would explain this.

For myself, I consider the addiction to religious euphoria generally unhealthy. Appreciating it is one thing, letting it become your life is quite another. Even in a religious context, it seems to inhibit rather than enhance personal growth on many levels.

I rather think that most atheists seem to be so upset with the religious because they have taken a closer look at what these religious folks believe in, and then have disposed these beliefs through reason, e.g. by comparing the ideas held within a belief with the perceived world.

But you don't speak for all atheists.

As this is a part of reason, I would have to say yes. By critically, this would, of course, include the people who illogically say it has to be literal in order to disprove it.

"illogically"? if we're not literal about them, how do we know wich interpretation is the right one?

And, well, it, of course, goes both ways. If we say that people can say being religious is a disease and isolate for it, we can "cure" atheism too. Do we really want to go down that road?
In psychiatry, we're already doing something very similar. After all, the reasons for fixing one or the other of those are roughly as valid as the justification for curing psychosis; they are a behavioural pattern that can be seen as harmful to society as a whole.

I'm not suggesting it's a good thing, but the leap is a rather small one to make, methinks.

I rather think that most atheists seem to be so upset with the religious because they have taken a closer look at what these religious folks believe in, and then have discarded the issues of these beliefs through reason, e.g. by comparing the ideas held within a belief with the perceived world.

That's inconsistent with the behavior of some atheists, though. The level of vitriol some show would not be there simply because they decided, "Ok, this makes no sense to me -- I don't believe it." There seems to be a lot of anger in some, and choosing words specifically in such a way to ridicule others and hurt others -- where is the reason in that?

I don't necessarily think all religious people are inherently good, either. The behavior of people like Phelps' flock I find to be utterly abhorrent. I've known plenty of so-called religious people I wouldn't care to associate with if they were the last human beings on the planet.

I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe that atheists are intrinsically bad, lacking in moral fibre, have anything missing from their lives, are mentally ill, et cetera. I just believe they don't believe.

On that note -- I've a five hour drive ahead of me. I'll check back in on this thread sometime tonight. ;) You (collectively, not specifically, UB) haven't driven me off yet ;).

That's inconsistent with the behavior of some atheists, though. The level of vitriol some show would not be there simply because they decided, "Ok, this makes no sense to me -- I don't believe it." There seems to be a lot of anger in some, and choosing words specifically in such a way to ridicule others and hurt others -- where is the reason in that?

I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe that atheists are intrinsically bad, lacking in moral fibre, have anything missing from their lives, are mentally ill, et cetera. I just believe they don't believe.

I know what you mean, I personaly have no problem with atheists or atheism, except perhaps the ones that use such words, for exactly the intent you alluede to.

However a good case could be made about this being a re-action from years of similar abuse at the hands of fundemental Christians?

That's inconsistent with the behavior of some atheists, though. The level of vitriol some show would not be there simply because they decided, "Ok, this makes no sense to me -- I don't believe it." There seems to be a lot of anger in some, and choosing words specifically in such a way to ridicule others and hurt others -- where is the reason in that?

I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe that atheists are intrinsically bad, lacking in moral fibre, have anything missing from their lives, are mentally ill, et cetera. I just believe they don't believe.

On that note -- I've a five hour drive ahead of me. I'll check back in on this thread sometime tonight. ;) You (collectively, not specifically, UB) haven't driven me off yet ;).

I think it has to do with the fact that many people become atheist not due to a real rejection of faith, but because of a rejection of their faith. The alienation that can often result from this can lead to a considerable amount of bitterness and anger, which is understandable. Not, of course, a good thing by any means, but there is a reason to it.

This raises what I believe to be an important question: is religious euphoria addictive? If it is, is that necessarily a bad thing? I'm not one of the sort who automatically assume "If it feels good, it must be bad," so is it necessarily bad if people can get themselves "high" on faith?

No, I would not say that my mystical experiences were addictive, though they were euphoric. However, this has nothing to do with faith. You don't have to believe anything to have these experiences. So any addiction to faith or belief would be independent of any such neurochemical experiences.

No, I would not say that my mystical experiences were addictive, though they were euphoric. However, this has nothing to do with faith. You don't have to believe anything to have these experiences. So any addiction to faith or belief would be independent of any such neurochemical experiences.

Something doesn't have to have a physical representation in your body chemistry to be addictive. There are plenty of instances when things can be purely psychologically addictive, to the point where even though there is no corresponding chemical reaction going on in your system, you can become addicted to the experience.

Video games, for instance.

Yes, and I chose against.

Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?
I believe Religion to be an invention that stimulates two other biological tendencies: the instinct to congregate (from whence doth the "religious experience" come) and the tendency towards what we perceive as Mysticism (that is, the use of our own conscious existence as allegory for explanation of higher-order behaviour, which Religions invoke as a means of explaining the experience).

However, I also believe in subjective interpretation, so believe whatever you want, folks.

That's inconsistent with the behavior of some atheists, though. The level of vitriol some show would not be there simply because they decided, "Ok, this makes no sense to me -- I don't believe it." There seems to be a lot of anger in some, and choosing words specifically in such a way to ridicule others and hurt others -- where is the reason in that?Oh, that's simple. After one has dismissed religion on rational grounds, he will see the religious and their endeavors as a complete waste of time and ridiculous, and some see it as a harmful thing.

I don't believe in atheism. I don't believe that atheists are intrinsically bad, lacking in moral fibre, have anything missing from their lives, are mentally ill, et cetera. I just believe they don't believe.I personally find the whole concept of believing weird, as it means speculating using absent information. I cannot see that as a logical procedure

Oh, that's simple. After one has dismissed religion on rational grounds, he will see the religious and their endeavors as a complete waste of time and ridiculous, and actually as a harmful thing.

I personally find the whole concept of believing weird, as it means speculating using absent information. I cannot see that as a logical procedure

Heheh and yet you belive all sorts of stuff without objective evidance?

"illogically"? if we're not literal about them, how do we know wich interpretation is the right one?

Logically, we don't. Just like we don't know which interpretation of Mark Twain's Mississippi in Huckleberry Finn is the right one. We take all the evidence at hand and make our best guess. Denying that there is a figurative element or even that some parts were meant to be entirely non-literal in stories meant to teach us something. Some of the stories in the Bible were undoubtedly meant to be teaching mechanisms. That they would be figurative is the most logical conclusion. As well, we know that perception would play into such stories as well and as such must account for this as well. To not do so, is what wouldn't make any sense.

I think the second part of what I said --



---should have made it clear that I don't consider either belief or nonbelief to be a disease, and I believe either side calling it a disease is being rude for the sake of being rude.

Oh, I was agreeing with you. I may not have been clear.

I think it has to do with the fact that many people become atheist not due to a real rejection of faith, but because of a rejection of their faith. The alienation that can often result from this can lead to a considerable amount of bitterness and anger, which is understandable. Not, of course, a good thing by any means, but there is a reason to it.
I can't QFT, but my experiences with atheists would lend me to agree with this point as a matter of common occurrance. Challenge an Atheist to define what they mean by the God that does not exist and you will probably find strong traces of a particular religious leaning underlying them.

I can't QFT, but my experiences with atheists would lend me to agree with this point as a matter of common occurance. Challenge an Atheist to define what they mean by the God that does not exist and you will always find traces of a particular religious leaning underlying them.

*nod* I've found that this is largely because after one rejects his own faith, many don't always continue looking for others, and keeping their eyes open. You lose your faith and you're "done." You might go back to your old religion in the future, but it generally takes a considerable effort of will and intelligence to consider looking at your alternatives.

I rather think that most atheists seem to be so upset with the religious because they have taken a closer look at what these religious folks believe in, and then have discarded the issues of these beliefs through reason, e.g. by comparing the ideas held within a belief with the perceived world.

Except we've exposed that you haven't actually applied reason to reach your conclusion but that are fundamentally found on your claim that you get to declare how the Bible MUST be viewed and claims that you have access to a truth that would literally be impossible. It's not reason that drives you to your conclusions and pretending as if you have more truth in your claims than the average religious person is not only not accurate but also a failed attempt to claim the high ground in this debate.

Please read this article - religion occupies the same place in the brain as urban legends - it's memes and stickiness

http://holysmoke.org/kh/kh326.htm

I think this is a different thing than what Bottle is discussing. Her OP seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for mystical experiences, while yours seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for social groups to willfully participate in a group delusion.

Oh, that's simple. After one has dismissed religion on rational grounds, he will see the religious and their endeavors as a complete waste of time and ridiculous, and some see it as a harmful thing.

And if he were rational, this would not make him angry. Perhaps, disappointed, but not angry. Your atheism, however, is not a rational conclusion after examine of all alternatives, but instead an emotional conclusion because you're angry at Jews. The evidence in your posts speaks for itself.


I personally find the whole concept of believing weird, as it means speculating using absent information. I cannot see that as a logical procedure

You mean, like speculating that the Biblical God doesn't exist. Yep, I can see that you don't find it logical.

So then you believe nothing that you cannot objectivly show to be true huh?

I do. I just do not claim that my untestable beliefs are the absolute truth and am willing to change them if proven wrong.

I can't QFT, but my experiences with atheists would lend me to agree with this point as a matter of common occurrance. Challenge an Atheist to define what they mean by the God that does not exist and you will probably find strong traces of a particular religious leaning underlying them.


You make a very good point, one that I have always wondered about.

Normaly when engaged with these people, I find that the concept of God in which they can find no logical evidance(subjective) is the Abrahmic conept.

Now the thing I wonder of course then, is unless one has studied all such concepts, and thusly all relgions, then how can one proclaim that there is no (subjective) evidance?

Doesn't that make the majority of atheists guilty of making a desicion without haveing all of the facts? And isn't this what they call irrational?

Heheh and yet you belive all sorts of stuff without objective evidance?No, I don't.

I think this is a different thing than what Bottle is discussing. Her OP seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for mystical experiences, while yours seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for social groups to willfully participate in a group delusion.
That, friend, is the fundamental difference between Religiosity and Mysticism. Well, okay, perhaps not the "Willfully" part, as many will find themselves in religious circles not by choice but by circumstance, but the communal aspect is precisely what separates a Religion from its philosophies.

Logically, we don't. Just like we don't know which interpretation of Mark Twain's Mississippi in Huckleberry Finn is the right one. We take all the evidence at hand and make our best guess. Denying that there is a figurative element or even that some parts were meant to be entirely non-literal in stories meant to teach us something. Some of the stories in the Bible were undoubtedly meant to be teaching mechanisms. That they would be figurative is the most logical conclusion. As well, we know that perception would play into such stories as well and as such must account for this as well. To not do so, is what wouldn't make any sense.

right. so for instance, what lesson are we supposed to learn from that king of israel (can't remember the name) who was cursed by god because he didn't absolutely wipe out some nation (that is, he didn't kill the women and children)? or is that one supposed to be literal? or ignored completely? who decides wich is wich?

*nod* I've found that this is largely because after one rejects his own faith, many don't always continue looking for others, and keeping their eyes open. You lose your faith and you're "done." You might go back to your old religion in the future, but it generally takes a considerable effort of will and intelligence to consider looking at your alternatives.Why would anyone invest effort into an alternative that doesn't (seem to) promise any valuable result?

No, I don't.

Heheh I bet you do!

I think this is a different thing than what Bottle is discussing. Her OP seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for mystical experiences, while yours seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for social groups to willfully participate in a group delusion.Isn't that the same end?

Why would anyone invest effort into an alternative that doesn't (seem to) promise any valuable result?

The same reason one tests all the possibilities of any scientific hypothesis if physically possible. Because unless you're the fucking Almighty himself, you just don't know for sure how right or wrong those possibilities are.

I do. I just do not claim that my untestable beliefs are the absolute truth and am willing to change them if proven wrong.

Good then niether do I.:) Only that I belive they are absolute and true.

right. so for instance, what lesson are we supposed to learn from that king of israel (can't remember the name) who was cursed by god because he didn't absolutely wipe out some nation (that is, he didn't kill the women and children)? or is that one supposed to be literal? or ignored completely? who decides wich is wich?

I decide for me. You decide for you. Claiming that you have to get the exact same thing out of an ancient document so open to interpretation would be ludicrous and ultimately illogical.

Now in the context of faith, particularly a faith like Christianity that is intended to be such a personal relationship, the only responsible and logical conclusion is that you take from it what you find.

right. so for instance, what lesson are we supposed to learn from that king of israel (can't remember the name) who was cursed by god because he didn't absolutely wipe out some nation (that is, he didn't kill the women and children)? or is that one supposed to be literal? or ignored completely? who decides wich is wich?

The easy answer to that is you. You get to decide what you think it means.

Why would anyone invest effort into an alternative that doesn't (seem to) promise any valuable result?

How do you know this unless you've actually examined all of the alternatives?

Heheh I bet you do!Nope. I look at the possibility and probability of something and make my decision, or wait for more information. But I don't believe in anything.

I decide for me. You decide for you. Claiming that you have to get the exact same thing out of an ancient document so open to interpretation would be ludicrous and ultimately illogical.

Now in the context of faith, particularly a faith like Christianity that is intended to be such a personal relationship, the only responsible and logical conclusion is that you take from it what you find.
Question!

Isn't there an objective definition for what Christianity is?

How do you thus reconsile the flexible subjectivity of interpretation of reality/scripture/relationship with this?

No, I don't.

The evidence disagrees with you. You've claimed to have disproven logically the Biblical God. This would of course be the most profound proof in the history of man if you weren't utterly full of crap.

Have you read your own signature. It's not factual or based on evidence. It's a made-up conclusion for a person very angry at a particular faith.

Good then niether do I.:) Only that I belive they are absolute and true.

I do not do that either. "It is the best I can think of" and "it feels right" to me are vastly different from "it is the absolute truth".

I've had some incredibly powerful mystical experiences (without the aid of drugs or meditation or a high degree of visual or other sensory stimulation) at a time when I was devout, though certainly not expecting anything of that sort to happen.

I didn't become a raging fundamentalist by a long shot. In fact, the experiences pushed me away from anything of the sort.

That's good to hear. It's good to know I was wrong about that. I'm still trying to figure out my reaction to it, except for turning me from an atheist to a whatever I am. In some ways, I am more sceptical, as I know a truth that others try to understand solely through faith.

Thesae other who you have met who get a rush from faith based activities, are they getting a rush from the euphoric individual mystical experience, or are they getting a rush from something else?

Nope. I look at the possibility and probability of something and make my decision, or wait for more information. But I don't believe in anything.

So you don't believe there is no Biblical God? You don't claim to be able to prove it? You don't claim this despite it being unknowable and illogical?

Question!

Isn't there an objective definition for what Christianity is?

How do you thus reconsile the flexible subjectivity of interpretation of reality/scripture/relationship with this?

If Christianity is defined as being objectively relative to personal interpretation, then there is no need to reconcile the two, as they are already integrated.

I really, seriously hope that this thread is not perceived as an attack on religion. It is not intended as one.

No, not this thread at all. I was reading a thread yesterday...I think the one this question evolved from. I had gone back to look for the thread of "why do you believe" thread, but it had fallen off the 4th page, I've been stewing on these thoughts since last night. It seemed my thoughts kind of fit the thread, so I tossed it in...and answered your question as well.

Something doesn't have to have a physical representation in your body chemistry to be addictive. There are plenty of instances when things can be purely psychologically addictive, to the point where even though there is no corresponding chemical reaction going on in your system, you can become addicted to the experience.

Video games, for instance.

Exactly. I'm trying to figure out if the addictive experience would be psychological or not. Based on my experiences, I would say that if they had been a product of TLE or something similar, such neurochemical activity would be euphoric but nonaddictive. I am assuming, therefore, that any addiction would probably be psycholgical instead.

Nope. I look at the possibility and probability of something and make my decision, or wait for more information. But I don't believe in anything.

Ohhh you are such a liar!

Okay lets have it huh!

Answer me this one question, are you loved?

Question!

Isn't there an objective definition for what Christianity is?

How do you thus reconsile the flexible subjectivity of interpretation of reality/scripture/relationship with this?

How can any aspect of religion have any objective answers?

That's good to hear. It's good to know I was wrong about that. I'm still trying to figure out my reaction to it, except for turning me from an atheist to a whatever I am. In some ways, I am more sceptical, as I know a truth that others try to understand solely through faith.

Thesae other who you have met who get a rush from faith based activities, are they getting a rush from the euphoric individual mystical experience, or are they getting a rush from something else?

From their descriptions and my observations, I'm of the opinion that it is often a two-fold experience. They experience the internal euphoria, and as a result feel a greater communal harmony with other people in their social sphere. Both are quite enjoyable, and they understandably wish to experience it again.

Ohhh you are such a liar!

Okay lets have it huh!

Answer me this one question, are you loved?I assume, but I don't know. I cannot read minds. Can you?

And I have also seen "Contact"... with the "prove you are loved" shit.

I decide for me. You decide for you. Claiming that you have to get the exact same thing out of an ancient document so open to interpretation would be ludicrous and ultimately illogical.

Now in the context of faith, particularly a faith like Christianity that is intended to be such a personal relationship, the only responsible and logical conclusion is that you take from it what you find.

you didn't answer my question : should I ignore that part? or try to learn a doubtfull lesson from it? or take it literaly? or something else I haven't thought of?

Question!

Isn't there an objective definition for what Christianity is?

How do you thus reconsile the flexible subjectivity of interpretation of reality/scripture/relationship with this?

The objective definition of Christian is follower of Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Christ taught a personal religion as the very basis of his ministry. Once one accepts that the rest of your question isn't really a concern. It's about discernment. That is what he taught. And you're suggesting that discernment is difficult to reconcile with ... discernment.

I do not do that either. "It is the best I can think of" and "it feels right" to me are vastly different from "it is the absolute truth".

Hehe only in the words they contain the meaning is the same.

When you BELIVE something, or when it feels RIGHT, you are chooseing to live as if it was correct. This doesn'tmean you can't reappraise it at a latter time, but at the time of beliving it, you belive it to be absolutly true.

I find it inconsistent, because a good deal of why many atheists seem to be so upset with the religious is because they have met up with dickheads who say that something is wrong with atheists because they do not believe in God.

I see nothing wrong in having different beliefs. I think that calling a different belief a disease or mental illness or cause for damnation is simply being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.
I understand and agree with what you're saying here, but I still don't see why you acted as though it would be inconsistent or wrong for somebody to support a "vaccine" against religion but not one against atheism, assuming the person in question IS an atheist who views religion as an illness.

I know plenty of people who would strongly oppose a "vaccine" against homosexuality, but wouldn't mind a vaccine against homophobia and bigotry. While I may not necessarily agree with them, I certainly don't see any reason why their feelings are in any way inconsistent.

Isn't that the same end?

Not at all. A mystical experience is something that you empirically sense the same way you are currently experiencing reality. It is entirely individual.

The religious experience, according to the linked article, is entirely social in nature. It is a form of communal thinking. The tribe is stronger because we all eat/kill/pray/'perform any arbitrary ritual' together.

I have had the first one happen to me. I try to avoid the second like the plague.

I assume, but I don't know. I cannot read minds. Can you?

And I have also seen "Contact"... with the "prove you are loved" shit.

Sorry I don't know what you mean when you say 'Contact?'

However I'm glad you have seen through my question. So then you say yes okay Peeps, I do belive in some things then?

When you BELIVE something, or when it feels RIGHT, you are chooseing to live as if it was correct. This doesn'tmean you can't reappraise it at a latter time, but at the time of beliving it, you belive it to be absolutly true.

I agree with everything except the bolded part. Why do you believe this to be so ?

you didn't answer my question : should I ignore that part? or try to learn a doubtfull lesson from it? or take it literaly? or something else I haven't thought of?

But you have your answer. 'You decide for you' That looks like make your own mind up to me.

No, I would not say that my mystical experiences were addictive, though they were euphoric. However, this has nothing to do with faith. You don't have to believe anything to have these experiences. So any addiction to faith or belief would be independent of any such neurochemical experiences.
I'm a bit confused by this. How would a person have a euphoric religious experience without being religious? To me, this sounds like saying that somebody could have a euphoric drug experience without using a drug.

I'm a bit confused by this. How would a person have a euphoric religious experience without being religious? To me, this sounds like saying that somebody could have a euphoric drug experience without using a drug.

GoG used the term "mystical", not religious, and while many religions do have mystical traditions within them, not all mystics are religious, nor are all religious people mystics.

I agree with everything except the bolded part. Why do you believe this to be so ?

It's all down to that word belive really huh! If you belive something, then you have placed trust in it's validity, if you have done this, then it means that you feel it to be true. If you feel it to be true, then it is either subjective(in which case, you don' really belive, you think it may be) or it is objective(absolute).

From their descriptions and my observations, I'm of the opinion that it is often a two-fold experience. They experience the internal euphoria, and as a result feel a greater communal harmony with other people in their social sphere. Both are quite enjoyable, and they understandably wish to experience it again.

I am curious as to how that is possible. My experiences were so profound and WTF that I had trouble convincing people I wasn't tripping on halucinogenics. I can't even imagine how two people could have such an experience at the same time outside of high level tantric sex.

Maybe these people were not experiencing the same things that I experienced. But my experiences have made me more open to that general love for all humanity that the greeks called agape. There are more questions than answers right now. Cool.

Sorry I don't know what you mean when you say 'Contact?'of course you do

However I'm glad you have seen through my question. So then you say yes okay Peeps, I do belive in some things then?wtf?

GoG used the term "mystical", not religious, and while many religions do have mystical traditions within them, not all mystics are religious, nor are all religious people mystics.
What is "mystical" ?

I think this is a different thing than what Bottle is discussing. Her OP seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for mystical experiences, while yours seems to be discussing the neurochemical tendency for social groups to willfully participate in a group delusion.
True, though the two may be related.

I've studied the neurochemistry of reward, learning, and addiction a bit, and it's very interesting stuff. On the one hand, we all have our own "baseline," the levels that we start out with, but we are strongly influenced by our environment. Pathways and processes can change as a result of inputs. Our future sensitivity can be changed by current experiences or exposures.

My OP was mostly about addressing the question of whether there is a "baseline" tendency for religiosity, and (if so) if different individuals may have different "baselines." However, the next step would be to start looking at how those starting points then translate into mature behavior patterns, and whether environmental influences can overwhelm the "natural" baseline state.

GoG used the term "mystical", not religious, and while many religions do have mystical traditions within them, not all mystics are religious, nor are all religious people mystics.
Can you expand on the distinction? I want to make sure we're all on the same page with these terms.

I am curious as to how that is possible. My experiences were so profound and WTF that I had trouble convincing people I wasn't tripping on halucinogenics. I can't even imagine how two people could have such an experience at the same time outside of high level tantric sex.

Maybe these people were not experiencing the same things that I experienced. But my experiences have made me more open to that general love for all humanity that the greeks called agape. There are more questions than answers right now. Cool.

I'm not sure either. One of my experiences in particular was similarly mind-blowing. I hope you are able to find the answers you seek.

I'm a bit confused by this. How would a person have a euphoric religious experience without being religious? To me, this sounds like saying that somebody could have a euphoric drug experience without using a drug.

Well, I was an atheist for a long time until I had what I describe as a mystical experience. Now, I do not consider it to be religious because it has nothing to do with any religion out there.

To me, religion is a social construct. It makes the community more cohesive, provides a network for people to help each other, and performs other social and cultural tasks. All of this is irelevant to the truth of their creeds.

So, to me, there is a difference between religion and religious experiences, and my euphoric mystical experiences, which are entirely individual.

Well, I was an atheist for a long time until I had what I describe as a mystical experience. Now, I do not consider it to be religious because it has nothing to do with any religion out there.

To me, religion is a social construct. It makes the community more cohesive, provides a network for people to help each other, and performs other social and cultural tasks. All of this is irelevant to the truth of their creeds.

So, to me, there is a difference between religion and religious experiences, and my euphoric mystical experiences, which are entirely individual.
Ahhhhhhhhh. Gotcha.

So would you characterize your experience as "supernatural"? As in, do you believe it was a purely natural phenomenon that could be explained in terms of natural laws and processes, or not?

Can you expand on the distinction? I want to make sure we're all on the same page with these terms.

Here's a rough overview, but it should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

Mysticism from the Greek μυστικός (mustikos) "an initiate" (of the Eleusinian Mysteries, μυστήρια (musteria) meaning "initiation"[1]) is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is one's destiny, purpose, or an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Traditions may include a belief in the literal existence of dimensional realities beyond empirical perception, or a belief that a true human perception of the world transcends logical reasoning or intellectual comprehension. A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic.

In many cases, the purpose of mysticism and mystical disciplines such as meditation is to reach a state of return or re-integration to Godhead. A common theme in mysticism is that the mystic and all of reality are One. The purpose of mystical practices is to achieve that oneness in experience, to transcend limited identity and re-identify with the all that is. The state of oneness has many names depending on the mystical system: The Kingdom of Heaven, the Birth of the Spirit, the Third Awakening, Illumination, Union (Christianity), Irfan (Islam), Self-Realization, Reintegration, Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism), Samadhi (Hinduism), and Gnosis, to name a few.

of course you do

No sorry I don't, please tell me?

wtf?

I said:

'However I'm glad you have seen through my question. So then you say yes okay Peeps, I do belive in some things then?'

In return to you saying:

'I assume, but I don't know. I cannot read minds. Can you?'

I am asking, so you agree then? I have to take it that you do, because of what you said above.

Assume, is just another way of saying belive, I asumme that I am loved, I belive that I am loved. Yet as point out, you can't know because you can't read minds. You may have some subjective evidance, you may choose to belive those that tell you, but ultimatly you cannot know.

So if you assume, or belive that you are loved, that is a belife that you hold.

So I was asking if you want to retract your original statement.

Here's a rough overview, but it should help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

A bit, thanks, but I think I'm still fuzzy on the distinction.

"Mysticism...is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is one's destiny, purpose, or an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom."

Most modern religions that I know of include this in some way. Indeed, I don't think I can come up with one that doesn't. It's a pretty giant definition. You could include virtually any school of thought, and just about any religious or secular philosophical group or individual under this. I mean, who isn't pursuing communion, identity, or awareness of reality/truth/God through personal experience or insight? Pretty much anybody who has the time and energy to think will, at some point, tackle this.

Yes self. We must round up these none believers and have them brought before the inquisition. Blasphemers. Of course religosity or whatever word you say is in human nature. God put it there so we worship him.
No, religion isn't just a bunch of people getting drunk "morally", it is a way of life. It is in human nature to try and live in a good and moral way, which is promoted by religion.

If you disagree I'll have the angel of death come after you... MEHADFADASH!!!

:( :sniper:

It's all down to that word belive really huh! If you belive something, then you have placed trust in it's validity, if you have done this, then it means that you feel it to be true. If you feel it to be true, then it is either subjective(in which case, you don' really belive, you think it may be) or it is objective(absolute).

In that case I guess I do not really believe; unproven assumptions are all subjective.

Ahhhhhhhhh. Gotcha.

So would you characterize your experience as "supernatural"? As in, do you believe it was a purely natural phenomenon that could be explained in terms of natural laws and processes, or not?

I know I've had what I perceived to be a supernatural experience in the past, where I experienced something I cannot explain, and I cannot consciously repeat. In my instance, perhaps it was a psychological response, perhaps it was the result of a chemical reaction deep inside my brain, but I've only experienced it twice, so my knowledge on the matter was extremely limited.

No, I did not see anything, but I felt something inexplicable, totally beyond my previous experience.

I would love to be able to test it somehow though...see what brought it on. Damnable non-repeatability.

To get this out of me, someone who once described religion as "nothing more than mystic bullshit that wastes time and pilfers your money" does make for an interesting contrast, though. Although, the second half of that statement may still be true.

Here is another way of looking at this question:

In talking with religious believers, a common theme I encounter is the idea that faith in God satisfies some fundamental need or needs. People who have converted to a religion will often talk about how it "filled a hole in their life" or something similar. Believers talk about how faith can "make you whole" or "give you purpose/meaning/happiness/fulfillment."

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

Instead of looking at it as a built-in aptitude for religiosity, is it a kind of built-in drive, like our need for food, shelter, or companionship?

you didn't answer my question : should I ignore that part? or try to learn a doubtfull lesson from it? or take it literaly? or something else I haven't thought of?

Analyze it and decide for yourself. I did answer your question. I already told you that it's for you to decide.

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

"Only"is a big word. But I "believe" many people like the idea of being special, of continuing after death, of having someone to look up to, having someone that tells them what to do, having someone to ask for help and having someone to blame if things do not go right. All of those needs are pretty well served by religion.

Hehe only in the words they contain the meaning is the same.

When you BELIVE something, or when it feels RIGHT, you are chooseing to live as if it was correct. This doesn'tmean you can't reappraise it at a latter time, but at the time of beliving it, you belive it to be absolutly true.

No, you don't. That's the issue. Treating something as true until you have other evidence, is not the same as believing it is absolute truth. And believing it is absolute truth is not the same as declaring it absolute truth.

These are all different levels of the same thing, but they are not exactly or practically the same.

A bit, thanks, but I think I'm still fuzzy on the distinction.

"Mysticism...is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is one's destiny, purpose, or an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom."

Most modern religions that I know of include this in some way. Indeed, I don't think I can come up with one that doesn't. It's a pretty giant definition.

Perhaps examples would help?

An atheist Buddhist can be a mystic, and by all rights should be.
A pantheist will likely be a mystic.
A Christian can be a mystic, but it's not overly likely that they will be.
A Muslim can be a mystic, but it's not overly likely that they will be.
An animist can be a mystic.
A Hindu can be a mystic, and Hinduism has a rich mystical tradition to draw on.
An agnostic atheist who is genuinely searching for evidence of any deity might become a mystic as part of that search.

So yes, it's quite common for mystics to be religious, but mystics are people, and it's quite common for people in general to be religious, so that degree of overlap doesn't seem particularly surprising.

It's all down to that word belive really huh! If you belive something, then you have placed trust in it's validity, if you have done this, then it means that you feel it to be true. If you feel it to be true, then it is either subjective(in which case, you don' really belive, you think it may be) or it is objective(absolute).

What we call objective is not absolute. Here's the whole problem with what you're saying. It oversimplifies things to point of being meaningless.

I behave as if you believe what you are saying. I believe you when you tell me that what you are saying is true. I do not hold that to be objectively true or absolutely true. I hold it to be subjectively true, true to me. But I definitely believe you are being sincere.

Perhaps examples would help?

An atheist Buddhist can be a mystic, and by all rights should be.
A pantheist will likely be a mystic.
A Christian can be a mystic, but it's not overly likely that they will be.
A Muslim can be a mystic, but it's not overly likely that they will be.
An animist can be a mystic.
A Hindu can be a mystic, and Hinduism has a rich mystical tradition to draw on.
An agnostic atheist who is genuinely searching for evidence of any deity might become a mystic as part of that search.

So yes, it's quite common for mystics to be religious, but mystics are people, and it's quite common for people in general to be religious, so that degree of overlap doesn't seem particularly surprising.
It sounds like "mysticism" simply refers to a particular drive to search for Truth (supernatural or otherwise), then. So that's really a tangent from this thread, since "mysticism" as defined is not intrinsically linked to religiosity.

Here is another way of looking at this question:

In talking with religious believers, a common theme I encounter is the idea that faith in God satisfies some fundamental need or needs. People who have converted to a religion will often talk about how it "filled a hole in their life" or something similar. Believers talk about how faith can "make you whole" or "give you purpose/meaning/happiness/fulfillment."

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

Instead of looking at it as a built-in aptitude for religiosity, is it a kind of built-in drive, like our need for food, shelter, or companionship?


Hey Bottle,

I think you are close to it here. A few personal thoughts for ya.


It seems that the majority of us like to know, what?, why? when?, how?, who? We all want answers to certian questions.

Some of us are more interested in the hows? How does that work, how does the universe do this, how does evolution choose, etc...

Some of us are more interested in the whys? Why does that do that, why does the uiverse seem to work in that way, why are we here etc...

Some of us are interested in both hows? and whys?

I'm one of these latter types, I like to know how things work, heh I always have done. But by the time I reached about 10 or 11 or so, the whys? started to take up more of my attention.

It is of course religion that at least has a bash at answering why? After all, are not all why questions subjective in nature?

It sounds like "mysticism" simply refers to a particular drive to search for Truth (supernatural or otherwise), then. So that's really a tangent from this thread, since "mysticism" as defined is not intrinsically linked to religiosity.

That could well be. Unfortunately, the issue generally comes up because mystical experiences are often mischaracterized as religious experiences.

Ahhhhhhhhh. Gotcha.

So would you characterize your experience as "supernatural"? As in, do you believe it was a purely natural phenomenon that could be explained in terms of natural laws and processes, or not?

No. To me, supernatural means that one day we will be able to define it, be it psychokinesis, faith healing, or other X-Files related matter.

It was more like the mystical experiences described by followers of mystic sects like the Sufis, certain yogic schools, Gnostics, etc.

I do not see how it could be defined in terms of natural law and processes. The physiological causes or effects could be quantified, I suppose, and if I could repeat it in a controlled setting, I would gladly do so, but would it explain anything?

Part of me would like to believe that it can be fully explained by natural processes, part of me does not. But that is belief. It is not knowledge or facts. And experience teaches that even these are mutable.

Here is another way of looking at this question:

In talking with religious believers, a common theme I encounter is the idea that faith in God satisfies some fundamental need or needs. People who have converted to a religion will often talk about how it "filled a hole in their life" or something similar. Believers talk about how faith can "make you whole" or "give you purpose/meaning/happiness/fulfillment."

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

Instead of looking at it as a built-in aptitude for religiosity, is it a kind of built-in drive, like our need for food, shelter, or companionship?

I think it exists but the levels vary. Companionship is an excellent example. Some people cannot stand to be alone and some people can't stand not to be. It's kind of a spectrum. For some people the level desire for faith reaches need. I think we can see it some people on this board.

And I don't think it's just religion. Think about the dogmatic adherance to one's political party, think EO, Corny or any number of Democrats. People who believe Republicans are wonderous and Democrats are evil or the other way around.

I think you can apply this to any ideology that gives a feeling of being part of a larger group. The more dogmatic and certain that "You in my group. You good. You not in my group. You bad."

illness is the word you chose.

Illness is implied by wondering when they're going to make a "medication" for it . . .

Well, that's a profound argument. I'm compelled by it, no doubt.

Saying you know for sure one way or the other is not a rational claim. It's really that simple. If you can show me a rational way to arrive at "I've proven there is no God", you'd definitely be in line for some kind of science award, seeing as this question has plagued mankind forever.

Apologies - I'd posted several earlier threads outlining my position. I was also in a bit of a rush - this also serves as a response to Katganistan, I was not critiquing your writing, simply in a rush

It's impossible to prove there is no God, it's entirely possible to show why we believe in God.

Here is another way of looking at this question:

In talking with religious believers, a common theme I encounter is the idea that faith in God satisfies some fundamental need or needs. People who have converted to a religion will often talk about how it "filled a hole in their life" or something similar. Believers talk about how faith can "make you whole" or "give you purpose/meaning/happiness/fulfillment."

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

Instead of looking at it as a built-in aptitude for religiosity, is it a kind of built-in drive, like our need for food, shelter, or companionship?

I would say no. I have never experienced any such need in the past, and I feel no need now.

There are probably some who do. Since religion could have an evolutionary advantage, I am sure there are some people out there who are hardwired to be more receptive to that stuff. Barringtonia's horribly laid out article seemed to suggest that.

I think it exists but the levels vary. Companionship is an excellent example. Some people cannot stand to be alone and some people can't stand not to be. It's kind of a spectrum. For some people the level desire for faith reaches need. I think we can see it some people on this board.

Make sense to me. So is the drive for religiosity a distinct phenomenon, or it is a manifestation of other drives?

In other words, do you think people have a particular drive to religiosity, or do you think the motivation to be religious arise from other drives (like the drive for companionship)?


And I don't think it's just religion. Think about the dogmatic adherance to one's political party, think EO, Corny or any number of Democrats. People who believe Republicans are wonderous and Democrats are evil or the other way around.

I think you can apply this to any ideology that gives a feeling of being part of a larger group. The more dogmatic and certain that "You in my group. You good. You not in my group. You bad."
Do you believe this drive for "in-group" status is the only (or most important) driving factor behind religiosity? If not, what other drives do you think are significant?

Do you think religion is a good way to satisfy this drive? Even if we agree that a particular drive is normal and healthy, we also can recognize that there are good ways to satisfy it and bad ways to satisfy it. (For instance, some people address emotional drives by binge drinking. Having the emotional drives isn't a bad thing, but trying to satisfy them with gallons of booze is ultimately unhealthy.)

Usually we define "healthy" and "unhealthy" by using cost-benefit analysis. For example, running has costs in the sense that it causes wear and tear on joints, but it has benefits because it's a great cardio workout; the "net" is that it is generally agreed to be a healthy activity, even though (as with most things) there's going to be SOME downside somewhere in the process.

With that in mind, how should we determine if religion is a "healthy" or "good" way to satisfy individual drives? Which costs and benefits should be weighed?

The evidence disagrees with you. You've claimed to have disproven logically the Biblical God. This would of course be the most profound proof in the history of man if you weren't utterly full of crap.

Have you read your own signature. It's not factual or based on evidence. It's a made-up conclusion for a person very angry at a particular faith.

I also bet he believes in lots of cities he's never been to.

Make sense to me. So is the drive for religiosity a distinct phenomenon, or it is a manifestation of other drives?

In other words, do you think people have a particular drive to religiosity, or do you think the motivation to be religious arise from other drives (like the drive for companionship)?


Do you believe this drive for "in-group" status is the only (or most important) driving factor behind religiosity? If not, what other drives do you think are significant?

Do you think religion is a good way to satisfy this drive? Even if we agree that a particular drive is normal and healthy, we also can recognize that there are good ways to satisfy it and bad ways to satisfy it. (For instance, some people address emotional drives by binge drinking. Having the emotional drives isn't a bad thing, but trying to satisfy them with gallons of booze is ultimately unhealthy.)

Usually we define "healthy" and "unhealthy" by using cost-benefit analysis. For example, running has costs in the sense that it causes wear and tear on joints, but it has benefits because it's a great cardio workout; the "net" is that it is generally agreed to be a healthy activity, even though (as with most things) there's going to be SOME downside somewhere in the process.

With that in mind, how should we determine if religion is a "healthy" or "good" way to satisfy individual drives? Which costs and benefits should be weighed?

The answer to this debate is clouded. Are we predisposed to religiosity? Well, not religiosity per se - but we are predisposed to stories that bond us together, that define us as apart from others.

Does this have to be a higher being? No, but to ancient civilization, how else could you explain lightning, thunder, the seasons, our very existence.

In a sense we have to imagine something bigger than ourselves, it's the clearest, most understandable and most transmittable explanation, to be passed from generation to generation.

To your most recent post - can it be considered healthy, the answer is that in the short term it is. Firstly, it's a long built up means of understanding ourselves - there's a large amount of valuable lessons to be gained from religion if viewed impassionately, as well as this, society cannot be shocked into change, that is also unhealthy. Yet in the long term it is unhealthy, it's a barrier to better understanding of ourselves and causes rifts that should not be.

Ahhhhhhhhh. Gotcha.

So would you characterize your experience as "supernatural"? As in, do you believe it was a purely natural phenomenon that could be explained in terms of natural laws and processes, or not?

Natural laws and processes that we currently understand, or natural laws and processes in general?

The answer to this debate is clouded. Are we predisposed to religiosity? Well, not religiosity per se - but we are predisposed to stories that bond us together, that define us as apart from others.

Does this have to be a higher being? No, but to ancient civilization, how else could you explain lightning, thunder, the seasons, our very existence.

In a sense we have to imagine something bigger than ourselves, it's the clearest, most understandable and most transmittable explanation, to be passed from generation to generation.

To your most recent post - can it be considered healthy, the answer is that in the short term it is. Firtly, it's a long built up means of understanding ourselves - there's a large amount of valuable lessons to be gained from religion if viewed impassionately, as well as this, society cannot be shocked into change, that is also unhealthy. Yet in the long term it is unhealthy, it's a barrier to better understanding of ourselves and causes rifts that should not be.


As I have said I belive that this drive is there because of the need for understanding the human animal seems to have.

As to healthy or not, surly that's gota be judged on a person to person level?

I also bet he believes in lots of cities he's never been to.

Which brings us back as to what exactly "belief" is. Would you start a holy crusade against people that deny the existence of Sydney ? Why so or why not ? Does your whole moral system depend on it ?

As I have said I belive that this drive is there because of the need for understanding the human animal seems to have.

As to healthy or not, surly that's gota be judged on a person to person level?

Not understanding, bonding.

It can be healthy or unhealthy on a personal level, in that to one individual, learning that Santa Claus does not exist may be a shock, but to the whole, it is unhealthy to believe that Santa Claus exists.

Am I equating the belief in religion to Santa Claus, why yes, yes I am

No one can prove Santa Claus does not exist, we can prove why we would like him to exist

Make sense to me. So is the drive for religiosity a distinct phenomenon, or it is a manifestation of other drives?

In other words, do you think people have a particular drive to religiosity, or do you think the motivation to be religious arise from other drives (like the drive for companionship)?

I think that's why people are trying to draw a line between religion and mysticism. Because I think religion (as they are defining it) is about belonging. So is belonging to or identifying with a political party or being part of a fraternity or being nationalist.


Do you believe this drive for "in-group" status is the only (or most important) driving factor behind religiosity? If not, what other drives do you think are significant?

Again, we have to draw line here. I think it's probably the most significant part of the type of religiosity that is being pointed out by some others in this thread. The type that drives one to accept the beliefs of a group rather decide issues individually.

The other part is probably another part of the brain and another discussion. I would draw a line between faith and religion.


Do you think religion is a good way to satisfy this drive? Even if we agree that a particular drive is normal and healthy, we also can recognize that there are good ways to satisfy it and bad ways to satisfy it. (For instance, some people address emotional drives by binge drinking. Having the emotional drives isn't a bad thing, but trying to satisfy them with gallons of booze is ultimately unhealthy.)

No, I think it's not generally a good way to satisfy this drive. I would prefer instead that people satisfy this drive by belonging to groups because of what they do and not what they believe. Helping the homeless would be an example.


Usually we define "healthy" and "unhealthy" by using cost-benefit analysis. For example, running has costs in the sense that it causes wear and tear on joints, but it has benefits because it's a great cardio workout; the "net" is that it is generally agreed to be a healthy activity, even though (as with most things) there's going to be SOME downside somewhere in the process.

With that in mind, how should we determine if religion is a "healthy" or "good" way to satisfy individual drives? Which costs and benefits should be weighed?

I think running is an apt comparison. Done right. Running is a healthy activity. But it can quickly become a dangerous obsession. Religion is no different. I think it's more about how people use that tool than it is about the tool itself.

For me, I've never really found a sense of belonging. Most groups I've been among don't like that I am not the kind of person willing to simply agree with the party. I don't work that way. I don't agree with Christians because they're Christian. I don't agree with agnostics because they're agnostic. I don't agree with GnI because he's my friend. I don't agree with liberals because they're liberal or conservatives because they're conservative.

Placing myself in a group has always been a struggle, because I have to, have to, find a way to rectify beliefs individually or alter them to make them fit. I simply can't just accept things whole hog that don't make sense. I won't. Now if someone can find where that comes from, I'd be interested in that, as well.

As to healthy or not, surly that's gota be judged on a person to person level?

Uncertain. As I mentioned in the other topic belief can make people do things an objective observer may classify as great, but that does not necessarily mean that the motives behind the great action would also be considered good.

Does this matter in practice ? Yes, because while "my religion says so" can be a motivation to not steal, murder and covet thy neighbour - it can also be a motivator to blow up buildings, discriminate against population groups or attempting to suppress knowledge that seems to contradict the holy scripture.

This implies that blanket statements about the desirability of belief can be made: by looking if we want it to be a motivator.

As I have said I belive that this drive is there because of the need for understanding the human animal seems to have.

As to healthy or not, surly that's gota be judged on a person to person level?
What do you mean by person-to-person level?


Natural laws and processes that we currently understand, or natural laws and processes in general?Natural laws/processes in general. Gravity existed before any human identified it. It was a natural law, even if we didn't yet understand it or have a name for it.


Which brings us back as to what exactly "belief" is. Would you start a holy crusade against people that deny the existence of Sydney ? Why so or why not ? Does your whole moral system depend on it ?
I've harped on this before, but I think there is a difference in the types of "belief" or "faith" people are talking about.

Somebody mentioned the fact that most people believe in the existence of cities they have not been to, suggesting that this was comparable to belief in a diety one has not experienced. I gotta call bunk on that. It is possible for me to visit Sydney, even though I have not yet done so. Given that I have never in my entire life encountered two people who believed in the same image of God, I have absolutely no reason to believe it is possible for me to experience another person's God, even if I were interested in trying.

I can find millions of people who will confirm the existence of Sydney. I know precisely how I could go about experiencing Sydney for myself, and verifying or refuting any particular claims about Sydney. The fact that I have not YET done so is quite different from the case of God, where it is not possible for me to EVER do so.

Somebody mentioned the fact that most people believe in the existence of cities they have not been to, suggesting that this was comparable to belief in a diety one has not experienced. I gotta call bunk on that. It is possible for me to visit Sydney, even though I have not yet done so. Given that I have never in my entire life encountered two people who believed in the same image of God, I have absolutely no reason to believe it is possible for me to experience another person's God, even if I were interested in trying.

To be fair, you can't really experience "another person's Sydney" either. You can go to Sydney and see it, but your experiences will never be exactly the same as another person. If you and I both visited Sydney at the exact same time, and went to the exact same places, we would still only have similar experiences of it. You won't find any two people with the exact same view and experience of Sydney any more than you will find two people with the exact same "image of God."

Personal experiences are just that - personal. We can attempt to share them with others. We can attempt to explain them to others. But, in the end, we cannot give our experiences to another person. They can never see it through our eyes.

The difference, of course, is that you know exactly how you would get to Sydney to see if you agreed with another person's description. You couldn't necessarily refute their sense of Sydney, as much of that will be a matter of their own perception. But you could get on a plane, get to Sydney, and form your own views.

To be fair, you can't really experience "another person's Sydney" either. You can go to Sydney and see it, but your experiences will never be exactly the same as another person. If you and I both visited Sydney at the exact same time, and went to the exact same places, we would still only have similar experiences of it. You won't find any two people with the exact same view and experience of Sydney any more than you will find two people with the exact same "image of God."

Personal experiences are just that - personal. We can attempt to share them with others. We can attempt to explain them to others. But, in the end, we cannot give our experiences to another person. They can never see it through our eyes.

The difference, of course, is that you know exactly how you would get to Sydney to see if you agreed with another person's description. You couldn't necessarily refute their sense of Sydney, as much of that will be a matter of their own perception. But you could get on a plane, get to Sydney, and form your own views.
I've made threads around here several times asking people to provide ANY concrete, testable assertions about their God. "Testable hypotheses," I cry! Nobody has ever provided a single one. Their God cannot be tested, cannot be empirically investigated, and I cannot have any access to their personal image of God, unless I magically "embrace" it.

While my subjective experience of anything will be different from another individual's, there are objective aspects we can both share in. If somebody asserts that the city of Sydney exists in a particular country and has particular concrete qualities, I can go about testing that myself. Such examination is simply not possible with God.

Hence, believing in something one has not yet tested is a different matter than believing in something one cannot test, period.

I can find millions of people who will confirm the existence of Sydney. I know precisely how I could go about experiencing Sydney for myself, and verifying or refuting any particular claims about Sydney. The fact that I have not YET done so is quite different from the case of God, where it is not possible for me to EVER do so.

Well... you could die and see if you arrive at the pearly gates or not.

I've made threads around here several times asking people to provide ANY concrete, testable assertions about their God. "Testable hypotheses," I cry! Nobody has ever provided a single one. Their God cannot be tested, cannot be empirically investigated, and I cannot have any access to their personal image of God, unless I magically "embrace" it.

While my subjective experience of anything will be different from another individual's, there are objective aspects we can both share in. If somebody asserts that the city of Sydney exists in a particular country and has particular concrete qualities, I can go about testing that myself. Such examination is simply not possible with God.

Hence, believing in something one has not yet tested is a different matter than believing in something one cannot test, period.

I think the closest thing we have to that would be meditational practices aimed at producing a transcendental state. But an experience like mine would be untestable and unrepeatable in a controlled setting. Sydney doesn't have that problem.

It's true that I was never that religious, but the final nail in the coffin (so to speak) that made me abandon judaism was not something internal -- it was a little thing called 9/11.

No sorry I don't, please tell me?<google/>

I said:

'However I'm glad you have seen through my question. So then you say yes okay Peeps, I do belive in some things then?'

In return to you saying:

'I assume, but I don't know. I cannot read minds. Can you?'

I am asking, so you agree then? I have to take it that you do, because of what you said above.

Assume, is just another way of saying belive, I asumme that I am loved, I belive that I am loved. Yet as point out, you can't know because you can't read minds. You may have some subjective evidance, you may choose to belive those that tell you, but ultimatly you cannot know.

So if you assume, or belive that you are loved, that is a belife that you hold.

So I was asking if you want to retract your original statement.An assumption is not a believe. At least not as I understand the words (from Latin and Germanic). An assumption is a kind of "working hypothesis" that one takes until more information is available, while a belief is taking something for real although there is insufficient information. And a belief also may contain an emotional aspect, which an assumption has not.

<google/>

An assumption is not a believe. At least not as I understand the words (from Latin and Germanic). An assumption is a kind of "working hypothesis" that one takes until more information is available, while a belief is taking something for real although there is insufficient information. And a belief also may contain an emotional aspect, which an assumption has not.

An assumption is something you treat as true until you find out otherwise. Practically, this is no different than a belief. Now a belief can have the added aspect of being defended beyond reason and/or ignoring reason, but on the surface an assumption, if you think it's true, is a belief. Now depending on the usage it can have varying level of conviction, but at the core, an assumption is a type of belief.

Meanwhile, are you telling me that giant bolded assertion in your signature isn't a belief? No one believes you.

We can map religious fantasies in the brain.
It may well be that some folks are born with a predisposition for religion. That might explain why for some it is impossible to overcome the respective religion they were fed and replace the fantasies by reason. The question then comes up what medication could be developed against religiousness.

Actually, shouldn't those that don't believe in a diety(ies), be the ones on medication? I believe there are more people world wide that are religious, than not, which would mean that the norm for humans as a whole is to be religious. Its like having 100 people, 90 having brown hair, and 10 having a different color hair, which shows that the norm for the 100 people is brown hair, and those 10 other people are different.

So, maybe we need to give medication to those without religion, to make them normal, like everyone else in the world. ;)

It's true that I was never that religious, but the final nail in the coffin (so to speak) that made me abandon judaism was not something internal -- it was a little thing called 9/11.Because you questioned god (as the omni-benevolent being) ? And what did you turn to instead?

Actually, shouldn't those that don't believe in a diety(ies), be the ones on medication? I believe there are more people world wide that are religious, than not, which would mean that the norm for humans as a whole is to be religious. Its like having 100 people, 90 having brown hair, and 10 having a different color hair, which shows that the norm for the 100 people is brown hair, and those 10 other people are different.

So, maybe we need to give medication to those without religion, to make them normal, like everyone else in the world. ;)

"Desirability" and not "normality" should be a norm here. After all, if 90% of the worlds population had AIDS, should we infect the remaining 10% to make them normal ?

"Desirability" and not "normality" should be a norm here. After all, if 90% of the worlds population had AIDS, should we infect the remaining 10% to make them normal ?


Might as well, because if 90% of the world has AIDS, then humankind is fucked anyways.

"Desirability" and not "normality" should be a norm here. After all, if 90% of the worlds population had AIDS, should we infect the remaining 10% to make them normal ?

And it hasn't been established that Atheism is desirable. At all. Ever. There is no merit to the claim that Atheism is inherently better or that there is any pathology to being a Theist.

Might as well, because if 90% of the world has AIDS, then humankind is fucked anyways.evidently

And it hasn't been established that Atheism is desirable. At all. Ever. There is no merit to the claim that Atheism is inherently better or that there is any pathology to being a Theist.

Correct. Which is why I consider the question of desireablity more important than that of cause. I direct your attention at my "motivator" question.

I honestly do not know if deriving ones morals from what essentially boils down to obedience of a holy book is good or bad for society. I am leaning towards the bad, but can still be swayed in either direction.

It's true that I was never that religious, but the final nail in the coffin (so to speak) that made me abandon judaism was not something internal -- it was a little thing called 9/11.

were you too young to understand the holocaust?

Actually, shouldn't those that don't believe in a diety(ies), be the ones on medication? I believe there are more people world wide that are religious, than not, which would mean that the norm for humans as a whole is to be religious. Its like having 100 people, 90 having brown hair, and 10 having a different color hair, which shows that the norm for the 100 people is brown hair, and those 10 other people are different.

So, maybe we need to give medication to those without religion, to make them normal, like everyone else in the world. ;)"normality" is no criterion. possibility- and probability-checks of the respective subjects of belief are the criteria.

If you have a house full of Lepers, Leprosy is normal. And according to you the non-leprous should get medication to become 'normal' as well...

Here is another way of looking at this question:

In talking with religious believers, a common theme I encounter is the idea that faith in God satisfies some fundamental need or needs. People who have converted to a religion will often talk about how it "filled a hole in their life" or something similar. Believers talk about how faith can "make you whole" or "give you purpose/meaning/happiness/fulfillment."

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

Instead of looking at it as a built-in aptitude for religiosity, is it a kind of built-in drive, like our need for food, shelter, or companionship?

I think that having a "faith" satisfies a very basic need to feel as if we know something greater and more meaningful about our selves and our environment than simple everyday perceptions can tell us.

"normality" is no criterion. possibility- and probability-checks of the respective subjects of belief are the criteria.

If you have a house full of Lepers, Leprosy is normal. And according to you the non-leprous should get medication to become 'normal' as well...

Probably and possibility have NOTHING to do with establishing pathology. At all. You've not addressed the issue at all. Commonality also isn't the issue. It's simply of question whether it can be shown to be necessarily harmful and to have no benefits that outweigh that harm.

I think all humans have a inate(sp?) desire to be know the creator and to have knowledge of a higher being.

I think all humans have a inate(sp?) desire to be know the creator(s) and to have knowledge of a higher being(s).

Edited to make it correct.

I've made threads around here several times asking people to provide ANY concrete, testable assertions about their God. "Testable hypotheses," I cry! Nobody has ever provided a single one. Their God cannot be tested, cannot be empirically investigated, and I cannot have any access to their personal image of God, unless I magically "embrace" it.

While my subjective experience of anything will be different from another individual's, there are objective aspects we can both share in. If somebody asserts that the city of Sydney exists in a particular country and has particular concrete qualities, I can go about testing that myself. Such examination is simply not possible with God.

Hence, believing in something one has not yet tested is a different matter than believing in something one cannot test, period.

What if personal experience and perception is the only way we can experience the divine?


I honestly do not know if deriving ones morals from what essentially boils down to obedience of a holy book is good or bad for society. I am leaning towards the bad, but can still be swayed in either direction.

Frankly, I find it scary that anyone would draw their moral system entirely from a holy book, or a law book, or "what mom and dad said," or any number of single sources. It implies either lack of the ability to think through it for oneself, or lack of the motivation to do so.

I would argue, however, that these people at least do have some sort of code - something they may not have if it wasn't provided for them. The problem, of course, is the fact that they are so easily led can be used for good or for ill.

Here is another way of looking at this question:

In talking with religious believers, a common theme I encounter is the idea that faith in God satisfies some fundamental need or needs. People who have converted to a religion will often talk about how it "filled a hole in their life" or something similar. Believers talk about how faith can "make you whole" or "give you purpose/meaning/happiness/fulfillment."

So, is there some built-in need(s) that humans have which can only be satisfied by religion/superstition/"faith"?

Instead of looking at it as a built-in aptitude for religiosity, is it a kind of built-in drive, like our need for food, shelter, or companionship?
I think there are a couple of needs at work in this matter. Both needs are hard-wired into the human brain, but there is a vast amount of individual variation in how strong or prevalent these needs are in any given human being.

On the one hand, there is the neurological predisposition towards experiences that are described as "mystical," "ecstatic" or "transcendant." Some people will never have such experiences, no matter what happens to or around them. Other people cannot get through a week without another such experience happening to them sponteneously. The majority fall between those two extremes. I am talking about a type of experience that affects sensory perceptions of the external world and/or the inner world of one's body or conscious thoughts.

Such experiences are not dependent upon any religious or other external social (i.e. shared or shareable) matrix. They originate within the individual and can be triggered by many things, including deliberate will, as well as occurring spontaneously. Like most personal experiences, people who have them will tend to seek a context to put them into, give them form/reference, and make them shareable with others. Religion is a very serviceable matrix for this. So are sports and politics, depending on the nature of the given experience.

Another hard-wired human need that is served by religion is the urge towards social bonding, but this is entirely different from so-called mystical experience. Much more than mysticism, I would say that social bonding creates and gives form and function to organized religions of all kinds. Mysticism is so highly personal to the individual that it tends to dissipate groups rather than bond them. Hence the common tension between "religious" people and "mystics" and the tradition among many religions of segregating "mystics," as in cloisters or hermitages.

We might say that religion is a social-bonding matrix that emerged out of the need to integrate the mystical experiences of individuals into the social group - to avoid losing people from the group, in a sense. But the two brain functions -- social bonding and transcendance -- really have little or nothing to do with each other.

As for the question of whether such drives are good or bad, I do not think it is that simple. There is no data, but plenty of theories, about whether there is a survival benefit to the human brain evolving such functions. No one really knows. Social bonding certainly is a survival mechanism. Mysticism may also be, or it may merely be a by-product of other brain functions that are supportive of our survival - such as the ability to imagine things or, possibly, certain kinds of central nervous system reactions under extreme stimuli. Why do we believe in god(s)? Possibly for a similar reason why we dream.

Edited to make it correct.

humans have a natural inclination towards monothiesm. Not really a surprise seeing has there is only ONE creator, the only one worthy or worship.

humans have a natural inclination towards monothiesm. Not really a surprise seeing has there is only ONE creator, the only one worthy or worship.

This is a statement of your beliefs only. It is not a fact and is refuted by the numbers of people in the world today who follow polytheistic or pantheistic beliefs, as well as the age and continuity of non-monotheistic beliefs. Please do some research before making such assertions. You can start with the following sites:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/

http://www.adherents.com/

I think there are a couple of needs at work in this matter. Both needs are hard-wired into the human brain, but there is a vast amount of individual variation in how strong or prevalent these needs are in any given human being.


your insight has been sorely missed.

your insight has been sorely missed.

Awww... *blushes* I missed y'all too.

i wouldn't have thought religiosity specifically was innate, but there are probably certain personality traits which, when combined, may predispose someone to religiosity. i'm thinking in particular of such things as credulity, externalising of one's personal problems, a desire for definitive answers or universalisms, etc. i'm not sure that necessarily illiminates choice though, unless a person is too stupid to identify their character 'flaws' and challenge them, or has been utterly immersed in religious indoctrination so they don't know any different. i think a lot of religious people probably do choose to follow a religion and believe in all the stories and whatnot though.

*snip wonderful post*

*pounce*

*hug*

*dance*

Long time no see! =)

humans have a natural inclination towards monothiesm.

Which of course is why until the rise of Christianity the overwhelming majority of humans was polytheistic.

humans have a natural inclination towards monothiesm. Not really a surpriseQUOTE]

[QUOTE=The Alma Mater;12509438]Which of course is why until the rise of Christianity the overwhelming majority of humans was polytheistic.

Ammm...these are not untrue.

Polytheistic religions are all very well for agricultural societies but it's no coincidence that monotheistic religions arose from nomadic societies, they simply do not have the wherewithal to carry around the paraphenalia associated with polytheistic religions.

Remembering that religion is borne of storytelling, to pass information from generation to generation about a society and therefore allow a powerful, common bond, certain aspects of those stories can only be accounted for if a higher being is allowed, allowing God allows for explanations of everything

Child: If we are the true children of God, how come he let us lose that battle and now we're slaves?
Elder: Well kiddo, God moves in mysterious ways

Given our brains are built to memorise and transmit information (especially through song [see psalms]), and granted that some people are better at memorising than others, monotheism, once it gets a grip in the first globalised world (see Roman Empire), it's almost certain that it will start to dominate our belief system.

In that sense, humans have a natural inclination to monotheism

Avoiding the debate at hand a sticking with the poll I just answered.

I chose "Yes, I am NOT religious"

However I need to clearify that,
I have a great deal of faith in God, I do attend church, read the Bible and pray. I am however not "religious" if that makes any sense at all. I do not equate "Faith" and "religion".



A person can be religious about anything, and therefore I do indeed suppose that a person might be born with a gentically encoded layout of the brain to make them more disposed to being religious.

Now before I am called to task about this definition or that definition I feel I have my understanding of the word clear.

Now, do I believe that a person could be born with a genetically encoded layout in the brain that makes them more disposed to believe in a diety?

I dont know.
But again, I do suppose it is possible and do not simply dismiss this possibilty because it is uncomfortable for me simply because there is proof.
I accept the possibilty, and the right for anyone here to believe that possibilty more strongly then I myself do.

Good Night.

humans have a natural inclination towards monothiesm.That is just not true. Everywhere humanity has evolved, it has developed polytheism. And the monotheism of our days is also just a distortion of a polytheistic basis. The success of monotheism with the spread of Christianity is entirely based on Christianity's appeal to the poor and because it was a fashion in Roman society to be a member of a somewhat exotic group, and not because it made any more sense than the usual western pantheon, same for Zoroastrianism and the Mithras cult.
The predisposition we are talking about here is clearly one that made the earliest (civilized) humans believe the forces of nature to be gods, as well as it made them create cults for their ancestors. That's how all religion came about in the first place, even if the various religions as such may have evolved into different directions.

Not really a surprise seeing has there is only ONE creator, the only one worthy or worship.A deity who is taking someone like Elijah up to heaven deserves no worship at all.

Actually, shouldn't those that don't believe in a diety(ies), be the ones on medication? I believe there are more people world wide that are religious, than not, which would mean that the norm for humans as a whole is to be religious. Its like having 100 people, 90 having brown hair, and 10 having a different color hair, which shows that the norm for the 100 people is brown hair, and those 10 other people are different.

So, maybe we need to give medication to those without religion, to make them normal, like everyone else in the world. ;)

Bad analogy. *tsks*

There are way too many religions to separate into simple groups like religious and not-religious. This is a false dichotomy where no dichotomy exists at all. The spectrum is far too great to be classified in these terms.

*Insert Fantastic Segway Here*

Take myself, for instance, I'm prone to fancies about Zoroastrianism, or maybe I've just been obsessing over the Wheel of Time series too much.

*Conclusion Goes Here*

Uncertain. As I mentioned in the other topic belief can make people do things an objective observer may classify as great, but that does not necessarily mean that the motives behind the great action would also be considered good.

Does this matter in practice ? Yes, because while "my religion says so" can be a motivation to not steal, murder and covet thy neighbour - it can also be a motivator to blow up buildings, discriminate against population groups or attempting to suppress knowledge that seems to contradict the holy scripture.

This implies that blanket statements about the desirability of belief can be made: by looking if we want it to be a motivator.

Heh so what you have just said is that it effects people differantly? So you are uncertian of what exactly?

What do you mean by person-to-person level?

Individual, I mean on an indivdual basis.

You asked is it healty? I guess you mean religousness. My answer to that has to be, it depends on the person surly, it must be a qeustion that is answered differantly dependant on the indivdual.

Is my religousness healty to me? Sometimes I think yes, sometimes I think no.
Is it healthy to us as a specices.

Again, before we can answer that we need to know what you mean by healthy. religoin has certianly driven our history, I think I can safelty say we would not be who, or where we are now if not for religoin. So healthy as in helping to move us forward, then undoubtedly yes.

<google/>

An assumption is not a believe. At least not as I understand the words (from Latin and Germanic). An assumption is a kind of "working hypothesis" that one takes until more information is available, while a belief is taking something for real although there is insufficient information. And a belief also may contain an emotional aspect, which an assumption has not.


Huh? I think we got mixed up somewhere?
Lets recap.

You said:

'And I have also seen "Contact"... with the "prove you are loved" shit.
Sorry I don't know what you mean when you say 'Contact?''

I said:

'I'm sorry I don't know what you mean when you say Contact?'

You said:

'I think you do'

I said:

'No sorry I don't please tell me?

So, sorry what are you talking about?

Lets try it this way then. When you use the phrase I assume, in a sentance, what is it that you are assuming?

Correct. Which is why I consider the question of desireablity more important than that of cause. I direct your attention at my "motivator" question.

I honestly do not know if deriving ones morals from what essentially boils down to obedience of a holy book is good or bad for society. I am leaning towards the bad, but can still be swayed in either direction.

I'm not at all sure that all religious people derive their morality from their faith. I know I certianly do not.

"normality" is no criterion. possibility- and probability-checks of the respective subjects of belief are the criteria.

If you have a house full of Lepers, Leprosy is normal. And according to you the non-leprous should get medication to become 'normal' as well...


When talking about the mental state of being though, what is considered normal is indeed king, and also we count the whole of humanity to decide what this norm is, not a house, but the whole lot of us.

So in the world, the amount of lepors that can be counted tell us that leprousy is not the norm. Bringing it back to mental health though, if we count the amount of scizophrenics in the world we can then say that schizorphenia is also not the norm. carrying along the same lines, f we can show that the majority of people in the world hold to a religion, then by the same token, this is also the norm.

I know what you mean, I personaly have no problem with atheists or atheism, except perhaps the ones that use such words, for exactly the intent you alluede to.

However a good case could be made about this being a re-action from years of similar abuse at the hands of fundemental Christians?

*hug* I mentioned that a couple posts back. :)

Oh, that's simple. After one has dismissed religion on rational grounds, he will see the religious and their endeavors as a complete waste of time and ridiculous, and some see it as a harmful thing.

I see. So, behaving towards others as you'd like them to behave towards you is a waste of time and ridiculous.

Sharing what you have with those less able is a waste of time and ridiculous.

Raising monies in order to care for the ill, the displaced, the hungry, the homeless is ridiculous.

Devoting oneself to the welfare of others is ridiculous.

I'm beginning to wonder how harmful a thing religion is when set against cold reason.

I understand and agree with what you're saying here, but I still don't see why you acted as though it would be inconsistent or wrong for somebody to support a "vaccine" against religion but not one against atheism, assuming the person in question IS an atheist who views religion as an illness.

I suppose I find it inconsistent because I've been taught to tolerate other people's views (that is, accept that they have them, respect that they have them, and not go out of my way to ridicule them although I do not myself adhere to them) and find it surprising that others cannot do that as well. ;) Part of loving my neighbor, I suppose.

I also find it ironic that a person of reason, who is I assume tired of hearing from fools, "you're going to hell because you don't believe what I do", uttering the same prejudice in the slightly altered form, "you're going to the funny farm because you don't believe as I do."

Yes self. We must round up these none believers and have them brought before the inquisition. Blasphemers. Of course religosity or whatever word you say is in human nature. God put it there so we worship him.
No, religion isn't just a bunch of people getting drunk "morally", it is a way of life. It is in human nature to try and live in a good and moral way, which is promoted by religion.

If you disagree I'll have the angel of death come after you... MEHADFADASH!!!

:( :sniper:

Could you and your personalities try to agree on a viewpoint, then clarify what you meant? :D

I think that having a "faith" satisfies a very basic need to feel as if we know something greater and more meaningful about our selves and our environment than simple everyday perceptions can tell us.
Interesting!

I don't personally feel that need. I couldn't tell you why. I obviously LIKE feeling important, and I certainly enjoy feeling as if my life has some higher meaning, but to me these things are under the same category as flattery; enjoyable, but not needed.

Do you think it is harmful to lack the need you are talking about? Do you think people will be better off if they do experience that need?

What if personal experience and perception is the only way we can experience the divine?

Then it is qualitatively different from the city of Sydney, and my point stands.

I don't have a problem with that, obviously, since that was pretty much what I was getting at. Having "faith" in the existence of Sydney because one has not yet visited Sydney is quite different from having faith in the existence of God.


Frankly, I find it scary that anyone would draw their moral system entirely from a holy book, or a law book, or "what mom and dad said," or any number of single sources. It implies either lack of the ability to think through it for oneself, or lack of the motivation to do so.

I would argue, however, that these people at least do have some sort of code - something they may not have if it wasn't provided for them.

See, this is where we differ. I think the code exists first, and the religion is secondary. In other words, those people would have their personal code regardless, they just use religion to prop it up. If they didn't have their current religion, they'd have another religion or ideology to prop up the code that they've already decided to adhere to.

I think all humans have a inate(sp?) desire to be know the creator and to have knowledge of a higher being.
I don't have any reason to believe that a Creator exists, so I don't have any particular desire to know a Creator. I'd prefer to know reality, whether or not that includes a Creator.

As for "higher beings," I'm just a curious person by nature. I'd like to have knowledge of ALL beings! But if there is one thing my studies have taught me so far, it's that every being is a "higher being" in one way or another.

i wouldn't have thought religiosity specifically was innate, but there are probably certain personality traits which, when combined, may predispose someone to religiosity.
Well dang. I hadn't thought of it that way. Cool!

Not understanding, bonding.

It can be healthy or unhealthy on a personal level, in that to one individual, learning that Santa Claus does not exist may be a shock, but to the whole, it is unhealthy to believe that Santa Claus exists.

Am I equating the belief in religion to Santa Claus, why yes, yes I am

No one can prove Santa Claus does not exist, we can prove why we would like him to exist

Except that Santa Claus is the personification of generosity in its least commercial form, and sort of a rite of passage as well as conspiracy ;). It wasn't any shock when I learned Santa didn't exist: I would imagine only a few people are truly horrified to find he doesn't. However, he serves a purpose: to embody the spirit of giving and generosity for children, who are often so self-centered they can't understand it at first in any other way.

I suppose I find it inconsistent because I've been taught to tolerate other people's views (that is, accept that they have them, respect that they have them, and not go out of my way to ridicule them although I do not myself adhere to them) and find it surprising that others cannot do that as well. ;) Part of loving my neighbor, I suppose.

But you draw limits just like everybody does. For instance, I'm guessing that you don't advocate that we all speak about racism respectfully and regard it as a perfectly valid alternative system of thought. I'm guessing you don't advocate teaching children that being racist is just as okay as being non-racist, and that disliking people purely because of skin tone is a perfectly reasonable stance grounded in empirical reality.


I also find it ironic that a person of reason, who is I assume tired of hearing from fools, "you're going to hell because you don't believe what I do", uttering the same prejudice in the slightly altered form, "you're going to the funny farm because you don't believe as I do."
I'd say there are WORLDS OF DIFFERENCE between those two.

Hell: eternity of punishment.

Mental institutions: designed to help treat individuals with mental illnesses.

An eternity of punishment versus medical care for an illness. Hmm.

Even arguing that religion people should be sent to prison wouldn't be remotely as bad as saying that the godless are hellbound, because prison is finite and can only last as long as one's mortal life (at most). Hell is for keeps.

This topic came up as a tangent on a recent thread:

So the question of the thread is…

Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?

Just as some people are born with a predisposition for things like musical talent or alcoholism, might some people be born with a predisposition for religion?

Well, you might want to explain how completely disparate cultures came up with religion all on their own.

Well, you might want to explain how completely disparate cultures came up with religion all on their own.
Sure, that would be a good line to pursue. But keep in mind that completely disparate cultures also came up with building pyramids, and I kind of doubt that the building of pyramids is some how an innate biological trait.

But you draw limits just like everybody does. For instance, I'm guessing that you don't advocate that we all speak about racism respectfully and regard it as a perfectly valid alternative system of thought. I'm guessing you don't advocate teaching children that being racist is just as okay as being non-racist, and that disliking people purely because of skin tone is a perfectly reasonable stance grounded in empirical reality.


I'd say there are WORLDS OF DIFFERENCE between those two.

Hell: eternity of punishment.

Mental institutions: designed to help treat individuals with mental illnesses.

An eternity of punishment versus medical care for an illness. Hmm.

Even arguing that religion people should be sent to prison wouldn't be remotely as bad as saying that the godless are hellbound, because prison is finite and can only last as long as one's mortal life (at most). Hell is for keeps.


Hehe that always makes me laugh.

So presumabley then Bottle, you are not religious?

In which case, your comparrison make little sense.

Medical care for an illness, Vs a lot of rubbish that I do not belive actualy exists.

What is the point of such comparison?

Sure, that would be a good line to pursue. But keep in mind that completely disparate cultures also came up with building pyramids, and I kind of doubt that the building of pyramids is some how an innate biological trait.

Seems like incest is a universal taboo.

Hehe that always makes me laugh.

So presumabley then Bottle, you are not religious?

In which case, your comparrison make little sense.

Medical care for an illness, Vs a lot of rubbish that I do not belive actualy exists.

What is the point of such comparison?
Whether or not I believe in Hell does not change the severity of what that person is wishing upon me. They are telling me that they wish for me to be tormented for all eternity. I'd say that's at least a smidge worse than telling somebody you think they should get medical care for an illness you believe they have.

Seems like incest is a universal taboo.
Not at all. Indeed, some cultures have specifically advocated incest, particularly between ruling families, to preserve "purity" of a blood line.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what your point here is. There are "taboos" against lots of things, but I don't see why those can't have arisen from pragmatic realities that humans will face anywhere on the planet. Why assume they must be innate biological traits?

Except that Santa Claus is the personification of generosity in its least commercial form, and sort of a rite of passage as well as conspiracy ;). It wasn't any shock when I learned Santa didn't exist: I would imagine only a few people are truly horrified to find he doesn't. However, he serves a purpose: to embody the spirit of giving and generosity for children, who are often so self-centered they can't understand it at first in any other way.

I agree wholeheartedly, but what is God the personification of?

I'd like to add my thoughts here as to what I think could be possible.

If we take God as omniscient and omnipotent, well....I imagine that's a rather boring existence.

To truly provide free will and be part of a truly interesting experience, I would separate myself into an infinite amount of parts, a kind of Big Bang if you will.

The sole imperative, is that these parts, although initially forced apart through such a Godly explosion, are ultimately attracted to each other - some may repel individually, but as a whole they're attracted, this is because, in effect, they are one.

Thus, higher and higher forms of complicated matter arise, from basic matter, to molecules, to interactions , basic life and so on. Some forms die out, others spring up but, overall, the effect is to attract and create more complex forms.

Who knows what else is out there but from what we know, humans are the most complex organism around. We have now developed complex emotions, starting to understand and manipulate our world.

What we call religious experiences may be brief flashes of insight into the whole - the realisation that everything is connected and that we're part of something bigger. We are all, essentially, One (making God omnipresent as well ; )

That I can entertain - a God who judges my life, that I cannot.

Whether or not I believe in Hell does not change the severity of what that person is wishing upon me. They are telling me that they wish for me to be tormented for all eternity. I'd say that's at least a smidge worse than telling somebody you think they should get medical care for an illness you believe they have.

Yeah I get that, I guess if one wanted one could see it as a major threat.

Yet I can't help thinking that if I was threated by an imaginary weapon, I would choose not to see the threat, but instead laugh at them.

I mean it's like being acosted in the street by some bloke holding a pretend table leg out, and shouting I'll bloody hit you with this I will.

Yes of course being threatend is not nice, but really being threated with something non existant, then where exaclty is the harm?

As for saying that they wish you eternal damnation, again isn't that down to how you see it.

Do the words you will burn in hell for all of eternity if you do not take Christ as your saviour, sound like a wish, or a warning to you?

They are clearly a warning, I think the wish bit may be your own bias.

Yeah I get that, I guess if one wanted one could see it as a major threat.

Yet I can't help thinking that if I was threated by an imaginary weapon, I would choose not to see the threat, but instead laugh at them.

I mean it's like being acosted in the street by some bloke holding a pretend table leg out, and shouting I'll bloody hit you with this I will.

Being told that somebody wishes for you to be tormented for all eternity is equally shitty no matter how they think the torment will be enforced.

You seem to be hung up on the "threat" idea. I'm not actually threatened by the idea of Hell, because I don't believe Hell exists. What is bothersome is another human being expressing the desire that I be tortured forever and ever.

Although, it is a bit more scary if somebody thinks there's a super-powered magical being who has their back on the whole "torture" thing, because if they're crazy enough to believe that then they might be crazy enough to do something...crazy. But I don't really worry about that so much, since most people who believe in torture-happy dieties don't actually end up being dangerous.


Yes of course being threatend is not nice, but really being threated with something non existant, then where exaclty is the harm?

Again, I'm not talking about threat, here. I'm talking about comparing two statements in terms of how nasty they are. I say it's significantly more nasty to say that somebody is going to be tortured forever and ever than it is to say that they will receive medical attention for an illness.


As for saying that they wish you eternal damnation, again isn't that down to how you see it.

Do the words you will burn in hell for all of eternity if you do not take Christ as your saviour, sound like a wish, or a warning to you?

They are clearly a warning, I think the wish bit may be your own bias.
If a person is prepared to worship a God who would damn somebody for that, then they are endorsing that God's position. (Well, either that, or they're a coward or a scum-bag who is prepared to go along with torture of others to save their own neck or reap some personal rewards.)

In my opinion, any decent person would have a completely different "warning" if they really believed in that sort of God. The warning would go like this:

"There is a God who is prepared to torture you for eternity if you don't bow down. Seriously, this dude is fucked up. We need to get together and somehow figure out how to take him down, because I'm not about to let my fellow humans be treated that way."

If I really, truly believed in a Creator-Being who would punish non-believers with an eternity in Hell, I would dedicate my life to stopping that Being and protecting my fellow human beings in any way I could. Even if it was futile, I would NEVER consider worshiping such filth.

I see. So, behaving towards others as you'd like them to behave towards you is a waste of time and ridiculous.

Sharing what you have with those less able is a waste of time and ridiculous.

Raising monies in order to care for the ill, the displaced, the hungry, the homeless is ridiculous.

Devoting oneself to the welfare of others is ridiculous.

I'm beginning to wonder how harmful a thing religion is when set against cold reason.You seem to equate charity with religion. But that's nonsense. You can perfectly be sharing what you have with those less able, be raising monies in order to care for the ill, the displaced, the hungry, the homeless, or be devoting yourself to the welfare of others, without adhering to religion.

I agree wholeheartedly, but what is God the personification of?

I'd like to add my thoughts here as to what I think could be possible.

If we take God as omniscient and omnipotent, well....I imagine that's a rather boring existence.

To truly provide free will and be part of a truly interesting experience, I would separate myself into an infinite amount of parts, a kind of Big Bang if you will.

The sole imperative, is that these parts, although initially forced apart through such a Godly explosion, are ultimately attracted to each other - some may repel individually, but as a whole they're attracted, this is because, in effect, they are one.

Thus, higher and higher forms of complicated matter arise, from basic matter, to molecules, to interactions , basic life and so on. Some forms die out, others spring up but, overall, the effect is to attract and create more complex forms.

Who knows what else is out there but from what we know, humans are the most complex organism around. We have now developed complex emotions, starting to understand and manipulate our world.

What we call religious experiences may be brief flashes of insight into the whole - the realisation that everything is connected and that we're part of something bigger. We are all, essentially, One (making God omnipresent as well ; )

That I can entertain - a God who judges my life, that I cannot.

Yeah and I agree wholehartedly. If we choose to belive in God, then surly it must be a concept born out of rational though(yeah I know hear me out!), not out of fear, and it must surly tie in with your own thoughts and philosopies, or whats the point.

Heh if of course you choose not to belive in God, then thats one whole of realm of experiance and learning that you choose to miss out on, still your choice huh!

I agree wholeheartedly, but what is God the personification of?

I'd like to add my thoughts here as to what I think could be possible.

If we take God as omniscient and omnipotent, well....I imagine that's a rather boring existence.

To truly provide free will and be part of a truly interesting experience, I would separate myself into an infinite amount of parts, a kind of Big Bang if you will.

The sole imperative, is that these parts, although initially forced apart through such a Godly explosion, are ultimately attracted to each other - some may repel individually, but as a whole they're attracted, this is because, in effect, they are one.

Thus, higher and higher forms of complicated matter arise, from basic matter, to molecules, to interactions , basic life and so on. Some forms die out, others spring up but, overall, the effect is to attract and create more complex forms.

Who knows what else is out there but from what we know, humans are the most complex organism around. We have now developed complex emotions, starting to understand and manipulate our world.

What we call religious experiences may be brief flashes of insight into the whole - the realisation that everything is connected and that we're part of something bigger. We are all, essentially, One (making God omnipresent as well ; )

That I can entertain - a God who judges my life, that I cannot.

Yeah and I agree wholehartedly. If we choose to belive in God, then surly it must be a concept born out of rational though(yeah I know hear me out!), not out of fear, and it must surly tie in with your own thoughts and philosopies, or whats the point.

Heh if of course you choose not to belive in God, then thats one whole of realm of experiance and learning that you choose to miss out on, still your choice huh!

Not at all. Indeed, some cultures have specifically advocated incest, particularly between ruling families, to preserve "purity" of a blood line.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what your point here is. There are "taboos" against lots of things, but I don't see why those can't have arisen from pragmatic realities that humans will face anywhere on the planet. Why assume they must be innate biological traits?

Well, obviously, because he can't think of anything else to say. Duh.

Clearly, because he can't think of a rational reason why such a thing would happen other than an absolute moral code, then it's not possible to think of reasoning behind it.

It couldn't be that many cultures believed disease was caused by evil spirits and those same cultures often figured out that incest caused children to be born deformed.

"Hmmmm.... a lot of couples who are siblings have deformed children. Must be bad to hook up if your siblings."

And again, bad for a lot cultures means evil.

Or there is the effect of sexual activity being rampant among families and how it would make it more difficult to reasonably be affectionate without it leading to or suggesting sex. That's another rational reason for a taboo.

But let's follow that reasoning out. If all cultures have a taboo against a particular issue with no known connection to cause the taboo then it must be God's Will. If all cultures don't without an obvious connection, then it must not be.

So let's some pretty non-universal taboos -
Sex - Must not be universal
Homosexuality - Must not be universal
Prostitution - Must not be universal
Slavery - Must not be universal
Patriarchy - Must not be universal

Hmmm... I like EO's argument. By that line of thinking, a lot of the nonsensical taboos just melt away.

Heh if of course you choose not to belive in God, then thats one whole of realm of experiance and learning that you choose to miss out on, still your choice huh!
You choose not to believe in the God of all the billions of other believers in the world. So maybe you're missing out on 5 billion realms of experience and learning, while an atheist is missing out on 5 billion and 1.

Of course, you're also missing out on the realm of experience and learning that is only possible for those who live without God in their lives, too. Hmm. So call it even, I guess.

When talking about the mental state of being though, what is considered normal is indeed king, and also we count the whole of humanity to decide what this norm is, not a house, but the whole lot of us.

So in the world, the amount of lepors that can be counted tell us that leprousy is not the norm. Bringing it back to mental health though, if we count the amount of scizophrenics in the world we can then say that schizorphenia is also not the norm. carrying along the same lines, f we can show that the majority of people in the world hold to a religion, then by the same token, this is also the norm.It is not the number or lepers that makes leprosy a bad thing, you know.
And the same way it is irrelevant how many people adhere to any particular religion if the respective religion is baseless or harmful.

You choose not to believe in the God of all the billions of other believers in the world. So maybe you're missing out on 5 billion realms of experience and learning you're missing out on, while an atheist is missing out on 5 billion and 1.

Of course, you're also missing out on the realm of experience and learning that is only possible for those who live without God in their lives, too. Hmm. So call it even, I guess.

Yeah, I'm not buying that either. These mental tricks to try and get people to believe just don't make sense to me. The only value one can provide to someone who believes differently than them is to encourage an open mind, and answer questions if they're asked. That's it.

Going beyond that, I think, simply chases people away and hardens their hearts.

You choose not to believe in the God of all the billions of other believers in the world. So maybe you're missing out on 5 billion realms of experience and learning, while an atheist is missing out on 5 billion and 1.

Of course, you're also missing out on the realm of experience and learning that is only possible for those who live without God in their lives, too. Hmm. So call it even, I guess.

Hahah yes of course, none of us can experiance every thing huh. Call it even? Heh I had no idea we were in compation.

Yeah, I'm not buying that either. These mental tricks to try and get people to believe just don't make sense to me. The only value one can provide to someone who believes differently than them is to encourage an open mind, and answer questions if they're asked. That's it.

Going beyond that, I think, simply chases people away and hardens their hearts.
Yep. I'm sick of the attitude that religious believers somehow have "more" experiences or "more" morality or any of that other crap. You have DIFFERENT experiences and DIFFERENT morality, but don't bullshit around about how the godless somehow have less than you do.

Call it even? Heh I had no idea we were in compation.
:rolleyes:

Sure you didn't. Which is why you decided to start the whole passive-aggressive, "Oh, well, you godless types are just missing out because you don't want to believe, but that's your loss, tee hee hee."

Seriously, don't waste your time.

You seem equate charity with religion. But that's nonsense. You can perfectly be sharing what you have with those less able, be raising monies in order to care for the ill, the displaced, the hungry, the homeless, or be devoting yourself to the welfare of others, without adhering to religion.

Except, she's not saying that. She's saying that if you were just being coldly rational, there would really be no reason to do it. Cold rationality would put you doing only what benefits you in some direct way.

Except, she's not saying that. She's saying that if you were just being coldly rational, there would really be no reason to do it. Cold rationality would put you doing only what benefits you in some direct way.
How do you figure that?

There are piles of pragmatic, "selfish" reasons to help other people and to care about the welfare of others. Maybe things are different for you, but I personally benefit from helping others.

Yep. I'm sick of the attitude that religious believers somehow have "more" experiences or "more" morality or any of that other crap. You have DIFFERENT experiences and DIFFERENT morality, but don't bullshit around about how the godless somehow have less than you do.

Well, in all fairness, we believe what we believe because we think we're right. I do. Don't you? As such, you do think your position is enviable in terms of knowledge and experiencing the world, don't you? I'm not one of those ignorance is bliss people, so I do think the advantage goes to the people whose search for truth is unlimited. And from standpoint we know where that leads, and from your standpoint we know where that leads, and it's not the same place.

Well, in all fairness, we believe what we believe because we think we're right. I do. Don't you? As such, you do think your position is enviable in terms of knowledge and experiencing the world, don't you

Sure. But, like you, I'm also aware that EVERYBODY thinks this. So I see no point in the condescending, "Well, if you all want to miss out on learning and experience, then I guess that's your choice, but too bad for you" crap.


I'm not one of those ignorance is bliss people, so I do think the advantage goes to the people whose search for truth is unlimited. And from standpoint we know where that leads, and from your standpoint we know where that leads, and it's not the same place.
I'm not sure I understand your second sentence here.

How do you figure that?

There are piles of pragmatic, "selfish" reasons to help other people and to care about the welfare of others. Maybe things are different for you, but I personally benefit from helping others.

Not tying this to religion. I find charity personally rewarding as well as spiritually rewarding. However, I can't offer emperical evidence of why it's individually rewarding. Cold reason and religion are not the only two choices or even mutually exclusive.

You choose not to believe in the God of all the billions of other believers in the world. So maybe you're missing out on 5 billion realms of experience and learning, while an atheist is missing out on 5 billion and 1.

Of course, you're also missing out on the realm of experience and learning that is only possible for those who live without God in their lives, too. Hmm. So call it even, I guess.

I'm not sure you're addressing the right point.

It's not that one 'chooses not' to believe in religion in the same way one does not 'choose not' to believe that 2+2 = 4

Not tying this to religion. I find charity personally rewarding as well as spiritually rewarding. However, I can't offer emperical evidence of why it's individually rewarding. Cold reason and religion are not the only two choices or even mutually exclusive.
Just to pick one example, helping reduce poverty also helps decrease crime. For somebody who is NOT living in poverty, there are still "selfish" benefits to reducing poverty for others.

On a more personal level, helping others ties in to the whole social network thing. We are social primates. We generally tend to do best when we network with other members of our species. Being helpful and supportive of other humans can increase the personal rewards we receive and the personal benefits from our networking.

:rolleyes:

Sure you didn't. Which is why you decided to start the whole passive-aggressive, "Oh, well, you godless types are just missing out because you don't want to believe, but that's your loss, tee hee hee."

Seriously, don't waste your time.


Ahhhh Ohh I see, sorry Bottle if you misconstrude my words, I guess that helps explain the tenure of some of your posts then.

Go ahead, and re-read exactly what I did say, and you'll relaise that my aim was one of fostering and keeping the peach between groups of people that think differantly.

And sorry 'don't waste my time' doing what?

Sure. But, like you, I'm also aware that EVERYBODY thinks this. So I see no point in the condescending, "Well, if you all want to miss out on learning and experience, then I guess that's your choice, but too bad for you" crap.


I'm not sure I understand your second sentence here.

Yeah, it was poorly worded. My point was mostly more of the above. You think that allowing that there isn't a god is the way to be open to all that truth has to offer and I think allowing that there is is the way. We'll call that the Conclusion. My sentence meant to say -

"I'm not one of those ignorance is bliss people, so I do think the advantage goes to the people whose search for truth is unlimited. And from standpoint we know where that leads, and from your standpoint we know where that leads, and it's not the same Conclusion."

Just to pick one example, helping reduce poverty also helps decrease crime. For somebody who is NOT living in poverty, there are still "selfish" benefits to reducing poverty for others.

Except on an individual basis the likelihood you'd actually get any return on your investment is slim to none. Rationally there are faster and more productive ways to protect yourself from crime.


On a more personal level, helping others ties in to the whole social network thing. We are social primates. We generally tend to do best when we network with other members of our species. Being helpful and supportive of other humans can increase the personal rewards we receive and the personal benefits from our networking.

Ah, but see, if you are denying the benefits of religion is such broad-handed way as UB is (yes, I know it's not your argument) then you can't really make that argument. Because you can make almost the same argument for religion. Cold reason, referencing what UB thinks is reason, cannot allow for such a thing because it throws the door wide to religion.

The difference is:

Atheists can, not necessarily do, have full religious experience and yet end up dismissing it.

Religious people cannot fully understand science, otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that their beliefs are incorrect

The difference is:

Atheists can, not necessarily do, have full religious experience and yet end up dismissing it.

Religious people cannot fully understand science, otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that their beliefs are incorrect

Bwahaha really? How do you reach that conclusion, you must therefore have scientific evidance that God does not exist?

Bwahaha really? How do you reach that conclusion, you must therefore have scientific evidance that God does not exist?

I don't even need science, simple logic shows any religion to be entirely inconsistent within itself.

The Christian religion is the most heinious example

The difference is:

Atheists can, not necessarily do, have full religious experience and yet end up dismissing it.

Religious people cannot fully understand science, otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that their beliefs are incorrect

For your sake, I'm hoping you're trolling.

However, let's entertain that ludicrous thought. Please, in your full understanding of science, tell me which of my beliefs one can conclude is incorrect based on science. I'm ready for a laugh.

I don't even need science, simple logic shows any religion to be entirely inconsistent within itself.

The Christian religion is the most heinious example

You sure about that. I'm Christian. What parts of my religion are inconsistent? Now, keep in mind that Christian doesn't mean I must believe in a literal Bible.

Go ahead. This should be fun.

You sure about that. I'm Christian. What parts of my religion are inconsistent? Now, keep in mind that Christian doesn't mean I must believe in a literal Bible.

Go ahead. This should be fun.

Yes - the last fallback of Christians:

"Oh you can't take anything the Bible says literally, we can change it's meaning to support our beliefs as we like."

Compared to: "You must believe this, it says so in the Bible!"

If you really understand science then yes, you can still twist the facts according to your needs, but ultimately, we progress in understanding the facts

Science does not go backwards.

You sure about that. I'm Christian. What parts of my religion are inconsistent? Now, keep in mind that Christian doesn't mean I must believe in a literal Bible.

Go ahead. This should be fun.

Yes - the last fallback of Christians:

"Oh you can't take anything the Bible says literally, we can change it's meaning to support our beliefs as we like."

You set it up so that I can't point out the inconsistencies without you saying, 'oh it doesn't literally mean that'.

In which case, do not set up a religion that judges people on their interpretation since the Bible means nothing.

Note, I have never said there's no higher being, I've said religions are wrong, simply wrong.

Yep. I'm sick of the attitude that religious believers somehow have "more" experiences or "more" morality or any of that other crap. You have DIFFERENT experiences and DIFFERENT morality, but don't bullshit around about how the godless somehow have less than you do.Indeed.