NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

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.

Version A and Version B, so we have a choice? Much like certain 'believers' choose their interpretations? :P

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."

Not change its meaning. You're talking about an ancient document that has been interpreted to mean things inconsistent with the clear intent of the individual documents. The Bible had many authors, with many purposes and many parts of it cannot legitimately be understood without the context of when the author lived and other things about the time.

Of course, this is the same way we interpret the Iliad. But, hey, actually looking at the Bible like any other document would really get in the way of your rant. Sorry for tryinig to inject reason.


Compared to: "You must believe this, it says so in the Bible!"

You realize that not all Christians believe this. The compilation of the Bible was done by a sect of Christians. It's not universally agreed to. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of an ignorant rant.

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

Twist the facts? Um, you do realize that science deals in observations and "twisting" our theories to match what we observe and then testing them. If you learn more, you adjust your theory to match what you've learned. You call that "twisting", I call that the act of a rational person.

Now, many Christians adjust their beliefs with the introduction of scientific evidence, not the other way around. By why bother treating individuals like, you know, individuals. That would be rational and it makes an uninformed rant very difficult to execute.

Science does not go backwards.

Yes. And were science to attempt to draw the conclusions you are drawing it would be throwing out its basis altogether. It wouldn't be going backwards, it would be spinning out of control. Fortunately, science leaves religious belief right alone and just focuses on analyzing the world and coming to whatever conclusions make the most sense. If only some posters would do the same.

Again, I'm sorry for putting obstacles to your rant that relies on remaining uninformed and irrationally painting all Christians with the same brush. Let's pretend I said nothing and you can continue with your tirade.

Not change its meaning. You're talking about an ancient document that has been interpreted to mean things inconsistent with the clear intent of the individual documents. The Bible had many authors, with many purposes and many parts of it cannot legitimately be understood without the context of when the author lived and other things about the time.

Of course, this is the same way we interpret the Iliad. But, hey, actually looking at the Bible like any other document would really get in the way of your rant. Sorry for tryinig to inject reason.




You realize that not all Christians believe this. The compilation of the Bible was done by a sect of Christians. It's not universally agreed to. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of an ignorant rant.



Twist the facts? Um, you do realize that science deals in observations and "twisting" our theories to match what we observe and then testing them. If you learn more, you adjust your theory to match what you've learned. You call that "twisting", I call that the act of a rational person.

Now, many Christians adjust their beliefs with the introduction of scientific evidence, not the other way around. By why bother treating individuals like, you know, individuals. That would be rational and it makes an uninformed rant very difficult to execute.



Yes. And were science to attempt to draw the conclusions you are drawing it would be throwing out its basis altogether. It wouldn't be going backwards, it would be spinning out of control. Fortunately, science leaves religious belief right alone and just focuses on analyzing the world and coming to whatever conclusions make the most sense. If only some posters would do the same.

Again, I'm sorry for putting obstacles to your rant that relies on remaining uninformed and irrationally painting all Christians with the same brush. Let's pretend I said nothing and you can continue with your tirade.

Ignore my first post - I have a terrible connection right now and meant to delete it before it was posted as I wanted to write what I meant better.

I am also not ranting, I am very calm thanks

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.

Um, actually, the religion that was set up by Jesus was one based on discernment. As such, it would be ludicrous to judge people based on their personal interpretation. It doesn't mean people don't do it, but when they do it's not Christianity that makes them do so.

I know you don't get what discernment is, but the fact that this is what is encouraged by the subject of the faith to claim that discernment should not be allowed is patently absurd.

Now, I love this backpedaling. So before my faith was logically inconsistent. Now, it's that I'm not allowed to make it logically consistent through interpretation. You let me know when the fact that this is an illogical assertion sinks in and then we can have a real discussion.

Ignore my first post - I have a terrible connection right now and meant to delete it before it was posted as I wanted to write what I meant better.

I am also not ranting, I am very calm thanks

If you're not ranting, then you're willing to talk about this rationally, no?

Do you know what discernment is? Do you know who introduced it into Christianity?

Now, I love this backpedaling. So before my faith was logically inconsistent. Now, it's that I'm not allowed to make it logically consistent through interpretation. You let me know when the fact that this is an illogical assertion sinks in and then we can have a real discussion.

Of course you are allowed to try to make your religion internally consistent through interpretation. But are you sure that is what many believers actually do - or do most of them just ignore or dismiss the parts they do not like without really thinking about it ?

Of course you are allowed to try to make your religion internally consistent through interpretation. But are you sure that is what many believers actually do - or do most of them just ignore or dismiss the parts they do not like without really thinking about it ?

Some do, some don't. Why would I answer for other believers in a personal religion?

Of course, this is the same way we interpret the Iliad. But, hey, actually looking at the Bible like any other document would really get in the way of your rant. Sorry for tryinig to inject reason.

I look at the Iliad exactly the way I look at the Bible, a story loosely based on history - do you believe the parts where the Greek gods had a hand in events - neither do I

I know what discernment is, as I said, it's the last fallback of Christians.

Some do, some don't. Why would I answer for other believers in a personal religion?

If your religious interpretation in no way depends on the opinions of others (priests, translators of holy texts, fellow churchgoers etc.) - you would indeed not have to.

My connection is so bad I feel I'm going to find it difficult to continue, I'm happy to take this up tomorrow when my connection is better - sorry for this.

Finally, to Jocabia, I have not presumed anything about you or spoken to you directly until this post - I have spoken only to the argument - if you want to be rational, please have the courtesy of treating me likewise :)

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 can't help but take issue with the idea of choosing belief (or non-belief, for that matter). Do we really choose what we believe?

Note that I use the word choose to describe a situation in which a conscious choice can be made. A person is faced with two or more possibilities and can determine, based on any criteria, which possibility to go with. I don't think, "It just felt right," was a choice, because no conscious process was involved. In this sense, I can choose whether I will wear purple or green, but I cannot choose whether or not I like purple or green. There is no point at which I am faced with either liking or disliking a color, and I choose between them. I simply either like it or I don't.

Belief is more of a process than a simple matter of like or dislike, but I still don't see how it is a choice. I never sat down and though, "Well, do I want to believe in God or not?" My belief is a result of the sum total of my experiences and thoughts on the matter. It is a conclusion, not a choice. When my beliefs have changed, it hasn't been a matter of sitting down and deciding which belief to go with. It has been a matter of being slowly convinced over time and with new information that I was incorrect, or an incorporation of new information into my overall viewpoint.

My connection is so bad I feel I'm going to find it difficult to continue, I'm happy to take this up tomorrow when my connection is better - sorry for this.

The problem most liukely is not with your connection - it is with the forumhoster jolt.
At least it currently is for me.

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

Wow talk about major lag going on, man it's taken me half an hour at least to get this reply box pop up.

Heyho onwards though.

Now hold ya horses pardner, that is not what you said, you said that I cannot understand science, because if i did I would conclude that my belife in God is wrong.

When I read this, I thought to myself that the only way one can make that sort of statement is if they scientific proof that there is no God, or that is can only be a subjective, unsubstanciatd belife.

So which is it?

I can't help but take issue with the idea of choosing belief (or non-belief, for that matter). Do we really choose what we believe?

Placed as a stark, isolated question, the answer would have to be no. But the process by which we claim belief is not a simple choice in the way that this question implies. It is a complex process but surely it is one over which we have a large degree of voluntary control.



Note that I use the word choose to describe a situation in which a conscious choice can be made. A person is faced with two or more possibilities and can determine, based on any criteria, which possibility to go with. In this sense, I can choose whether I will wear purple or green, but I cannot choose whether or not I like purple or green. There is no point at which I am faced with either liking or disliking a color, and I choose between them. I simply either like it or I don't.
But belief in something is not a matter of liking or not. It is not a question of aesthetic or sensory satisfaction. Belief, in the particularly religious sense being discussed here, is a question of whether a certain set of tennets and attitudes fits with your personal life. Now we certainly have choice in how we live our lives, in what we judge to be good and bad etc. If you want to argue that we don't have choice in this, then the very term choice becomes null.

Belief is more of a process than a simple matter of like or dislike, but I still don't see how it is a choice. I never sat down and though, "Well, do I want to believe in God or not?" My belief is a result of the sum total of my experiences and thoughts on the matter. It is a conclusion, not a choice. When my beliefs have changed, it hasn't been a matter of sitting down and deciding which belief to go with. It has been a matter of being slowly convinced over time and with new information that I was incorrect, or an incorporation of new information into my overall viewpoint.

Ok, we agree that belief is not simple, whether it is a process or a state of being though is central to the question here. If it is a process that we undergo, then surely we have some control on how this process evolves. We can choose to involve ourselves more - or less - with the faith group concerned. We can adopt or not, through a conscious choice, behaviour and attitudes that derive from the faith group. It is not, as you point out, a matter of deciding to change belief, it is a matter of changing your personal behaviour. Now as I consider that personal behaviour is the archetype of that over which we have choice, and that this behaviour either strengthens or weakens our beliefs - surely it can be said that we do have choice in what we believe. It is just that we are not aware that we are choosing.

I can't help but take issue with the idea of choosing belief (or non-belief, for that matter). Do we really choose what we believe?

Note that I use the word choose to describe a situation in which a conscious choice can be made. A person is faced with two or more possibilities and can determine, based on any criteria, which possibility to go with. In this sense, I can choose whether I will wear purple or green, but I cannot choose whether or not I like purple or green. There is no point at which I am faced with either liking or disliking a color, and I choose between them. I simply either like it or I don't.

Belief is more of a process than a simple matter of like or dislike, but I still don't see how it is a choice. I never sat down and though, "Well, do I want to believe in God or not?" My belief is a result of the sum total of my experiences and thoughts on the matter. It is a conclusion, not a choice. When my beliefs have changed, it hasn't been a matter of sitting down and deciding which belief to go with. It has been a matter of being slowly convinced over time and with new information that I was incorrect, or an incorporation of new information into my overall viewpoint.

Just to be clear is what you're saying that you view choice to be more the situation where you have two equally valid prospects and lean to one or the other? Or are you only saying that choice doesn't apply to conclusions?

I can't help but take issue with the idea of choosing belief (or non-belief, for that matter). Do we really choose what we believe?

I think we do you know.


Note that I use the word choose to describe a situation in which a conscious choice can be made. A person is faced with two or more possibilities and can determine, based on any criteria, which possibility to go with. In this sense, I can choose whether I will wear purple or green, but I cannot choose whether or not I like purple or green. There is no point at which I am faced with either liking or disliking a color, and I choose between them. I simply either like it or I don't.

Yes I understand that, I wonder if it is the same for music, well all art for that matter?


Belief is more of a process than a simple matter of like or dislike, but I still don't see how it is a choice. I never sat down and though, "Well, do I want to believe in God or not?" My belief is a result of the sum total of my experiences and thoughts on the matter. It is a conclusion, not a choice. When my beliefs have changed, it hasn't been a matter of sitting down and deciding which belief to go with. It has been a matter of being slowly convinced over time and with new information that I was incorrect, or an incorporation of new information into my overall viewpoint.

Of course all of our lifes are differant, I just did not come to my faith in the same way as you. I did indeed look at as many options that I could, I read, and I delved quite deeply into a lot of things before I reached my desicion.

So for me, I certianly did choose, which religion to be, which concept of God I belive is the more probable, which laws of the land are wrong and which ones are right.

Surly you must have thought about some of what you belive to be true? I mean for example, do you belive that the earth revovles around the sun? I'm betting you do, but why?

Surly you must have thought about some of what you belive to be true? I mean for example, do you belive that the earth revovles around the sun? I'm betting you do, but why?

Because the math fits that way ;)

I look at the Iliad exactly the way I look at the Bible, a story loosely based on history - do you believe the parts where the Greek gods had a hand in events - neither do I

I could believe Greek Gods had hands in events. If I took the Iliad literally. I don't. However, because I don't take the Iliad literally, does that mean I cannot believe in Greek gods and be consistent? Of course not. Your specific beliefs or mine have no bearing on your argument, actually. That you wish to pretend that you've made a point because I don't accept that Greek gods exist is evidence that you don't have a stronger argument to present.

However, I'm willing to be shown wrong. Please offer up a better argument if you have one other than "well, if you don't believe in Greek gods then you can't believe in God." I'll wait.


I know what discernment is, as I said, it's the last fallback of Christians.

It's the root of the faith. An idea taught by the subject of the faith you're discussing. It's falling back on it to use it. It should be the first step. Suggesting that we through out the root of our faith because otherwise you're unable to demonstrate we are inconsistent is simply a weak argument.

If your religious interpretation in no way depends on the opinions of others (priests, translators of holy texts, fellow churchgoers etc.) - you would indeed not have to.

My religious interpretation incorporates all information I can find. It does not rely on one source. It relies on all sources. I reject those sources that are internally inconsistent in their claims of how I should view the information as one would do in any rational excercise. I look at the information myself as well and all interpretations that make sense until I can DISCERN what I believe. My conclusion is based on that examination.

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.


All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.

from this link:
In his book The Fundamentals of Islaamic Monotheism, Abu Ameenah Bilaal Philips writes: Just as a child’s body submits to the physical laws which Allaah has put in nature, its soul also submits naturally to the fact that Allaah is its Lord and Creator. But its parents try to make it follow their own way and the child is not strong enough in the early stages of its life to resist or oppose its parents. The religion which the child follows at this stage is one of custom and upbringing and Allaah does not hold it to account for this religion.

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=301

Because the math fits that way ;)

Heh yeah it certianly does. The point though is, does one choose what to belive or is belife just an expression of experiance?

In this case, it seems quite right to belive that the earth revolves around the Sun. But we belive this not because we have done the maths our selves, not because we have experianced anything to push us into beliving it, but simply because we choose to trust the words of our teachers, and the results of others experiments.

We have no direct experiance that the Earth revolves around the Sun, we choose to belive this as fact.

My connection is so bad I feel I'm going to find it difficult to continue, I'm happy to take this up tomorrow when my connection is better - sorry for this.

Finally, to Jocabia, I have not presumed anything about you or spoken to you directly until this post - I have spoken only to the argument - if you want to be rational, please have the courtesy of treating me likewise :)

No, you haven't spoken to the argument. You've broadly painted all religious views with a gigantic and illogical brush of your own concoction. It's no less personal than my addressal of your views on this. If you find them personal, well, then you have to agree that you aren't in fact making a rational or consistent request.

Your arguments are rants. That's not personal. It addresses your arguments.

Your arguments are ignorant of the faith. That's not personal. It addresses your arguments.

Your argument are inconsistent. That's not personal. It addresses your arguments.

As the person making those arguments it make sense to say you are being inconsistent, ignorant and ranting. These are based on the arguments you're making and how they are being presented. It has nothing to do with you as a person, just the argument and style found here.

Meanwhile, you've squirmed quite a bit here. You claimed EVERY religion is internally inconsistent and then when you were challenged to show specifically how, you started whining about how discernment is unfair because it allows one to be consistent. So which is it? You don't like discernment but some religions ARE internally consistent or religions are all internally inconsistent and as such you can show this?

I look forward to your attempt to claim that's also a personal attack.

All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.

from this link:
In his book The Fundamentals of Islaamic Monotheism, Abu Ameenah Bilaal Philips writes: Just as a child’s body submits to the physical laws which Allaah has put in nature, its soul also submits naturally to the fact that Allaah is its Lord and Creator. But its parents try to make it follow their own way and the child is not strong enough in the early stages of its life to resist or oppose its parents. The religion which the child follows at this stage is one of custom and upbringing and Allaah does not hold it to account for this religion.

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=301

Ha. Another laughable post.

So, if we left a bunch of children out in the woods, we'd find they were all Muslim when we encounter them as adults?

Ha. Another laughable post.

So, if we left a bunch of children out in the woods, we'd find they were all Muslim when we encounter them as adults?

You would certainly find them to be monotheistic.

You would certainly find them to be monotheistic.

You sure about that? All evidence seems to contradict you. Generally when we've encountered societies that were never exposed to the monotheism that came out of the Middle East, we find them all to be polytheistic or atheist. Can you name any form of monotheism that we've ever encounterd that was just someone learning about the ideology of the Middle East? Ever.

Certainly if what you say is true, then Africans must have been monotheistic when we encountered them. And Australians. And Americans. And the Japanese, the Chinese, etc. Except, they weren't.

AND if what you say is true then polytheism must have come from monotheism, instead of the other way around. Except, it didn't.

There is pretty much no support for your little theory other than "but I really, really WANT it to be true!"

Placed as a stark, isolated question, the answer would have to be no. But the process by which we claim belief is not a simple choice in the way that this question implies. It is a complex process but surely it is one over which we have a large degree of voluntary control.

We can certainly determine what experiences we will undergo (to a certain point). We can determine what knowledge we seek out (although we cannot fully determine what knowledge we gain). But can we consciously determine how those experiences and that information will affect us? How it will change our ultimate viewpoints?

But belief in something is not a matter of liking or not.

Actually, when you really boil it down, the two are very, very similar. A belief that you hold "feels right" to you. It is a matter of how it does (or does not) fit into your worldview.

It is not a question of aesthetic or sensory satisfaction.

No, it is a question of intellectual and emotional satisfaction.

Belief, in the particularly religious sense being discussed here, is a question of whether a certain set of tennets and attitudes fits with your personal life. Now we certainly have choice in how we live our lives, in what we judge to be good and bad etc. If you want to argue that we don't have choice in this, then the very term choice becomes null.

Of course we have a choice in how we live our lives. We can choose to live by our beliefs or not do so. We can choose to question our beliefs or not do so. And so on...

But that does not mean we actually choose the beliefs.

Ok, we agree that belief is not simple, whether it is a process or a state of being though is central to the question here. If it is a process that we undergo, then surely we have some control on how this process evolves.

"Some control" and "choosing" are not equivalent.

We can choose to involve ourselves more - or less - with the faith group concerned. We can adopt or not, through a conscious choice, behaviour and attitudes that derive from the faith group.

How do you consciously adopt an attitude?

It is not, as you point out, a matter of deciding to change belief, it is a matter of changing your personal behaviour. Now as I consider that personal behaviour is the archetype of that over which we have choice, and that this behaviour either strengthens or weakens our beliefs - surely it can be said that we do have choice in what we believe. It is just that we are not aware that we are choosing.

If we are "not aware that we are choosing," then we are not choosing at all. As I pointed out, "choice" as I use it requires a conscious process.


Just to be clear is what you're saying that you view choice to be more the situation where you have two equally valid prospects and lean to one or the other? Or are you only saying that choice doesn't apply to conclusions?

"Valid" can be a rather subjective concept. I'm saying that choice involves a conscious process of determining which of two or more prospects you will go with. In order for religion to be a choice, one would have to sit down and say, "Ok, do I want to believe in God or not?" I don't think that is how it works.

In a sense, yes, I am saying that you cannot choose a conclusion. You come to a conclusion through a process. You can choose the starting points and some of the process that gets you there, but a conclusion is a product of that process, not of a choice. For instance, in a scientific experiment, I can choose what experiment I will carry out. I can choose the assumptions that I think apply to that experiment. I cannot, of course, choose the results. Those are out of my control. And the conclusion is drawn from the data, not from choice.

Belief is much the same way. We can choose who we will talk to and, to a point, what experiences we will have. We can choose, to a point, starting axioms for the process. But the belief is drawn from all of that - including the parts we can't really choose.


I think we do you know.

How? When did you sit down and actively decide whether or not you would believe in God?

Yes I understand that, I wonder if it is the same for music, well all art for that matter?

I thin it is. We can choose to limit our exposure to either, but we don't choose our reactions to them.

Of course all of our lifes are differant, I just did not come to my faith in the same way as you. I did indeed look at as many options that I could, I read, and I delved quite deeply into a lot of things before I reached my desicion.

So for me, I certianly did choose, which religion to be, which concept of God I belive is the more probable, which laws of the land are wrong and which ones are right.

Surly you must have thought about some of what you belive to be true? I mean for example, do you belive that the earth revovles around the sun? I'm betting you do, but why?

Thinking about things and choosing are not the same things. I didn't choose to believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. I was convinced by the evidence at hand. Choice implies that I could have decided to believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. But, try as I might, I simply can't make myself believe something that seems so immediately ridiculous in the face of all the evidence.

You chose to read up on religions and seek out truth, but I highly doubt you actively chose which ones resonated with you. (I don't know exactly what your religion is, so I'm just going to use an example). You weren't reading up on all the religions and then thinking, "Well, I'm going to choose Hinduism. That's right, Hinduism." Instead, something about Hinduism resonated with you. It seemed right to you, just as a relationship with a friend or lover might. In the face of all the evidence you had, it seemd the most probable. That isn't a choice, though. It's a matter of who you are.

You would certainly find them to be monotheistic.

you mean like the greeks, romans, Indians (both asian and native american) and numerous african tribes?

Wait...shit...

All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.

from this link:
In his book The Fundamentals of Islaamic Monotheism, Abu Ameenah Bilaal Philips writes: Just as a child’s body submits to the physical laws which Allaah has put in nature, its soul also submits naturally to the fact that Allaah is its Lord and Creator. But its parents try to make it follow their own way and the child is not strong enough in the early stages of its life to resist or oppose its parents. The religion which the child follows at this stage is one of custom and upbringing and Allaah does not hold it to account for this religion.

Ok. Lets put a single child on an abandoned island, with enough aid to make it survive until adulthood. Then let us see if it can quote the Qu'ran and believes in Allah without ever being told about them.
Note that this would not be a cruel experiment at all - millions of kids live in worse conditions. Also note that all children that have been raised by animals in the wilderness sofar have not shown signs of what you describe.

All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.

How interesting. Is that the reason that there was no such thing as Islam until fairly recently in human history?

How interesting. Is that the reason that there was no such thing as Islam until fairly recently in human history?

That is covered by the "children are made to forget by society" aspect. Quite like how we all forgot first sin and need to be told according to some Christians.

So.. let us perform the experiment I say. Sofar the signs are not good.

Ok. Lets put a single child on an abandoned island, with enough aid to make it survive until adulthood. Then let us see if it can quote the Qu'ran and believes in Allah without ever being told about them.
Note that this would not be a cruel experiment at all - millions of kids live in worse conditions. Also note that all children that have been raised by animals in the wilderness sofar have not shown signs of what you describe.

No, actually, what they seem to have is a form of polytheism that basically offers deference to anything stronger than him/her or anything s/he doesn't understand.

That is covered by the "children are made to forget by society" aspect. Quite like how we all forgot first sin and need to be told according to some Christians.

But....how did society make children forget if all the children believed it to begin with? Is society not made up of children and ex-children?

So.. let us perform the experiment I say. Sofar the signs are not good.

hehe

We can certainly determine what experiences we will undergo (to a certain point). We can determine what knowledge we seek out (although we cannot fully determine what knowledge we gain). But can we consciously determine how those experiences and that information will affect us? How it will change our ultimate viewpoints?
We can consciously choose to seek certain types of experiences, or even to interpret our unchosen experiences in a specific way. These are choices that we all make, every day in all that we do. What knowledge we gain we can determine, even if only negatively, in that we can choose to reject experiences that contradict with our preferred attitudes.


Actually, when you really boil it down, the two are very, very similar. A belief that you hold "feels right" to you. It is a matter of how it does (or does not) fit into your worldview.
Except that our 'worldview' is a construct of our own. It is not a biologically determined response like our reaction to an over fiery chilli pepper. You may argue that it is a socially determined response, but as two people from the same family, school, town etc. can differ very significantly in their beliefs - it has to be something more personal than just social conditioning.

No, it is a question of intellectual and emotional satisfaction.
I won't argue with that. The question is whether this satisfaction is a result of our choices, or is an inevitable outcome of our biology and personal history?
I would argue that intellectual and emotional satisfaction depends greatly upon our conscious understanding of who we are and on our deliberate and intentional construction of our personalities.


Of course we have a choice in how we live our lives. We can choose to live by our beliefs or not do so. We can choose to question our beliefs or not do so. And so on...

But that does not mean we actually choose the beliefs.
If you do not live by your beliefs, what kind of beliefs are they? I am not discussing the belief in fairies at the end of the garden here. I am discussing religious belief in the sense of a set of guiding beliefs for the life of the believer. Lip service to religion does not reflect any belief in God, or any other supernatural system. Living your life as though there were a God, does.



"Some control" and "choosing" are not equivalent.
In what way are they different? If I have some control over something, then I have choice, in at least some aspect, with regard to that thing.


How do you consciously adopt an attitude?

You can decide to be aggressive with respect to someone, you can decide not to bother about responding to an insult. etc. etc. Your attitude to the world is fully under your control. More to the point- how do you adopt an attitude unconsciously?

If we are "not aware that we are choosing," then we are not choosing at all. As I pointed out, "choice" as I use it requires a conscious process.
The question is not whether we choose, we do - by your definition - but whether we are aware that what we are choosing is our belief structure. We certainly choose our behaviour, we also choose our attitudes. When we choose these actions and attitudes, we define our beliefs. It is a little bit like choosing to be fat or thin (assuming normal edocrinal mechanisms). We choose to eat or not, to snack or not. This is clearly a choice and the result is our figure. We do not always, however, choose a figure. this does not mean though, that our figure is not a result of our choices.

But....how did society make children forget if all the children believed it to begin with? Is society not made up of children and ex-children?

Children can be confused and molded to believe other things.
Actually, this is returning to the opening question of this topic - is religion naturally present in humanity ?

Children can be confused and molded to believe other things.
Actually, this is returning to the opening question of this topic - is religion naturally present in humanity ?

Who first did this confusing/moulding? and why - if they were naturally of Islam?

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?

I would suggest that much of your behavior in this discussion and others indicates that you have already fulfilled that need, so it makes good sense that you would not feel a need for it anymore, it having been satisfied.

Science serves that purpose for you nicely. From science, you get a story about your origins and the origins of everything. You get explanations of how your mind works, how your society works. But it goes both higher and deeper than that. You get a model of the basic structure of your reality, and a model of the whole higher universe beyond our immediate experience.

I think that through science, you've fulfilled your need to know something more meaningful about your self and your environment than simple everyday perceptions can tell you.

Who first did this confusing/moulding? and why - if they were naturally of Islam?

Good question. I am curious to hear the answer.

I wonder if there is a direct correlation between the 'addictive' personality and religious feeling. As in, perhaps some people turn to alcohol or drugs...and others to spirituality.

Good question. I am curious to hear the answer.

Women, of course. That's why all those matriarchal religions popped up. Becuase the infidel women were not controlled enough by their husbands and overwhelmed Islam with theiir evil. In order to correct it, we cover them in black from head to foot to hide their wiley ways and protect us from ever again slipping into the evil of harmonious belief systems.

All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.


Hehehehehee...

That is very interesting. My people were wandering Muslims all this time...I'm going to rush home and tell the elders! "Hey guys, we were Muslims before Islam even arose as a faith!"

All people have the capacity to reject religion.

Except that our 'worldview' is a construct of our own. It is not a biologically determined response like our reaction to an over fiery chilli pepper. You may argue that it is a socially determined response, but as two people from the same family, school, town etc. can differ very significantly in their beliefs - it has to be something more personal than just social conditioning.

Is it a "construct of our own" or a "construct that is us"? Unless we are going to ignore neurobiology, our worldview, knowledge, etc. is very much a biological response. There are certainly aspects of ourselves and our worldview that we don't have control over - at least not consciously.

I won't argue with that. The question is whether this satisfaction is a result of our choices, or is an inevitable outcome of our biology and personal history?

A little of both, I would think. But the result of choices is not necessarily a choice in and of itself. Suppose I choose to travel to New Hampshire. I choose to go skiing. I choose a specific slope. In all of those things, there are going to be experiences and aspects I have no control over. If I break my leg while skiing, would you say I chose to break my leg? Or is that simply a result of all of the choices I did make plus some factors that were beyond my control?

I would argue that intellectual and emotional satisfaction depends greatly upon our conscious understanding of who we are and on our deliberate and intentional construction of our personalities.

Are our personalities completely the product of "deliberate and intentional" construction?

If you do not live by your beliefs, what kind of beliefs are they?

Beats me. But I know plenty of people who will ardently profess beliefs that they do not live by. Then they beat themselves up over not living by them..

In what way are they different? If I have some control over something, then I have choice, in at least some aspect, with regard to that thing.

You can't control it completely. Nor do you necessarily choose where it goes. You choose those aspects over which you do have control, but you do not choose the others. All of them affect your beliefs.

You can decide to be aggressive with respect to someone, you can decide not to bother about responding to an insult. etc. etc. Your attitude to the world is fully under your control. More to the point- how do you adopt an attitude unconsciously?

Those are actions, not attitudes. Can you decide whether or not you will be hurt by a mean and spiteful comment? I certainly have never been able to. I decide what actions I will take because of that hurt, but I do not decide to be hurt.

You can decide not to act aggressively towards someone (actions), but you do not decide whether or not you like them (attitude).

The question is not whether we choose, we do - by your definition - but whether we are aware that what we are choosing is our belief structure.

We choose actions, not beliefs or attitudes. If you are not aware that you are choosing something, then it is not a conscious process and thus, by my definition, not a choice.

Hehehehehee...

That is very interesting. My people were wandering Muslims all this time...I'm going to rush home and tell the elders! "Hey guys, we were Muslims before Islam even arose as a faith!"

No, just the men. Women are worthless. That's why it doesn't matter what they say. Only men. It was people like you that undermined the natural faith of your people. Infidel.

I wonder if there is a direct correlation between the 'addictive' personality and religious feeling. As in, perhaps some people turn to alcohol or drugs...and others to spirituality.

Time for another discussion in which I am - inevitably - wrong ;)

I am not sure that there is such a thing as an addictive personality. My observations lead me to (choose to or not) believe that we are all as vulnerable as each other to addiction per se. It is just that what we get addicted to varies. I, for example, am easily addicted to games and sports, but I gave up smoking after more than 20 years without any great difficulty. My wife, on the other hand, can just stop some hobby or interest as she wishes, but quitting cigarettes was hell for her.

Now, it may be that religious feeling is addictive to some people, but I doubt that there would be any correlation to a not very clearly defined personality type.

Additionally there are many types of religion - and a specific person may be easily absorbed into one form of religion - say Kardacian Spiritism, whilst finding others - for example Roman Catholicism - totally alien to them.

Time for another discussion in which I am - inevitably - wrong ;) Wait a damn minute...are you saying that I think you are always wrong? That's totally untrue! You err completely in saying that! Maybe you THINK that's how I feel, but you're absolutely incorrect!
:D

I am not sure that there is such a thing as an addictive personality. My observations lead me to (choose to or not) believe that we are all as vulnerable as each other to addiction per se. It is just that what we get addicted to varies. I, for example, am easily addicted to games and sports, but I gave up smoking after more than 20 years without any great difficulty. My wife, on the other hand, can just stop some hobby or interest as she wishes, but quitting cigarettes was hell for her.

Now, it may be that religious feeling is addictive to some people, but I doubt that there would be any correlation to a not very clearly defined personality type.

Additionally there are many types of religion - and a specific person may be easily absorbed into one form of religion - say Kardacian Spiritism, whilst finding others - for example Roman Catholicism - totally alien to them. Sit down AB, this is going to be hard on you. Sitting? Good.

I agree.

*hopes you chose to sit, and didn't just collapse in shock*

I would suggest that much of your behavior in this discussion and others indicates that you have already fulfilled that need, so it makes good sense that you would not feel a need for it anymore, it having been satisfied.

Science serves that purpose for you nicely. From science, you get a story about your origins and the origins of everything. You get explanations of how your mind works, how your society works. But it goes both higher and deeper than that. You get a model of the basic structure of your reality, and a model of the whole higher universe beyond our immediate experience.

I think that through science, you've fulfilled your need to know something more meaningful about your self and your environment than simple everyday perceptions can tell you.

It sounds as if you are suggesting that Bottle worships science, or at least that Science is the religion of atheists.

It's almost as ridiculous as the suggestion in another similar thread that atheists worship their absence of belief in a deity.

From what I've seen in my career as a human being, I think that for the most part "religiosity" or "religiousness" or "religious aptitude" (i particularly like the last one ;) ) is taught by parents and elders in the community of origin/early life. To quote someone who's said it better already, "Our fathers were our models for God."

What I am suggesting is that the need--if such a need exists--is created in us by someone telling us we have a void that can only be filled in a certain way. I already know that I had a huge factor of religiousness in the early portion of my life, and as I've detailed elsewhere, put that behind me in order to grow more as a human being.

Is it a "construct of our own" or a "construct that is us"? Unless we are going to ignore neurobiology, our worldview, knowledge, etc. is very much a biological response. There are certainly aspects of ourselves and our worldview that we don't have control over - at least not consciously.
Agreed - but these unchosen aspects are common to those that profess religious belief and those that deny such belief. Thus they cannot be significant with respect to this discussion.

A little of both, I would think. But the result of choices is not necessarily a choice in and of itself. Suppose I choose to travel to New Hampshire. I choose to go skiing. I choose a specific slope. In all of those things, there are going to be experiences and aspects I have no control over. If I break my leg while skiing, would you say I chose to break my leg? Or is that simply a result of all of the choices I did make plus some factors that were beyond my control?
It is the result of your choices. If you had not chosen to go skiing, then you would not have broken your leg in that way, at that place, at that time. As such your breaking your leg would be something that you could have not done. Whether this counts as you choosing to break your leg is, at this point, a question of semantics with regard to the term choose. I, uncritically, would agree with your implied denial of this being a choice. However, that it was not a conscious deliberate choice does not mean that it was inevitable and innate. In this discussion the options are between religious sentiment being a choice or being innate in some way. I argue that they are the consequences of conscious choices. Thus they are - indirectly - a choice as they are certainly not inevitable.

Are our personalities completely the product of "deliberate and intentional" construction?
No, but for the purposes of my argument they do not need to be. They only need to be partially the product of such deliberation.

You can't control it completely. Nor do you necessarily choose where it goes. You choose those aspects over which you do have control, but you do not choose the others. All of them affect your beliefs.
You cannot control anything completely. Not even your own imagination. If you require complete control to be the deciding factor as to something being chosen, then choice becomes a null term again.

Those are actions, not attitudes. Can you decide whether or not you will be hurt by a mean and spiteful comment? I certainly have never been able to. I decide what actions I will take because of that hurt, but I do not decide to be hurt.
Aggressiveness is not an action - it is an attitude. As is not bothering. Can you decide what emotion you will have in response to something - not often. But attitude is not emotion. It is a general guiding principle which colours your individual responses to stimuli. LG has - or presents at least - a happy go lucky attitude to life. AnarchyeL presents a much more intense and serious attitude. These are choices. AnarchyeL could lighten up if he so chose and LG could take things much more seriously -should he so desire. These are choices.

You can decide not to act aggressively towards someone (actions), but you do not decide whether or not you like them (attitude).
Liking is not an attitude - it is an emotion. It is a passion. It is an unreflective response. An attitude is something that 'one takes' that 'one adopts'. Deciding not to act aggressively is not the same as deciding not to be aggressive. But you are free to make either choice. You can act aggressively without being aggressive in your attitude. All sweetness and light while you stab the person in the back. Or you could growl and bare your teeth while wanting the other to go away and leave you in peace. Action and attitude are not the same thing, nor are emotion and attitude.

AnarchyeL presents a much more intense and serious attitude.
You haven't seen him getting all hopped up on absinthe, removing his pants and threatening to shake cocks.

All people are born Muslim. Now cut the crap, will you. :rolleyes:
You would certainly find them to be monotheistic.Oh really, so how come that all ancient religions are polytheistic?

Oh really, so how come that all ancient religions are polytheistic?

Come now, you know we can't even pretend to support that. The best we can say is that all Mesopotamian religions (probably the oldest we have coherent evidence for) seem to have been polytheistic at some point.

Children can be confused and molded to believe other things.
Actually, this is returning to the opening question of this topic - is religion naturally present in humanity ?
The awe about the forces of nature and the question about what comes after life is naturally present in humanity. The creation of religion (as such) is the next logical/emotional step.

Come now, you know we can't even pretend to support that. The best we can say is that all Mesopotamian religions (probably the oldest we have coherent evidence for) seem to have been polytheistic at some point.what?
what's the first ancient religion to be monotheistic? and what do you mean "to have been polytheistic at some point" ?? the religion of the Sumerians was polytheistic, and that's the one with the oldest textual sources. and from the Suemrian pantheon all others of the region (but also parts of the Greek/Roman pantheon) had been derived.

what?

You said: "all ancient religions are polytheistic".

You can't support that claim with realistic evidence.

what's the first ancient religion to be monotheistic? and what do you mean "to have been polytheistic at some point" ??

What was the first ancient religion?

The Egyptian 'religion' was monotheistic at one point, at least.

All we know about Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian religions suggests polytheism... but that doesnt mean they were always polytheistic.

What was the first ancient religion?

The Egyptian 'religion' was monotheistic at one point, at least.

All we know about Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian religions suggests polytheism... but that doesnt mean they were always polytheistic.what are you suggesting? that sumerian religion was in fact monotheistic?

Agreed - but these unchosen aspects are common to those that profess religious belief and those that deny such belief. Thus they cannot be significant with respect to this discussion.

Are they? How would you know? Have you experienced someone else's life to compare?

It is the result of your choices. If you had not chosen to go skiing, then you would not have broken your leg in that way, at that place, at that time. As such your breaking your leg would be something that you could have not done. Whether this counts as you choosing to break your leg is, at this point, a question of semantics with regard to the term choose. I, uncritically, would agree with your implied denial of this being a choice.

Then we are agreed. Likewise, beliefs are not chosen. They are the results of choices (and of those things which are not chosen), but they are not chosen in and of themselves.

However, that it was not a conscious deliberate choice does not mean that it was inevitable and innate.

Of course not.

In this discussion the options are between religious sentiment being a choice or being innate in some way. I argue that they are the consequences of conscious choices. Thus they are - indirectly - a choice as they are certainly not inevitable.

Actually, this arm of the discussion began when someone said something along the lines of, "If you choose not to believe in God, then you miss out on that...." or something similar. I took issue with the idea of choosing a belief.

Inevitable and choice are not direct opposites, as we have just shown with the above example. It was not inevitable that I break my leg. Any number of things could have changed it. I could have chosen not to go skiing. I could have chosen a different slope. I could have turned more sharply and avoided an icy patch. The weather could have been different, so that there was no icy patch. The resort could have cut down a tree that I ran into.

Any number of things could have kept the broken leg from happening, so it was not inevitable. However, the broken leg also was not chosen.

No, but for the purposes of my argument they do not need to be. They only need to be partially the product of such deliberation.

Then your argument has little or nothing to do with mine.

Aggressiveness is not an action - it is an attitude.

Of course it is an action. You can be angry at someone and not be aggressive towards them. It takes action to be aggressive.

As is not bothering.

No, that is an action. You choose either to retort with an insult or to keep silent. Both are actions. Attitude would imply not caring, something you actually do not choose.

Can you decide what emotion you will have in response to something - not often. But attitude is not emotion. It is a general guiding principle which colours your individual responses to stimuli. LG has - or presents at least - a happy go lucky attitude to life. AnarchyeL presents a much more intense and serious attitude. These are choices. AnarchyeL could lighten up if he so chose and LG could take things much more seriously -should he so desire. These are choices.

They could act differently, yes. Could they just up and choose to be happier or less so?

LG obviously does take things seriously, when they actually matter to him. I'm sure AnarchyeL is quite "happy-go-lucky," when the mood strikes him and the situation warrants it. But are these active choices? I don't think so. The actions taken are active choices, but not the attitude itself which is, by the way, directly related to emotion and perspective.

It's kind of like the conversation you always see in homosexuality threads. One cannot choose the person or persons they will find attractive. One certainly can, on the other hand, choose what actions one will take in response. I might be attracted to a man or woman, but choose not to even talk to them. I may choose to flirt. I may, if the situation comes up, choose to have sex with them. Those are all actions. But the initial attraction was not choice.

Liking is not an attitude - it is an emotion. It is a passion. It is an unreflective response.

Quite often, the two are the same.

An attitude is something that 'one takes' that 'one adopts'. Deciding not to act aggressively is not the same as deciding not to be aggressive.

The word "aggressive" has no meaning outside of action. The only way to be aggressive is to act aggressively.

You can act aggressively without being aggressive in your attitude. All sweetness and light while you stab the person in the back. Or you could growl and bare your teeth while wanting the other to go away and leave you in peace. Action and attitude are not the same thing, nor are emotion and attitude.

If you are stabbing the person in the back, you are acting aggressively and your attitude towards that person is one of anger/hate/etc. It doesn't matter if you are putting on a face of being "sweetness and light." Your attitude is not necessarily reflected by your actions.

You are right that attitude and action are not the same thing. But, so far, everything you have listed as "attitude" has been action.

My attitude towards a project might be, for instance, optimistic or pessimistic. That is an attitude. My actions will be those I take in working on it.

My attitude towards a person might be one of indifference, one of dislike, one of interest, etc. But the way I act may or may not demonstrate this. I may act with aggression, with kindness, or I may simply choose not to act at all - essentially ignoring that person. None of those things are attitudes.

what are you suggesting? that sumerian religion was in fact monotheistic?

It may have been. It's evolution might have been similar to the (much more well-documented) evolution of Egyptian religion.

Or it may have started out monotheistic, and we just haven't found surviving evidence.

Regardless of which... why are we assuming Sumerian theology as the oldest religion?

The Sumerians were monotheistic. You only worshipped one God - but each city-state had its own.

The Sumerians were monotheistic. You only worshipped one God - but each city-state had its own.

At certain times, that may have been true. At other times, the 'pantheon' was more cohesive and people might bend the knee to a number of local, hearth, and 'global' deities.

It may have been. It's evolution might have been similar to the (much more well-documented) evolution of Egyptian religion.

Or it may have started out monotheistic, and we just haven't found surviving evidence.

Regardless of which... why are we assuming Sumerian theology as the oldest religion?we don't. it's just the oldest one that we know of out of textual or glyphical sources. and I'm not sure why you seem to want a monotheistic origin...

The Sumerians were monotheistic. You only worshipped one God - but each city-state had its own.No. Each city state had a number of temples for different gods.

we don't. it's just the oldest one that we know of out of textual or glyphical sources. and I'm not sure why you seem to want a monotheistic origin...

I assume he is just pointing out that we do not know for certain if all religions started as polytheism, since our knowledge of history is incomplete.

we don't. it's just the oldest one that we know of out of textual or glyphical sources. and I'm not sure why you seem to want a monotheistic origin...


The Venus of Willendorf suggests there may have been 'formal' religion maybe 20,000 years before Sumerian theology. If you are going to say "all ancient religions are polytheistic", it is a flawed assumption to assert Sumerian religion as the start point.

It isn't a matter of me 'wanting' anything - it's a matter of only assuming what there is evidence for.


No.

Evidence?

Each city state had a number of temples for different gods.

You seem to assume Sumerian society was static for it's entire span...

I assume he is just pointing out that we do not know for certain if all religions started as polytheism, since our knowledge of history is incomplete.what would have been the logical proceeding for early humans? to assign the different forces of nature to one god or rather to assign each of them to an individual god?

The Venus of Willendorf suggests there may have been 'formal' religion maybe 20,000 years before Sumerian theology. If you are going to say "all ancient religions are polytheistic", it is a flawed assumption to assert Sumerian religion as the start point.

It isn't a matter of me 'wanting' anything - it's a matter of only assuming what there is evidence for.You take the Venus of Willensdorf as evidence for monotheism?

what would have been the logical proceeding for early humans? to assign the different forces of nature to one god or rather to assign each of them to an individual god?

That depends from which position you are reasoning: humans making the god(s) up themselves or there actually being one or more.
However, humans do seem to like the concept of a "leader".

You seem to assume Sumerian society was static for it's entire span...at least in its theology, although there certainly was an evolution in it, there is no sign at all that there was ever any break towards monotheism.

That depends from which position you are reasoning: humans making the god(s) up themselves or there actually being one or more.what is a god?

what is a god?

In this case: something conscious responsible for a, several or all natural phenomena.

In this case: something conscious responsible for a, several or all natural phenomena.which then has the ability to interact with humans? and humans would then record such interaction in (oral) traditions, in paintings, and/or in texts?

what would have been the logical proceeding for early humans? to assign the different forces of nature to one god or rather to assign each of them to an individual god?

What we think might be 'logical' is irrelevent.

Who claims that religions - 'then' or now - have to be logical?

which then has the ability to interact with humans? and humans would then record such interaction in traditions and in texts?

If we are to assume humans "remembering" the "truth" of there being a god or specific gods: yes.

Do note that this is just speculation and that I myself am a "believer" in the polytheistic start. I can however understand how people that for instance believe that there is one true God can reason that early civilisations started monotheistic and later forgot "the truth".

You take the Venus of Willensdorf as evidence for monotheism?

No. I'm not even sure how you got to there from what I said. I think you make (far) too many assumptions.

I take the Venus of Willendorf as possible evidence that there may have been formal religion as early as 22,000-25,000 BC.

I'm not saying that would have been monotheistic or polytheistic. There is little evidenc eto arive at such a conclusion from.

However - we could come up with reasons WHY it might have been monotheistic - like the fact that the earlier incarnations of gods are usually chthonic, which addresses fertility and life - and the Venus of Willendorf certainly appears to fulfill the requirements of a chthonic 'god'... which leaves little need for a full pantheon.


But, that's not the point I was making. I was making th epoint you claima certain history for religion, and yet you claim it starts just a few thousand years ago... while there may be evidence of religion stretching back ten times as far.

at least in its theology, although there certainly was an evolution in it, there is no sign at all that there was ever any break towards monotheism.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

You also miss several possibilities - that Sumerian 'religion' was monotheistic BEFORE it was recorded, for example - or that Sumerian religion was polytheistic/monotheistic for most of it's existence... depending on local custom or society.

I would agree that religiosity is NOT a choice and rather a biological tendency, but the act of actually accepting religion is.

Human beings, by their very nature, are curious. We are constantly attempting to explain things that we fear or don't understand, one of these things being "What happens after a person dies?" Religion is a guidebook specifically engineered to help its followers achieve a happy afterlife--if we do terrible things, we will be reincarnated into a lower caste or a lesser being, or we will spend eternity in Hell after we die. Religiosity, in my perspective, is merely curiosity about intangible scenarios like these--an inclination to ponder "spiritual" (by modern definition) things. Because we all have an innate sense of curiosity, we probably do have some tendency towards religiosity. However, whether it is a strong inclination or not determines whether we accept religion (on our own free will) or not.

which then has the ability to interact with humans? and humans would then record such interaction in (oral) traditions, in paintings, and/or in texts?

Our earliest (currently) dated texts stretch back about 5000 years, with very early Egyptian and Sumerian documents... we know little to nothing about what occured before that point, with any certainty.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

You also miss several possibilities - that Sumerian 'religion' was monotheistic BEFORE it was recorded, for example - or that Sumerian religion was polytheistic/monotheistic for most of it's existence... depending on local custom or society.

However, evidence we have from the earliest histories (cave drawings and the like) is suggestive that most or many sources for an religious reverence had natural acts assigned to beings responsible for those acts. Those being might be animal in nature or humanoid or other, but there does seem to be much evidence of an incorporation of multiple gods, whether this is the resulst of many people or groups and believing in their own gods and then merging or if this was just the way they explained things is debatable

What is not debatable is that there is no evidence that all religious origins were monotheistic which was our friend's claim AND that we've encountered children who were abandoned and received no formal education who exhibit reverent behavior that did not demonstrate monotheism, but instead assigning god-like status to pretty much anything they didn't understand.

Even Judaism and Christianity are not really monotheistic since most paint it as a head guy with little gods (angels and demons) and an adversary to God (Satan). If there is only one omnipotent being then how might anyone paint an adversary of any substance, yet we do. The very idea that an adversary exists suggest multiple gods and equality.

Our earliest (currently) dated texts stretch back about 5000 years, with very early Egyptian and Sumerian documents... we know little to nothing about what occured before that point, with any certainty.

That's simplifying a bit, don't you think. It's like saying we don't have archeological evidence that tell us anything about societies unless there were texts. Our understandings of societies and some idea of how they lived extends back to cavemen. There are gaps in our knowledge, sure, but to say we don't have knowledge before then is a little bit misleading.

As far as certainty, when talking about this sort of analysis I think certainty is a pretty strong word to ever use.

That's simplifying a bit, don't you think. It's like saying we don't have archeological evidence that tell us anything about societies unless there were texts. Our understandings of societies and some idea of how they lived extends back to cavemen. There are gaps in our knowledge, sure, but to say we don't have knowledge before then is a little bit misleading.

As far as certainty, when talking about this sort of analysis I think certainty is a pretty strong word to ever use.

You're actually hinting around the point I was making, though.

Certainty is a rare commodity, that gets rarer as you head backwards in time, and the evidence gets less and less coherent.

I'm not saying the ONLY valid evidence is written, obviously - but we can place a lot more 'certainty' in a text that explains itself, than in a picture or statue... that doesn't explain anything.

Example: I find a text in a burial site that gives praise to three figures that might be 'gods', and that discusses a few elements of 'what comes next' for the departed.

On the other hand: I find a burial site with three carved figures, and some paintings of a man on his knees before another figure.

The first example gives us some reasons to suspect a polytheism, perhaps. Possibly even a 'judgement' after death, with maybe some kind of afterlife.

The second might be statues of the deceased person's family, and a picture of his job as a magistrate.

I'm not really expecting much certainty... but we often get more reliable, coherent, evidence from written accounts than anything else.

You're actually hinting around the point I was making, though.

Certainty is a rare commodity, that gets rarer as you head backwards in time, and the evidence gets less and less coherent.

I'm not saying the ONLY valid evidence is written, obviously - but we can place a lot more 'certainty' in a text that explains itself, than in a picture or statue... that doesn't explain anything.

Example: I find a text in a burial site that gives praise to three figures that might be 'gods', and that discusses a few elements of 'what comes next' for the departed.

On the other hand: I find a burial site with three carved figures, and some paintings of a man on his knees before another figure.

The first example gives us some reasons to suspect a polytheism, perhaps. Possibly even a 'judgement' after death, with maybe some kind of afterlife.

The second might be statues of the deceased person's family, and a picture of his job as a magistrate.

I'm not really expecting much certainty... but we often get more reliable, coherent, evidence from written accounts than anything else.

I'm not so sure that written accounts aren't equally open to misinterpretation. However, I'll agree with the degree of certainty decreasing as we go back in time.

I think the problem here, though our young friend doesn't have the ability to say it properly, is that while we cannot argue conclusively, all evidence mounts against the claims of Sovietstan that monotheism is the default until society changes it. All availabe evidence mounts against him.

However, evidence we have from the earliest histories (cave drawings and the like) is suggestive that most or many sources for an religious reverence had natural acts assigned to beings responsible for those acts. Those being might be animal in nature or humanoid or other, but there does seem to be much evidence of an incorporation of multiple gods, whether this is the resulst of many people or groups and believing in their own gods and then merging or if this was just the way they explained things is debatable

What is not debatable is that there is no evidence that all religious origins were monotheistic which was our friend's claim AND that we've encountered children who were abandoned and received no formal education who exhibit reverent behavior that did not demonstrate monotheism, but instead assigning god-like status to pretty much anything they didn't understand.

Even Judaism and Christianity are not really monotheistic since most paint it as a head guy with little gods (angels and demons) and an adversary to God (Satan). If there is only one omnipotent being then how might anyone paint an adversary of any substance, yet we do. The very idea that an adversary exists suggest multiple gods and equality.

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

The only thing I would add is that maybe 'religion' doesn't need gods - and that cultures might have 'spirit' or other 'non-human' forms as well as 'gods', which might be lost now. The evidence might be there, and we might even call that culture 'polytheistic', but they may (in fact) only have had one 'god', and a load of other 'stuff'.

(For an example, we only have to look back at out own history, replete with angels, demons, fairy peoples and spirits and spectres of dizzying variety. And yet our culture calls itself monotheistic. (Whether or not that is even the case).

I'm not so sure that written accounts aren't equally open to misinterpretation. However, I'll agree with the degree of certainty decreasing as we go back in time.

I think the problem here, though our young friend doesn't have the ability to say it properly, is that while we cannot argue conclusively, all evidence mounts against the claims of Sovietstan that monotheism is the default until society changes it. All availabe evidence mounts against him.

I certainly don't see enough reason to take Sovietstan at his(?) word... but then, the UB argument is just as flawed.

If it happened longer ago than I was born (or far away...), I'm not afraid to say "Hey, you know... I don't know!" I wish more people would.

I certainly don't see enough reason to take Sovietstan at his(?) word... but then, the UB argument is just as flawed.

If it happened longer ago than I was born (or far away...), I'm not afraid to say "Hey, you know... I don't know!" I wish more people would.

Yeah, the problem is that Soviet claimed one certainty that not only isn't true but can be proven not to be and UB claimed another with the same flaw. The smart money is a pointing the evidence and saying the evidence we have suggests X. It's a rational conclusion. However, saying X is always true is almost guaranteed to be false.

Yeah, the problem is that Soviet claimed one certainty that not only isn't true but can be proven not to be and UB claimed another with the same flaw. The smart money is a pointing the evidence and saying the evidence we have suggests X. It's a rational conclusion. However, saying X is always true is almost guaranteed to be false.

Agreed, again.

Especially when we are talking about something like the origins of religion. We can't even 'prove' when 'religion' starts, so it must be self-defeating to make claims about the 'how' of the thing.

I certainly don't see enough reason to take Sovietstan at his(?) word... but then, the UB argument is just as flawed.

If it happened longer ago than I was born (or far away...), I'm not afraid to say "Hey, you know... I don't know!" I wish more people would.So you only rely on your own experience, but never on that of others?

and why is the jolt server so slow?


btw, if two people are believing in two different gods in a monotheistic way, is it still monotheism then?

so comparing the earliest recorded religions from around the globe to search for a common pattern leads nowhere?

Not to where you're trying to drag it by the nosehairs. Your conclusion is not the result of evidence.

Agreed, again.

Especially when we are talking about something like the origins of religion. We can't even 'prove' when 'religion' starts, so it must be self-defeating to make claims about the 'how' of the thing.so comparing the earliest recorded religions from around the globe to search for a common pattern leads nowhere?

so comparing the earliest recorded religions from around the globe to search for a common pattern leads nowhere?

all that shows is the societies have a history of corrupting the natural state of monotheism.

So you only rely on your own experience, but never on that of others?


No. I don't 'rely' on my own experience, either. I think the whole assumption is flawed.

If it is late at night, and I see what looks like a human figure in the corner of the room - experience tells me that things that look like human figures often are. That doesn't mean that there is a human figure in the corner of the room. If someone else tells me that story, I have even less reason to believe in a man in the room. If I'm reading a translation of a really old book talking about the event, I attach even less authority to the story. etc.


and why is the jolt server so slow?

It's like that somedays. It's actually the first sign of the apocalypse. For, does it not say in the apocrypha according to Nebetnibot "And thee server, it shall slowweth down, in thee last days..."

all that shows is the societies have a history of corrupting the natural state of monotheism.

How does it show that? Other than, of course, the fact that you really, really, really want it to?

so comparing the earliest recorded religions from around the globe to search for a common pattern leads nowhere?

Not at all. It can give you some ideas of what might have been the case, at various points, in some of the oldest recorded religions.

But, it is folly to think this tells us anything about the 'start' of religion - because - even though the very oldest Sumerian and Egyptian texts we have ARE temple texts - they don't claim to be the first texts ever written on the subject... they might not even actually be the earliest things written in that church - let alone in the evolution of the religion of that culture.

all that shows is the societies have a history of corrupting the natural state of monotheism.

So your claim is that no matter where the evidence leads, it's always proof of monotheism being the natural state even when it's not?

Again, so you claim that monotheism is the default explains the late origin of your religion, how?

all that shows is the societies have a history of corrupting the natural state of monotheism.

It doesn't show that at all. Indeed, I think you'd be hard pressed to present any evidence of such a theory (aside, obviously, from the unverifiable claims inherent within several religions... which we can safely disclude, because they all disqualify one another).

No. I don't 'rely' on my own experience, either. I think the whole assumption is flawed.

If it is late at night, and I see what looks like a human figure in the corner of the room - experience tells me that things that look like human figures often are. That doesn't mean that there is a human figure in the corner of the room. If someone else tells me that story, I have even less reason to believe in a man in the room. If I'm reading a translation of a really old book talking about the event, I attach even less authority to the story. etc.is seeing a human figure in the corner of the room the same as assigning storm and thunder to a deity, or to a deceased ancestor?

It's like that somedays. It's actually the first sign of the apocalypse. For, does it not say in the apocrypha according to Nebetnibot "And thee server, it shall slowweth down, in thee last days..."yeah, sometimes I wish for drugs, too...

is seeing a human figure in the corner of the room the same as assigning storm and thunder to a deity, or to a deceased ancestor?


Yes, it is identical.

It is drawing a conclusion from what is observed, that may - in fact - bear absolutely no relation to the literal truth.

The important factor, however, is that none of us should trust our own senses implicitly... and we certainly should have a healthy dose of skepticism when dealing with accounts of other people's sensory assurances.


yeah, sometimes I wish for drugs, too...

A vague swipe at Blackadder actually... :)

Yes, it is identical.

It is drawing a conclusion from what is observed, that may - in fact - bear absolutely no relation to the literal truth.

The important factor, however, is that none of us should trust our own senses implicitly... and we certainly should have a healthy dose of skepticism when dealing with accounts of other people's sensory assurances.skepticism can be overdone. if you can't be certain that god(s) exist, how can you be certain that no gods exist? and we weren't necessarily talking about the existence of gods but about religions, i.e. when the drawing of conclusions from what is observed has reached some kind of level that is already disconnected, at least partially, from what is observed.


A vague swipe at Blackadder actually... too many thees... :)

skepticism can be overdone. if you can't be certain that god(s) exist, how can you be certain that no gods exist?


I can't... and I think such a position would be illogical and insupportable.


...and we weren't necessarily talking about the existence of gods but about religions, i.e. when the drawing of conclusions from what is observed has reached some kind of level that is already disconnected, at least partially, from what is observed.


And, I know these 'religion' existed, how? I know of the existence of 'King Scorpion' from the earliest Egyptian texts... but I know only what was written, and only what remains of that. I know nothing about King Scorpion that was already forgotten, or just not considered not worth mentioning. I certainly don't know how old that story was before it was written down.

When we are talking about origins of religions, we are talking about fragments of texts written thousands of years ago... and maybe statuary and graphical art that stretches further. How much of that should I assume is 'true'? How certain can I be that everything I would find important has bene included, if it even existed?


too many thees... :)

"Thou shalt not eat of the tree known as thee carrot tree", or words to that effect... that's the reference I was... erm... referencing. (Witchsmeller Pursuivant epside, season 1)

I can't... and I think such a position would be illogical and insupportable.And yet There Is No God. <:eek:/>

And, I know these 'religion' existed, how? I know of the existence of 'King Scorpion' from the earliest Egyptian texts... but I know only what was written, and only what remains of that. I know nothing about King Scorpion that was already forgotten, or just not considered not worth mentioning. I certainly don't know how old that story was before it was written down.Isn't it sufficient that a king scorpion existed? Nobody ever claimed to assign him to any particular time or circumstance, iirr. Except maybe that pointless movie with the Rock...

When we are talking about origins of religions, we are talking about fragments of texts written thousands of years ago... and maybe statuary and graphical art that stretches further. How much of that should I assume is 'true'? How certain can I be that everything I would find important has bene included, if it even existed?Why would you have to assume anything as 'true', as opposed to just taking the information as it is? if i find a depiction of the famous beast-wrestler, i'd just recognize it as an apparently popular motif, and if i were able to date the piece to a certain time frame i could even speculate about which king it could represent. but that's just speculation and as long as i offer it as such i see no problem.

"Thou shalt not eat of the tree known as thee carrot tree", or words to that effect... that's the reference I was... erm... referencing. (Witchsmeller Pursuivant epside, season 1)wouldn't it be "thy carrot tree" or "thine carrot tree" ? or is the addressed one the carrot tree???


And do you want something funny? Check this out http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html

One is born with a forced religion by parents (or society), but soon they will discover other faiths and experiment around with those. Thats just the way things are.

One is born with a forced religion by parents (or society), but soon they will discover other faiths and experiment around with those. Thats just the way things are."experiment around with those" means no real attachment? just arbitrarily and/or superficially taking a glance? so these "experimenters" are actually dishonest?

"experiment around with those" means no real attachment? just arbitrarily and/or superficially taking a glance? so these "experimenters" are actually dishonest?

They shall experiment, and eventually settle with one they deem suitable as "truth." :)

They shall experiment, and eventually settle with one they deem suitable as "truth."Then truth is arbitrary?

Then truth is arbitrary?

Truth is... whatever one wants it to be.

It sounds as if you are suggesting that Bottle worships science, or at least that Science is the religion of atheists.

Not at all. I hope and suspect that like other people with a healthy understanding of their belief system, Bottle does not worship her belief system or methodology and understands the limitations of her belief system and of her self.

I do indeed suggest that science is (or is in the process of becoming) a religion, but I do not suggest that is particular to atheism, or that atheism is particular to a belief in science.

Truth is... whatever one wants it to be.And what's reality then?

*pounce*

*hug*

*dance*

Long time no see! =)

:D :D :D

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



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

Um, no.

The vast majority of people are not nomadic, so the norms that you claim belong to nomadic societies cannot be claimed to the neurological norm of most humans. Also, there have been and are plenty of polytheistic nomads. The nomads of Mongolia, Siberia and the Arctic regions were majority polytheistic well into the 20th century and continue to be Buddhist-syncretic polytheists as a large minorty today. The nomadic tribes of North America were polytheist until their cultures were overwhelmed by Christian European invasion. Many nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes of central Africa continue to be polytheistic to this day and were never anything but that. You cannot claim that just because a small number of nomadic tribes from one part of the world established religions that today are very much in vogue is any kind of proof of the brain chemistry of human beings as a species.

The assertion that there is any kind of natural inclination towards monotheism is nonsense, pure and simple.

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

Are you under the impression that there is no such thing as a scientist with religious beliefs? I think it can be argued that people like Einstein, Oppenheimer and others did "fully understand science," yet they also professed to believe in God or some other form of spiritual higher power.

All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.<snip>

To you, who are apparently a very enthusiastic believer in Islam, this may seem a satisfying idea. To me, who hold a different set of beliefs, I find it not only insulting to me but rather shockingly closed-minded, dismissive of whatever someone else might have to say before they've even said it. If you cannot tell the difference between belief and fact, or between debate and preaching, then I fear you may no longer be capable of participating in an open debate forum. That's a shame.

I wonder if there is a direct correlation between the 'addictive' personality and religious feeling. As in, perhaps some people turn to alcohol or drugs...and others to spirituality.

Anything can become an addiction, including religion and posting on internet forums. Basically, any action that can be repeated, can be repeated endlessly by an addictive personality. In fact, I think that, possibly, the only action/experience that no one could ever get addicted to would be suicide.

What was the first ancient religion?

The Egyptian 'religion' was monotheistic at one point, at least.

All we know about Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian religions suggests polytheism... but that doesnt mean they were always polytheistic.

Be fair, GnI. The cultures you mention had writing and left documentary evidence that their religions were indeed polytheistic. However, what that meant/means is broader than this current simplistic debate. There were both polytheist and monotheist religions throughout the ancient world, according to contemporary documentary sources. There were also religions that held complex concepts of "gods" as manifestations of one great "God" and so can be considered technically monotheist. But you are being too coy by half in doubting the prevalence of polytheism in the ancient world. It may not be true to say that ALL were polytheist, but it is certainly reasonable to say that MOST were.

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.

Ironically enough, the nail in the coffin that made me a stronger Christian was a little thing called 9/11.

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.

Careful. A majority of Americans during WWII either actively agreed with or assented through their silence to imprisoning citizens of Japanese heredity, including the elderly and children, for no other reason than their ethnic background. Was that the norm?

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.


Funny enough, the worlds of difference I see are exactly reversed.
If you don't believe in God, Heaven or Hell, then someone telling you you're going to hell is something laughable. If it doesn't exist, you can't go there.

Since we know mental institutions exist, and we know that people have been placed there against their will, I would certainly take that as a far more immediate threat...

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.

What then is your logical reason for the above behaviors -- and as a man of logic, do you actually act on them?

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.

Why seek rewards though? Why not do it because it's simply the right thing, and whether or not there will be a reward?

Anything can become an addiction, including religion and posting on internet forums. Basically, any action that can be repeated, can be repeated endlessly by an addictive personality. In fact, I think that, possibly, the only action/experience that no one could ever get addicted to would be suicide.

Ruling out reincarnation, of course ;)

Religious people cannot fully understand science, otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that their beliefs are incorrect

Wow. I had no idea that my scores in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology showed I don't understand science.

So what's higher than As and A+s in your world?

Faith may or may not be a choice.

Religiosity concerns behavior, and thus is definitely a choice.

All people are born Muslim. Its societies that change people and take them away from that.

Considering that Judaism, as merely one example, predates the Muslim faith, and that there are people who have always been atheistic, as well as people who believe in anumism, I'm going to have to say that your thesis is extremely faulty.

Ruling out reincarnation, of course ;)

That's why I hedged my bet with the word "possibly." ;)

No, you haven't spoken to the argument. You've broadly painted all religious views with a gigantic and illogical brush of your own concoction. It's no less personal than my addressal of your views on this. If you find them personal, well, then you have to agree that you aren't in fact making a rational or consistent request.

Your arguments are rants. That's not personal. It addresses your arguments.

Your arguments are ignorant of the faith. That's not personal. It addresses your arguments.

Your argument are inconsistent. That's not personal. It addresses your arguments.

As the person making those arguments it make sense to say you are being inconsistent, ignorant and ranting. These are based on the arguments you're making and how they are being presented. It has nothing to do with you as a person, just the argument and style found here.

Meanwhile, you've squirmed quite a bit here. You claimed EVERY religion is internally inconsistent and then when you were challenged to show specifically how, you started whining about how discernment is unfair because it allows one to be consistent. So which is it? You don't like discernment but some religions ARE internally consistent or religions are all internally inconsistent and as such you can show this?

I look forward to your attempt to claim that's also a personal attack.

"rants
ignorant of the faith
whining"

These words, among others, are presuming on my behalf - that is what I meant

I want you to bring up discernment because it helps my argument.

1. The Bible is inconsistent
2. Christians use discernment to twist out of every inconsistency.

Here's one, if God truly gave us free will, why the Flood? Why the following promise not to flood again? Why a coming judgment day?

What in heavan is the point of this experiment of His if, being omniscient, he has already set a date for the death of all humanity aside from one drunk and his family, or 144, 000 people to ascend.

It's inconsistent, either He's omniscient and omnipotent and good or He's not (which, given he admits to being a jealous God, he isn't - and that's one of the 10 commandments, as written in stone - if those are wrong then you have to admit to the possibility that Jesus is also an untrue story.

For true free will, there can be no consequences to our freedom to choose.

If I say to my child, do not eat the chocolate or I will smack you - I am not giving him the freedom to truly choose. His choice is constrained by knowing the consequences.

Or is God just on some power trip?

God’s name is the epitome of who and what He is, and He says His name is Jealous. Jealousy is not merely a passing mood with God. It is the essence of His person. He cannot be other than jealous. Since He is the highest and greatest being there is, infinitely holy and glorious, He must be passionately committed to preserving His honor and supremacy. He must zealously desire exclusive devotion and worship. To do less would make Him less than God. He said about Himself:

I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images (Isaiah 42:8).

Sounds a bit like an insecure God to me

It's inconsistent, either He's omniscient and omnipotent and good or He's not

Something a lot of people forget is that God can be good, but that does not have to mean he has to be good to (all of) humanity. Maybe the universe stays happier if we suffer. Or maybe he just likes a few chosen people.

Wow. I had no idea that my scores in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology showed I don't understand science.

So what's higher than As and A+s in your world?

Do you have a Phd in Neurophysiology? Do you fully understand how the brain works?

To other points about scientists, the level of understanding about how the brain works and why we are susceptible to religion is still not fully worked out and hasn't been sufficient until at least the last 20 years. It is entirely consistent for Einstein to believe in God and does not demean his intelligence in anyway.

The level of scientists that believe in God are dropping by the day.

[QUOTE=Barringtonia;12509546]

Um, no.

The vast majority of people are not nomadic, so the norms that you claim belong to nomadic societies cannot be claimed to the neurological norm of most humans. Also, there have been and are plenty of polytheistic nomads. The nomads of Mongolia, Siberia and the Arctic regions were majority polytheistic well into the 20th century and continue to be Buddhist-syncretic polytheists as a large minorty today. The nomadic tribes of North America were polytheist until their cultures were overwhelmed by Christian European invasion. Many nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes of central Africa continue to be polytheistic to this day and were never anything but that. You cannot claim that just because a small number of nomadic tribes from one part of the world established religions that today are very much in vogue is any kind of proof of the brain chemistry of human beings as a species.

The assertion that there is any kind of natural inclination towards monotheism is nonsense, pure and simple.

I have not said that nomadic societies have to be monotheistic, merely that it's no surprise that monotheism arose from nomadic.

I then qualify to say that you need the first globalised world, one that lasted long enough (rather than 100 years) to allow the meme of monotheism to grip a wider audience

There were also religions that held complex concepts of "gods" as manifestations of one great "God" and so can be considered technically monotheist.

This is a very true point - there is an ultimate Oneness in many religions we would term polytheistic

"rants
ignorant of the faith
whining"

These words, among others, are presuming on my behalf - that is what I meant

They address your arguments. If they are false and as your arguments are on record, they would not stand up to cross-examination. As you choose to complain that it's personal instead of defend your posts, one could and should assume you have no faith in a defense of them


I want you to bring up discernment because it helps my argument.

1. The Bible is inconsistent
2. Christians use discernment to twist out of every inconsistency.

Ha? Discernment is acting on the basis of the faith. It can't be logically construed as twisting. Now, can it be ranted against? Well, given that you are, the fact that it can is apparent. However, calling it twisting will never change that it's an ignorant claim.

Amusingly, you claim discernment helps your argument but dismiss it in the same breath, not through logic, but instead by ranting that it's not fair. If it helps you then you would address its results instead of trying to claim, absent evidence, that it is "twisting".



Here's one, if God truly gave us free will, why the Flood? Why the following promise not to flood again? Why a coming judgment day?

Do all Christians believe in these things? Nope. Try again. You are talking about a sect of Christianity. You're exposing your bigorty not debunking it. If you were treating Christians as individuals, you'd recognize that your claims are not things that all Christians believe. The fact you don't exposes that you are not treating Christians in a rational way.


What in heavan is the point of this experiment of His if, being omniscient, he has already set a date for the death of all humanity aside from one drunk and his family, or 144, 000 people to ascend.

Again, literal claims. This addresses only a sect. I thought you were claiming that this addressed ALL religions. I guess you're admitting you cannot.


It's inconsistent, either He's omniscient and omnipotent and good or He's not (which, given he admits to being a jealous God, he isn't - and that's one of the 10 commandments, as written in stone - if those are wrong then you have to admit to the possibility that Jesus is also an untrue story.

Ha. The obvious contradictions in this post are simply hilarious. But, again, don't let me interrupt your rant. Mainly, because even without reply, no one is going to take this seriously.

Written in stone? Where. Do you have the stone? Does anyone? Where is it?


For true free will, there can be no consequences to our freedom to choose.

Really? Then free will must not exist, based on the logic that all actions, all choices, have consequences. That you would try to claim otherwise, exposes your urge to rant.


If I say to my child, do not eat the chocolate or I will smack you - I am not giving him the freedom to truly choose. His choice is constrained by knowing the consequences.

Again, you're not addressing ALL of Christianity, let along ALL religions. That you would claim otherwise MUST, must, be either dishonest or ignorant. One cannot include reality in such a conclusion, becuase realistically, many religions, and, specifically, many Christians do not believe that you will be cmacked for eating chocolate, metaphorically. I think it's funny that you would claim that things must be literal while using metaphors.


Or is God just on some power trip?

Ha. Yeah, Good job hiding that you're ranting. Seriously, do you think that this isn't wholly transparent? This is like the most basic and easily debunked of a series of regular arguments against Christianity on this forum. No educated poster bothers with it anymore. Why? Because it makes them look silly and a little thought makes this apperant even for the largest anti-religious bigot.


Sounds a bit like an insecure God to me

If I believed the Bible was infallible or literal, you'd have a point. However, first one must deny discenrment, and which point they are no longer talking about Christianity.

Do you have a Phd in Neurophysiology? Do you fully understand how the brain works?

I'm guessing you don't. However, support why it would matter if she did.

Do you? And if you do, why does this matter to her argument or yours? If her argument is flawed her credentials will not save it and if her argument is not flawed no claim to a lack of documentation will work.


To other points about scientists, the level of understanding about how the brain works and why we are susceptible to religion is still not fully worked out and hasn't been sufficient until at least the last 20 years.

Um. Is this a sentence? Nope. Slow down. Make sentences. Given this is a written forum, it will do wonders for your argument.

It is entirely consistent for Einstein to believe in God and does not demean his intelligence in anyway.

Well, according to you it would mean he didn't understand science in any way. Would you like to retract that statement so you can stop looking so silly?



The level of scientists that believe in God are dropping by the day.

Ha. Amusing. First, if this were true, then that would simply be matching the trend of the population. However, most scientists are theistic, so the evidence is against you.

However, since it's decreasing by the day and you know this, you must have a source. Provide it.

Ha. Amusing. First, if this were true, then that would simply be matching the trend of the population. However, most scientists are theistic, so the evidence is against you.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

:rolleyes:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

:rolleyes:

Ha. Your 'evidence' is a study that claims that "greater' scientists reject God, by showing that a particular group generally does.

If you were addressing my point, then you'd present a study that shows the majority of scientist are atheist not the majority of a small sect of scientists.

Ha. Your 'evidence' is a study that claims that "greater' scientists reject God, by showing that a particular group generally does.

Did you actually read the article?

No?

Didn't think so.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

@Jocabia

Tricky, tricky. It's true that it's hard to actually pinpoint common beliefs to all Christians, especially in the spectrum of fundamentalist to liberal interpretations of events in the Bible, so I'm not even going to go there except to say that your argument is sound and his is not so sound. In fact, if Noah built an ark and that ark was Barringtonia's argument, it really rained for 40 days and nights, and the whole earth was really covered in water, then we'd be dead.

I'd just like to say kudos for using logic to the extent that it can be in debates like these.

Did you actually read the article?

No?

Didn't think so.

Um, of course I did. Apparently, you didn't.

For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS).

In case English ISN'T your first language, that means a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal.

Now, if you'd like to present the original studies, we can discuss the methodoligies, but offering up an editorial article on a self-proclaimed "unofficial" website that admits to only reviewing a particular subset that would automatically not be representative is flawed even on the most basic level.

In case English ISN'T your first language, that means a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal.

Hah, you're funny.

First, you don't actually read the article, instead only focusing on the first paragraph, and completely misrepresent what it says. The study was not only done about "greater scientists."

Second, you realize you acted like an idiot, but instead of admitting it, you lie, change your claim, and dig yourself deeper in your hole.

Such utter disregard for intellectual honesty is merely another indication, among many, that arguing with you is utterly futile.

I'll leave you to discover for yourself the difference between scientists listed in a "standard reference work" and "a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal."

Um, of course I did. Apparently, you didn't.

For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS).

In case English ISN'T your first language, that means a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal.

Now, if you'd like to present the original studies, we can discuss the methodoligies, but offering up an editorial article on a self-proclaimed "unofficial" website that admits to only reviewing a particular subset that would automatically not be representative is flawed even on the most basic level.

What type of survey would you consider to be "general"? One that asks every scientist? That's not how polls are conducted.

Could you post a link to your all-encompassing survey that says that scientists are so profoundly religious? I mean, if this survey isn't good enough, surely you know of a better one? Else, what would you be basing this claim on: " However, most scientists are theistic, so the evidence is against you." ?

Every one I've seen, including Soheran's, certainly seems to dispute you on that. I'm aware that scientists' theism is "common knowledge," but I've yet to see a reputable source for that information, and not for lack of trying.

Though, personally, I don't really see what scientists' beliefs or lack thereof really have to do with the nature of religion, biological or not. Not only do we not know for sure about it, but scientists can be wrong. They can be perfectly good scientists, and still be wrong in their personal life, whichever way they go (theistic or not).

What type of survey would you consider to be "general"? One that asks every scientist? That's not how polls are conducted.

Um, proper methodology would be random. For example. I couldn't use only members of a national health club and claim it to be representative of anything other than that health club. But then, you knew that, no?


Could you post a link to your all-encompassing survey that says that scientists are so profoundly religious? I mean, if this survey isn't good enough, surely you know of a better one? Else, what would you be basing this claim on: " However, most scientists are theistic, so the evidence is against you." ?

No need. I didn't make the assertion. He did. You tried to support the assertion and used a survey whose methodology does not match it's conclusion. By rule, if you choose a random sampling, it must, in fact, be random. I've shown how it's not.

Every one I've seen, including Soheran's, certainly seems to dispute you on that. I'm aware that scientists' theism is "common knowledge," but I've yet to see a reputable source for that information, and not for lack of trying.

It doesn't. It's shows that among those found in that particular journal one would expect X. It says nothing about the general population of scientists.


Though, personally, I don't really see what scientists' beliefs or lack thereof really have to do with the nature of religion, biological or not. Not only do we not know for sure about it, but scientists can be wrong. They can be perfectly good scientists, and still be wrong in their personal life, whichever way they go (theistic or not).

Of course, it has nothing to do with the nature of religion. I simply refuted the claim that scientists are becoming more atheistic. My claim requires exaclty as much evidence as the original positive assertion. It has no evidence, so no evidence is required to debunk it.

I really do not feel like engaging in the raging debate I see on these pages, so will merely present my opinion as to whether religiosity is a choice or not. I am religious, a United Methodist, and from my interpretations of the bible, find that we are given the right to choose, the ability to choose, whether we believe in something or not. However, this choice is easily influenced by society and how we grow up and live. Someone who is taught to question everything he or she hears is going to have, generally, a much harder time believing in a religion that has very few tangible aspects, very few logical ones. Someone who is taught the logic behind the religion (no matter how "bogus" this logic might be) from birth will likely believe more easily. I was raised in the Christian faith, but despite my early religious education, there came a time when I questioned it, and had to really think about the logic behind it, whether I really could believe. And it took about two years, but decided that I do believe. Thus, from my view, it is a choice, though an easily influenced one.

Hah, you're funny.

First, you don't actually read the article, instead only focusing on the first paragraph, and completely misrepresent what it says. The study was not only done about "greater scientists."

Um, I did. I find a study using a ridiculous term like 'greater' scientists to be utterly ridiculous. So would you if you were actually talking about intellectual honesty. You're not. You're trying to make an assertion your articlle doesn't support.


Second, you realize you acted like an idiot, but instead of admitting it, you lie, change your claim, and dig yourself deeper in your hole.

Lie? So it doesn't say what I quoted? What was the source of the scientists chosen for the original study? Was it not a particular publication? The answer is yes. As I quoted. And that is not a random sampling. Flawed methodology. My claim, is and was and will be that the methodology is flawed because it is a subset of scientists.

I'm pretty sure you can find that in both posts. I gave one example of how it was a subset and you didn't like it, so I gave another. Both are true.


Such utter disregard for intellectual honesty is merely another indication, among many, that arguing with you is utterly futile.

I'll leave you to discover for yourself the difference between scientists listed in a "standard reference work" and "a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal."

Amusing? Do you not know what AMS is? Seriously. This is just sad. Instead of actively refuting what I said, like I did with your assertion, you make vague claims. Why? Well, obviously, because you don't have anything more solid to include in your post. So much for honesty.

Sad, this is.

As far as claiming I changed my claim. And I quote

If you were addressing my point, then you'd present a study that shows the majority of scientist are atheist not the majority of a small sect of scientists.

In case English ISN'T your first language, that means a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal.

Now, if you'd like to present the original studies, we can discuss the methodoligies, but offering up an editorial article on a self-proclaimed "unofficial" website that admits to only reviewing a particular subset that would automatically not be representative is flawed even on the most basic level.

Hmmm... sounds like the same claim made twice. Why twice? Because the first time you responded with proof you hadn't read your own article. If my analysis is flawed, present the original study and PROVE IT.

Ironically enough, the nail in the coffin that made me a stronger Christian was a little thing called 9/11.As an act of spite or defiance towards the Muslim attackers?

I simply refuted the claim that scientists are becoming more atheistic. My claim requires exaclty as much evidence as the original positive assertion. It has no evidence, so no evidence is required to debunk it.

Ah, so all one needs to do to debunk your assertion--and it very much was an assertion--is to say exactly the opposite, and not back it up? Okay. Neat.

Basically, what you really mean is that, no, you have no evidence, but rather than admitting it, you try to find fault with his. Nice. Come on. You are basing your assertion on something, aren't? What's the problem with supplying it to us? You must know some good, random-sampling poll that backs you up, right? Because, there was evidence for the opposite position. Good evidence that you choose to ignore because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Even evidence you don't like is evidence. You had none at all, aside from your own claim. That's pretty weak evidence.

You're very much making an assertion, and, in the service of intellectual honesty, should at least attempt to back it up. Otherwise, this tactic of opposite-claims with no backing leads...nowhere. You can't refute evidence with a complete lack of it, simply because said evidence isn't your cup of tea.

But perhaps you choose not to back up your claim because you can't? That's understandable, at least, if not as commendable as just conceding the point. After all, what damage would admitting you're wrong do to your argument as a whole, if the only reason you tried to debunk the claim is that you disagreed? Wouldn't seem affect your position, really, unless the beliefs of scientists greatly informs your own beliefs.

If you truly can't back up your assertion any other way than by ignoring Soheran's evidence, the point pretty much goes to Soheran, regardless of said ignoring, because you can rest assured that not all of us ignored it.

What then is your logical reason for the above behaviorshumanity

and as a man of logic, do you actually act on them?yes I do.

Wow. I had no idea that my scores in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Geology showed I don't understand science.

So what's higher than As and A+s in your world?since when do grades represent comprehension?

Or maybe he just likes a few chosen people.In that case he's a complete butthole and not worth any worship.

This is a very true point - there is an ultimate Oneness in many religions we would term polytheisticAncient Egyptian religion, yes. However, that religion also contained numerous deifications of 'heroes'. Any other religion?

Hah, you're funny.

First, you don't actually read the article, instead only focusing on the first paragraph, and completely misrepresent what it says. The study was not only done about "greater scientists."

Second, you realize you acted like an idiot, but instead of admitting it, you lie, change your claim, and dig yourself deeper in your hole.

Such utter disregard for intellectual honesty is merely another indication, among many, that arguing with you is utterly futile.

I'll leave you to discover for yourself the difference between scientists listed in a "standard reference work" and "a subset of scientists appearing in a specific journal.":D

Ah, so all one needs to do to debunk your assertion--and it very much was an assertion--is to say exactly the opposite, and not back it up? Okay. Neat.

Um, no. The original assertion is the positive assertion. However, I'm happy to help you find that if you're lazy.

Here you go -

The level of scientists that believe in God are dropping by the day.

I simply said that I disagree. I said it clearly and explicitly and why, but in the end, as you pointed out, as his was a positive assertion meant to demonstrate his original claim, pushing the burden on me is simply a shifting of the burden.





But can you actually back your assertion up with anything? Because, there was evidence for the opposite position. Good evidence that you choose to ignore because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Even evidence you don't like is evidence. You had none at all, aside from your own claim. That's pretty weak evidence.

What Soheran presented is not evidence for the conclusion. I'm sorry that you don't understand the methodology for surveys but a survey that is not a random sampling of a population can never reach a conclusion about that general population. That's science. This survey was not random. It was a group of people chosen from a journal. As such, it only can conclude on the general population of people IN THE JOURNAL.

Again, if you don't understand how surveying works, that's really something you should research BEFORE making claims.

I agree that this survey does in fact evidence that the people found in the AMS were majoritively atheist and that in comparison the people found in the NAS are more atheist based on this study. That's not the conclusion you're claiming, but it is the only valid conclusion based on the evidence presented.

Let me know if you need further education on surveys and random sampling.




You're very much making an assertion, and, in the service of intellectual honesty, should at least attempt to back it up. Otherwise, this tactic of opposite-claims with no backing leads...nowhere. You can't refute evidence with a complete lack of it, simply because said evidence isn't your cup of tea.

Nope. No need. I'm not married to the assertion and backing me up will not further my argument. All I need for my argument is for his assertion not to stand, and it doesn't, since it has no valid evidence.



But perhaps you choose not to back up your claim because you can't? That's understandable, at least, if not as commendable as just conceding the point. After all, what damage would admitting you're wrong do to your argument as a whole, if the only reason you tried to debunk the claim is that you disagreed? Wouldn't seem affect your position, really, unless the beliefs of scientists greatly informs your own beliefs.

I don't, because I have no need to. It doesn't further my claims. It offers nothing to the argument. As such, it's merely a distraction. However, Soheran attempted to back up the assertion of our young friend, and failed.

Another lesson on surveying. I recently polled the bar I was at as to whether I looked younger or older than thirty. You tell me which of these is a valid assertion. The people in that bar at that time claimed I appear younger than thirty or people who hang out in bars claim I appear younger than thirty. Hint: It's an easy question.


If you truly can't back up your assertion any other way than by ignoring Soheran's evidence, the point pretty much goes to Soheran, regardless of said ignoring, because you can rest assured that not all of us ignored it.

Not ignoring. I debunked it by showing how the methodology is flawed. My refusal to back up my assertion is because it distracts from the argument by acting as if my assertion is important. It isn't. At all. It offers nothing to the argument and counters nothing. At all. As such, debating my assertion is a waste of my time. You don't agree with it? Fine. What difference does it make to this claim -
Religious people cannot fully understand science, otherwise they'd be forced to conclude that their beliefs are incorrect

Now, if you can't see how his assertion is necessary to his claim and mine isn't, then I can't help you. If my claim to disagree with Barr's assertion is ever necessary to my argument I'll bother to continue that line. As such, it's simply an attempt to bury an argument in weeds unrelated to that argument.

The truth is that her assertion requires that 100% of credible scientists be atheist. So until this assertion has any support you can simply ignore my assertion. You needn't accept it. And absent evidence shouldn't. Does that help?

:D

I love you. I seriously do. I love that you avoid making actual arguments toward me since you can't actually support them and instead insist on sidearm shots like this one. They are pretty much the best evidence of your goals. Thanks for that.

humanity

A concept? That's your reasoning? Okay? Accepted. Can you explain how humanity is a logical reason for performing these things? I suspect not without also supporting why some would benefit form religion.


yes I do.

Based on?

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.htmlAre there any worldwide surveys? What about Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Russian, or European scientists?

real spirituality is a choice. one that religiosity often gets in the way of.
the latter being also a choice for some, while for others, when it ceases to be, becomes little more then affiliation with a name.

i'm not sure i'm what anyone else would call religious. i love and believe there are nontangable beings who love us and wish us well. perhapse one or several resembling what others might call or consider god or a god. but i also believe it is up to us, to avoid screwing everything up for each other, whether there is one, none, or zillions of them. and that it is the latter question and not the former, that has a greater impact on our everyday lives.

=^^=
.../\...

Alas,

I'm afraid your only position, Jocabia, is that you avoid each point by saying that although many people believe a certain way, you don't believe it that way and therefore it is irrelevant to the argument.

As I said, the last fallback of Christianity, and if everyone can believe what they want, then it's not religion.

It's inconsistency.

I stick with the very first 3-5 posts I made on this debate.

And I've focused recently on Christianity as that is what you profess yourself to be, I'm happy to take on any religion.

On this debate, adieu, I've not much left to say, I'm sure there'll be more : )

As I said, the last fallback of Christianity, and if everyone can believe what they want, then it's not religion.

It's inconsistency.
I think Jocabia's assertion is that Christianity is not religion; that it is a well defined way of looking at the world in regards to how one relates to the figure of Jesus Christ. There's no inconsistency involved if we adopt his definition. Whether his definition is appropriate or not is up for consideration, as is whether or not we should even thus be discussing Christianity in a debate on religiosity given this understanding, but I suspect this variation in definition has been largely ignored in this discussion, which has sadly led to the mudslinging I've read over the past few pages.

In the frame of theology and religion, semantics are far too powerful to be assumed. I suggest that we take a break to formalise precisely what we mean when we refer to Christianity; perhaps creating separate terms to refer to separate concepts if necessary.

In short: I answered partly.

If you have religious parents, then you get taught thier religion, and you are told to go along with it. As a young child, you can't really disagree, it's forced upon what is usually a very accepting mind.

When you grow older, and learn to think for yourself, that's when religion becomes a choice.

I think Jocabia's assertion is that Christianity is not religion; that it is a well defined way of looking at the world in regards to how one relates to the figure of Jesus Christ. There's no inconsistency involved if we adopt his definition. Whether his definition is appropriate or not is up for consideration, as is whether or not we should even thus be discussing Christianity in a debate on religiosity given this understanding, but I suspect this variation in definition has been largely ignored in this discussion, which has sadly led to the mudslinging I've read over the past few pages.

In the frame of theology and religion, semantics are far too powerful to be assumed. I suggest that we take a break to formalise precisely what we mean when we refer to Christianity; perhaps creating separate terms to refer to separate concepts if necessary.

in other words, its not a religeon, its a personality cult!

none the less it is one that started out as a ligitimate expression of religeous belief, or at least might have, that has since that time, probably begining with its use to justify horrific inhumanities in the middle ages if not earlier, devolved into the personality cult it has in large part become today.

in no way does the diffinition and justification given make it anything other then just another religeon, other then in the sense of its having devolved into the personality cult which for right wing fanatics it has become.

=^^=
.../\...

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.

That hasn't been my personal experience, but if that's how it's been for you (or others) then I can see why you would reach different conclusions than I do when it comes to the rational basis for helping others.

I would suggest that much of your behavior in this discussion and others indicates that you have already fulfilled that need, so it makes good sense that you would not feel a need for it anymore, it having been satisfied.

Science serves that purpose for you nicely. From science, you get a story about your origins and the origins of everything. You get explanations of how your mind works, how your society works. But it goes both higher and deeper than that. You get a model of the basic structure of your reality, and a model of the whole higher universe beyond our immediate experience.

I think that through science, you've fulfilled your need to know something more meaningful about your self and your environment than simple everyday perceptions can tell you.
I suppose that is possible. I simply don't register the desire for "something higher" as a need. I am curious, and I like to find out more about the world around me, but I don't really classify things as "higher" or "lower" than myself.

I kind of think of things in terms of ecosystems, in a way, and look at each individual entity in terms of how well it fills its particular niche. I think the ant species Phidole dentata is actually better adapted to its own niche then I am to my niche, but I don't think that makes me "lower" than ants.

But maybe you're right, in the sense that perhaps I don't currently feel the need you are talking about because it has already been satisfied in some way. Given that I was brought up by two scientists, it's possible that the "need" for "something higher" was kind of dealt with while I was still so young that I don't remember.

And it is certainly true that, as you say, "through science, you've fulfilled your need to know something more meaningful about your self and your environment than simple everyday perceptions can tell you."

Why seek rewards though? Why not do it because it's simply the right thing, and whether or not there will be a reward?
You certainly could do that, whether you were theist or atheist. I was simply pointing out that there ARE rational reasons to help others, and that pure altruism isn't essential.

Do you have a Phd in Neurophysiology? Do you fully understand how the brain works?

Okay, I know this comment wasn't directed at me, and this is a TOTAL tangent and just an opportunity for me to brag shamelessly, but...

I just received notice from the NIDCD that I got a predoctoral grant for my thesis studies on the structure and function of medial vestibular nucleus neurons! Huzzah and merrymaking!

in no way does the diffinition and justification given make it anything other then just another religeon, other then in the sense of its having devolved into the personality cult which for right wing fanatics it has become.
Well... I'm not so sure. The difference is between christianity as a word and Christianity as an identifier; a key one in highlighting whether we're talking about the semantics of a "religious" concept or the politics of a "Religious" body.

There is a subtle dualism in our understanding of what Religion is that we generally take for granted, and I feel it comes from my earlier supposition about the two simultaneous stimulae that Religion attempts to satisfy. On one hand, it is an appeal to the human Mysticism tendency as an explanation of the world, while on the other it is a statement of exclusive membership of a community as a means of fulfilling our need to be social creatures.

Now, the first (and possibly most important) question comes when we wish to decide whether Religion (or, indeed, any given Religion, since this dualism extends equally to each of them) necessarily includes both of these aspects or whether one or the other is sufficient.

Alas,

I'm afraid your only position, Jocabia, is that you avoid each point by saying that although many people believe a certain way, you don't believe it that way and therefore it is irrelevant to the argument.

You do realize that this refutes your argument. This is what happens when you express absolutes. This is what happens when you try to paint heterogenous people as if they are homogenous. This is how you lose a debate.

"Alas, I'm afraid your only position, Jocabia, is the one that makes my argument look silly."


As I said, the last fallback of Christianity, and if everyone can believe what they want, then it's not religion.

So you keep saying, but the problem with your statement is that it's the basis of the religion, not the last fallback of it. And if everyone can believe what they way EXCEPT the core beliefs, that you be a follower of Christ's teachings (God exists, love God and each other, discernment), then it most certainly is a religion. Are you not sure what a religion is?

You're describing a cult.


It's inconsistency.

I think you don't know what inconsistency is. If you don't know what a word means or at least don't know its proper usage, then leave it in the toolbox and say something else.



I stick with the very first 3-5 posts I made on this debate.

And I've focused recently on Christianity as that is what you profess yourself to be, I'm happy to take on any religion.

But you've failed so miserably with Christianity. The entire basis of your argument is that if you don't understand it that you don't have to acknowledge it. Every one of your posts demonstrates this. It was just one fallacy after another. You think that making your point MORE inclusive is going to make it less false? How is that gonna work when you can't even get past little ol' me.



On this debate, adieu, I've not much left to say, I'm sure there'll be more : )

You never had much to say, just a provably false assertion and bunch of fallacies you think support it.

I think Jocabia's assertion is that Christianity is not religion; that it is a well defined way of looking at the world in regards to how one relates to the figure of Jesus Christ. There's no inconsistency involved if we adopt his definition. Whether his definition is appropriate or not is up for consideration, as is whether or not we should even thus be discussing Christianity in a debate on religiosity given this understanding, but I suspect this variation in definition has been largely ignored in this discussion, which has sadly led to the mudslinging I've read over the past few pages.

In the frame of theology and religion, semantics are far too powerful to be assumed. I suggest that we take a break to formalise precisely what we mean when we refer to Christianity; perhaps creating separate terms to refer to separate concepts if necessary.

It's a religion.

Religion -
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

However, the problem here is that religion does not mean cult does not require that one adhere to an institutionalized system of beliefs. Our young friend does not seem to be aware that relgiion can also refer to a personal set of beliefs, and in Christianity, it should.

Discernment is what was taught by Christ. GnI, as an Atheist, can see this by examining the teachings attributed to Christ, and most would if they were to examine them as they are. The very idea of discernment requires one to personalize their religion. It still remains religion though.

Barr would like to claim that this is somehow cheating in his attempt to pigeonhole the religion, but you can't say it's inconsistent for a relgious belief to adhere to the core of that belief. Logically, the opposite would be true, it would inconsistent to ignore discernment, even if discernment really frustrates him because it makes his argument ludicrous.

Do you have a Phd in Neurophysiology? Do you fully understand how the brain works?

To other points about scientists, the level of understanding about how the brain works and why we are susceptible to religion is still not fully worked out and hasn't been sufficient until at least the last 20 years. It is entirely consistent for Einstein to believe in God and does not demean his intelligence in anyway.

The level of scientists that believe in God are dropping by the day.

Now who is using "discernment" to weasel out of something? The above is not what you originally said. Nothing like it, in fact. You said that religious people cannot have a full understanding of science. That ridiculous claim was easily shot down, so now you try to claim that you were only talking about one science in particular. I call bullshit.

Okay, I know this comment wasn't directed at me, and this is a TOTAL tangent and just an opportunity for me to brag shamelessly, but...

I just received notice from the NIDCD that I got a predoctoral grant for my thesis studies on the structure and function of medial vestibular nucleus neurons! Huzzah and merrymaking!

Let me just say grats.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;12511770]

I have not said that nomadic societies have to be monotheistic, merely that it's no surprise that monotheism arose from nomadic.
So then it was a non-point that had no relevance to this discussion.

I then qualify to say that you need the first globalised world, one that lasted long enough (rather than 100 years) to allow the meme of monotheism to grip a wider audience
Another non-point without apparent relevance. If this is connected in any way to what we are dicussing, please show us how.

in other words, its not a religeon, its a personality cult!

none the less it is one that started out as a ligitimate expression of religeous belief, or at least might have, that has since that time, probably begining with its use to justify horrific inhumanities in the middle ages if not earlier, devolved into the personality cult it has in large part become today.

in no way does the diffinition and justification given make it anything other then just another religeon, other then in the sense of its having devolved into the personality cult which for right wing fanatics it has become.

=^^=
.../\...

Again, you're taking broad swipes at a religion that cannot be so broadly painted.

Religions can be personal and often are. If you look up the definition, this falls well within.

However, in your statement out of one side of your mouth you mention the personal religion and out of the other you treat the religion as if its one homogenous faith. You can't have it both ways.

Catholicism isn't even one homogenous faith, how could Christianity be. Those in the right wing of the US are only a small portion of world-wide Christians or even American Christians. That would you pretend the represent anything more than themselves is irrational.

Personality Cult -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. The term often refers as well to leaders who did not use such methods during their lifetime, but are built up in the mass media by later governments.

A cult of personality differs from general hero worship in that it is specifically built around political leaders. However, the term cult of personality is often applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders; an argument could easily be made, however, that the only notable differences to be found between the terms "hero worship," "cult of personality," or even, more simply, excessive admiration are largely in the context of the person making the accusation.

Basically your claim fits that last part nicely. Since a personality cult is meant to be for a political leader, which Jesus said plainly he was not, you're more trying to extend the definition. As is pointed out here, usually in those cases it's just a personal bias driving the use of the term rather than a rational distinction between a personality cult and simply being the object of admiration.

That hasn't been my personal experience, but if that's how it's been for you (or others) then I can see why you would reach different conclusions than I do when it comes to the rational basis for helping others.

Well, as I said earlier, I think there are rational advantages for helping other but a lot of those reasons overlap with advantages of religion. You cannot allow for a rational advantage to one without allowing for the other.

This, of course, doesn't mean that you, personally, or everyone should do charity or be religious, but it does greatly harm the idea of "curing" religion belief that UB was trying to support.

I think based on your views on it, you could consistently make a rational argument for charity. I think based on UB's claims about religion that he cannot do so consistently.

Okay, I know this comment wasn't directed at me, and this is a TOTAL tangent and just an opportunity for me to brag shamelessly, but...

I just received notice from the NIDCD that I got a predoctoral grant for my thesis studies on the structure and function of medial vestibular nucleus neurons! Huzzah and merrymaking!
Congratulations! :D

Well, as I said earlier, I think there are rational advantages for helping other but a lot of those reasons overlap with advantages of religion. You cannot allow for a rational advantage to one without allowing for the other.

I don't know if I would say that.

Yes, there are rational reasons to belong to religion, but those reasons (in my opinion) actually don't have anything to do with the "faith" part of religion. It's all about the social networking and the concrete advantages provided by the human institutions.

Those advantages could be provided just as well by secular organizations (and often are), it's just that in our world there are many places where religious organizations have a monopoly on various services. For instance, in my old home town the temples provided free daycare to their congregations. That's a HUGE benefit for any parents who belong to those congregations, and it's a benefit that wasn't provided by any secular philosophical organizations (if there even were any) at the time. Now, there's obviously no reason why secular groups couldn't provide free daycare, it's just that the social networking in my community revolved almost entirely around the Jewish temples, so that's where you went for community support.


This, of course, doesn't mean that you, personally, or everyone should do charity or be religious, but it does greatly harm the idea of "curing" religion belief that UB was trying to support.

I think based on your views on it, you could consistently make a rational argument for charity. I think based on UB's claims about religion that he cannot do so consistently.
There absolutely are rational reasons for a person to choose to be religious.

Of course, there are rational reasons for a person to choose to use heroine. Or for a person to join a gang. Or for a person to steal a car.

Simply having rational reasons behind an action doesn't necessarily make it a good choice over all.

It's kind of like Chris Rock's bit about violence:

"People always say stupid shit like 'There's no reason to hit a woman.' Shit, there's a reason to hit anybody! Just don't do it! There's a reason to kick an old man down a flight of stairs! Just don't do it."

Now, I don't think religion is always a bad choice over all. I think that for some people religion is the best option they've got. I'm just saying that rationality of choices can't be where we stop in our evaluation.

Congratulations! :D

Let me just say grats.

Thankee!

I don't know if I would say that.

Yes, there are rational reasons to belong to religion, but those reasons (in my opinion) actually don't have anything to do with the "faith" part of religion. It's all about the social networking and the concrete advantages provided by the human institutions.

Yes, that's actually what I was talking about. Those are also advantages you presented regarding charity.


Those advantages could be provided just as well by secular organizations (and often are), it's just that in our world there are many places where religious organizations have a monopoly on various services. For instance, in my old home town the temples provided free daycare to their congregations. That's a HUGE benefit for any parents who belong to those congregations, and it's a benefit that wasn't provided by any secular philosophical organizations (if there even were any) at the time. Now, there's obviously no reason why secular groups couldn't provide free daycare, it's just that the social networking in my community revolved almost entirely around the Jewish temples, so that's where you went for community support.

Agreed. However, if they are advantages of those secular organizations, they are also advantages of the religious organizaitons. Some people are getting these advantages the only way they ever will, through religion.



There absolutely are rational reasons for a person to choose to be religious.

Of course, there are rational reasons for a person to choose to use heroine. Or for a person to join a gang. Or for a person to steal a car.

Simply having rational reasons behind an action doesn't necessarily make it a good choice over all.

However, we aren't talking about just reasons. I said advantages.


It's kind of like Chris Rock's bit about violence:

"People always say stupid shit like 'There's no reason to hit a woman.' Shit, there's a reason to hit anybody! Just don't do it! There's a reason to kick an old man down a flight of stairs! Just don't do it."

Now, I don't think religion is always a bad choice over all. I think that for some people religion is the best option they've got. I'm just saying that rationality of choices can't be where we stop in our evaluation.

Again, I specifically pointed to the personal advantages. It can be a good decision. UB paints it as if there are no advantages and that was the point I was addressing more than anything. We aren't really disagreeing on anything except how this should be said.

Bottle, did you ever meet this guy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070600979.html

Yes, that's actually what I was talking about. Those are also advantages you presented regarding charity.

Agreed. However, if they are advantages of those secular organizations, they are also advantages of the religious organizaitons. Some people are getting these advantages the only way they ever will, through religion.

Yeah, exactly.

I certainly can't fault somebody for belonging to a religious organization when that organization is the only community group around! My boyfriend stayed with his family's church even after he became an atheist, because it was his social and community center. I've got no beef with that at all.


However, we aren't talking about just reasons. I said advantages.

Again, I specifically pointed to the personal advantages. It can be a good decision. UB paints it as if there are no advantages and that was the point I was addressing more than anything. We aren't really disagreeing on anything except how this should be said.
True. Like I said, I think it is wrong to claim that there's no rational reason for people to belong to religions. Sure there are.

It gets back to the main thrust of this thread, really. I think that religion satisfies some need(s) that people have. It is completely rational for people to want to satisfy their needs. What I'm interested in exploring is

a) Are those needs universal? (I.e. Do all people have these needs?)
b) Are those needs innate? (Do those who have these needs have them because they are "built in," or are they somehow acquired?)
c) Are there other or better ways to satisfy those needs? Related to this, is there a need specifically for religiosity itself, or is the drive for religiosity due to OTHER needs that are satisfied by religion?

Agreed. However, if they are advantages of those secular organizations, they are also advantages of the religious organizaitons. Some people are getting these advantages the only way they ever will, through religion.

Which brings us back to the desirability of religion. Do the advantages, that definately exist, outweigh the disadvantages, which also definately exist ?
Or, to link this question to the OP, if it turns out that being religious has a physical cause, should we attempt to find a "cure" or not ?

Bottle, did you ever meet this guy?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070600979.html

bump

And yet There Is No God. <:eek:/>


As an argument, rather than a statement of faith.


Isn't it sufficient that a king scorpion existed? Nobody ever claimed to assign him to any particular time or circumstance, iirr. Except maybe that pointless movie with the Rock...


Well, we can date King Scorpion to at least 2,200 BC... maybe as much as 3.400 BC - if he existed at the same time (roughly) the texts were written. Otherwise, all we know is that 'he' is an artifact of time earlier than that.


Why would you have to assume anything as 'true', as opposed to just taking the information as it is? if i find a depiction of the famous beast-wrestler, i'd just recognize it as an apparently popular motif, and if i were able to date the piece to a certain time frame i could even speculate about which king it could represent. but that's just speculation and as long as i offer it as such i see no problem.


That's the thing, though... we can't date to a range... we can only tell a later date that King Scorpion is earlier than... if the story even references a real entity.

And, that's my complaint with making claims about the 'origins' of religion - we really can't say what happened before our earliest sources.


wouldn't it be "thy carrot tree" or "thine carrot tree" ? or is the addressed one the carrot tree???


It's not possessive, it's just the way he pronounces 'the'.


And do you want something funny? Check this out http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre00maps.html

That scares me.

:D :D :D

Yay! Muravyets! We were just talking about how much we missed you! :D

*big grin*

Which brings us back to the desirability of religion. Do the advantages, that definately exist, outweigh the disadvantages, which also definately exist ?

Unless there is inherent pathology, inherent disadvantages, then really it doesn't matter.

Or, to link this question to the OP, if it turns out that being religious has a physical cause, should we attempt to find a "cure" or not ?

Not. No more so than for Atheism. You really want to start curing ideologies you don't like? Or even suggest this is an option?

Yeah, exactly.

I certainly can't fault somebody for belonging to a religious organization when that organization is the only community group around! My boyfriend stayed with his family's church even after he became an atheist, because it was his social and community center. I've got no beef with that at all.


True. Like I said, I think it is wrong to claim that there's no rational reason for people to belong to religions. Sure there are.

It gets back to the main thrust of this thread, really. I think that religion satisfies some need(s) that people have. It is completely rational for people to want to satisfy their needs. What I'm interested in exploring is

a) Are those needs universal? (I.e. Do all people have these needs?)
b) Are those needs innate? (Do those who have these needs have them because they are "built in," or are they somehow acquired?)
c) Are there other or better ways to satisfy those needs? Related to this, is there a need specifically for religiosity itself, or is the drive f
or religiosity due to OTHER needs that are satisfied by religion?

Hey Bottle,

A) We all have needs, and wants, this fact of course is universal.
B) Some needs are inate some not.
C) Religion I would image satisfies more than one, need? Do you imagine that it is only one certian need we are tlaking about? The one need that I suspect is important for relgious people, as I have said is the why questions, which science does not excel in answering.

Be fair, GnI. The cultures you mention had writing and left documentary evidence that their religions were indeed polytheistic. However, what that meant/means is broader than this current simplistic debate. There were both polytheist and monotheist religions throughout the ancient world, according to contemporary documentary sources. There were also religions that held complex concepts of "gods" as manifestations of one great "God" and so can be considered technically monotheist. But you are being too coy by half in doubting the prevalence of polytheism in the ancient world. It may not be true to say that ALL were polytheist, but it is certainly reasonable to say that MOST were.

Coy, moi? (Moy?)

I'm not doubting the prevalence of polytheism in 'the ancient world'... I'm illustrating that 'the ancient world' covers a large temporal range... and we really don't know how much of what happened, is recorded. If the earliest text we find is Sumerian, and dates to 3,400... is it safe to assume there were never older Sumerian documents? Is it safe to assume that matches the origin of Sumerian culture?

I think we have to admit... our evidence is 'snapshots', at best.

Which brings us back to the desirability of religion. Do the advantages, that definately exist, outweigh the disadvantages, which also definately exist ?
Or, to link this question to the OP, if it turns out that being religious has a physical cause, should we attempt to find a "cure" or not ?
Would you "cure" left-handedness? Or blue-eyed-ness? Or "cure" a learning propensity for math over language, or language over math? Or shortness or tallness?

Tendencies towards both mysticism and religiosity (acknowledging the difference between those two somewhat related things) is so widespread and has been observed for such a long period in human history (all of it, in fact) that I don't think it is appropriate to consider it an abnormality, but rather part of normal individual variation. I think that there are good arguments that such variations are beneficial to our survival, whether or not there is any observable benefit to any given variation itself.

We may (and do) argue endlessly whether religion is good for us or not, but no one can point to human history and say that religion, in and of itself, has significantly harmed humanity. We are doing just fine as a species, it seems to me, regardless of the effects/non-effects of religion upon us. Even a negative effect may be beneficial to the species, if not to specific members of it.

To judge whether something warrants "curing," it must first be determined that it is predominantly harmful. This cannot be shown about religion. Despite its many spectacular outbreaks of bad effects, it also shows many spectacular good effects, and has done so consistently over thousands of years. Clearly, it cannot be simplistically labeled "normal" or "abnormal," "healthy" or "unhealthy." It is not a simple as that.

What then is your logical reason for the above behaviors -- and as a man of logic, do you actually act on them?

My reason for 'charity' is the same as my reason for 'morality'... pure pragmatism.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a really good way to sum up the 'pragmatic law'... but it is not implicitly tied to (any) religion.

"rants
ignorant of the faith
whining"

These words, among others, are presuming on my behalf - that is what I meant

I want you to bring up discernment because it helps my argument.

1. The Bible is inconsistent
2. Christians use discernment to twist out of every inconsistency.

Here's one, if God truly gave us free will, why the Flood? Why the following promise not to flood again? Why a coming judgment day?

What in heavan is the point of this experiment of His if, being omniscient, he has already set a date for the death of all humanity aside from one drunk and his family, or 144, 000 people to ascend.

It's inconsistent, either He's omniscient and omnipotent and good or He's not (which, given he admits to being a jealous God, he isn't - and that's one of the 10 commandments, as written in stone - if those are wrong then you have to admit to the possibility that Jesus is also an untrue story.

For true free will, there can be no consequences to our freedom to choose.

If I say to my child, do not eat the chocolate or I will smack you - I am not giving him the freedom to truly choose. His choice is constrained by knowing the consequences.

Or is God just on some power trip?



Sounds a bit like an insecure God to me

The obvious answer would be that some text is literal, some symbolic... some is just narrative that maybe fits the general brief.... and 'discernment' is the key that lets you work out which is which.

So... insecure god? No - you just haven't 'discerned' the parts that are not 'literal'.

Yay! Muravyets! We were just talking about how much we missed you! :D

*big grin*

:fluffle:

I just had to take a break from the rash of racists and trolls that had over-run NSG for a bit, so I went off to impersonate an elf in an mmorpg. But the conversations in that world were too shallow -- and arguing was actually discouraged!! :eek:

It's good to be back.

In short: I answered partly.

If you have religious parents, then you get taught thier religion, and you are told to go along with it. As a young child, you can't really disagree, it's forced upon what is usually a very accepting mind.

When you grow older, and learn to think for yourself, that's when religion becomes a choice.

Does religion ever 'become a choice'? When I realised I was an Atheist, it wasn't anything I chose....

Okay, I know this comment wasn't directed at me, and this is a TOTAL tangent and just an opportunity for me to brag shamelessly, but...

I just received notice from the NIDCD that I got a predoctoral grant for my thesis studies on the structure and function of medial vestibular nucleus neurons! Huzzah and merrymaking!

Yay! Kudos for Bottle!

:fluffle:

I just had to take a break from the rash of racists and trolls that had over-run NSG for a bit, so I went off to impersonate an elf in an mmorpg. But the conversations in that world were too shallow -- and arguing was actually discouraged!! :eek:

It's good to be back.

I tried that... well, not an Elf, some kind of Minotaur-y thing. I still play my 'supehero' MMORPG in my decreasing freetime... but, as you say, not for the conversations.

You were missed :)

bump
Ooops, must have missed that the first read through.

I've read some of Francis Collins' stuff. He's done some good science, but he gets absolutely tedious when talking about religion. It's all empty platitudes and some of the most basic (and boring) arguments set forth by theists.

If I remember correctly, he basically focuses on two main arguments in favor of God. First, the idea that we all have the same concept of right and wrong built in, which is instilled by God. Second, and perhaps most relevant to this topic, the notion that we all crave "something bigger than ourselves," and have a kind of God-shaped empty place inside us that longs to be filled with the Divine.

Given that I am a living example AGAINST both those arguments, I find it a bit hard to keep reading Collins.

Given that I am a living example AGAINST both those arguments, I find it a bit hard to keep reading Collins.

Given that you seem to be unusual when taken as a sample of all humanity across history...

Given that I am a living example AGAINST both those arguments, I find it a bit hard to keep reading Collins.

I could take that a step further.

I'm not allowed to use myself as an example of any kind on this forum, without being subject to attack.

So, neither should you.

Coy, moi? (Moy?)

I'm not doubting the prevalence of polytheism in 'the ancient world'... I'm illustrating that 'the ancient world' covers a large temporal range... and we really don't know how much of what happened, is recorded. If the earliest text we find is Sumerian, and dates to 3,400... is it safe to assume there were never older Sumerian documents? Is it safe to assume that matches the origin of Sumerian culture?

I think we have to admit... our evidence is 'snapshots', at best.
Haha, I was being too harsh with you - though you know you can be coy with the best of them -- coy, cute, all that sort of thing. :p

But we should remember that all we have of most periods of history is snapshots. The more recent the period, the more snapshots survive, but we still do not know and cannot know the whole, true story of what really, really happened for periods as recent as 300 years ago.

History is a game of filling in the blanks, of balancing facts with speculation. Some speculations are more reasonable than others because they have more snapshots that seem to back them up. Others are pure fantasy games for scientists/scholars. For instance, it always bothers me to see tv programs that show the detailed lifestyles and vocalizations of polka-dotted and rainbow-striped dinosaurs, as if there is anything at all in the fossil record to tell us this is how those animals looked, behaved, or sounded. There is not enough information in the few snapshots of dinosaurs we have to make such expansive connections between them and modern animals.

Likewise, it drives me nuts to see scholars pretend like they have evidence to back up their theories of what happened to the Neanderthals, considering the extremely meager actual materials we have to tell us anything at all about Neanderthals. It even bothers me to see scholars reconstruct ancient cities, complete with paint jobs and house plants, when they do not have records of how those particular people actually furnished/decorated their lives and are merely speculating based on what other, later cultures did.

But on the other hand, there is validity to the "if it looks, swims and quacks like a duck" approach, if it is properly applied.

So, if throughout all of the history we actually have, certain things have been done a certain way for certain reasons and always using certain kinds of artifacts, and we have proof that people outside the limits of historical record also had those same artifacts, I think it is a reasonable speculation to say that they were doing the same or similar things that historical people were doing. In addition, if the majority of well documented examples fall into a certain category (such as polytheism), then it is not unreasonable to suggest that less well documented but predominantly similar examples probably also fall into that category, or at least are more likely to do so than not. Then, for the sake of argument, we may proceed on the acknowledged assumption (acknowledging that it is an assumption) that this is the state of things.

When presented by unsupported extreme statements such as UB's or Soviet's, it is correct to point out that they cannot prove their assertions and therefore their arguments will be rejected.

But I think the way you presented your argument made you look like an extremist of the persnickety variety, rejecting any statement about the past that could not be immediately proven by documentary evidence. That is not how history works, because it would make it impossible to rely on any historical information at all.

It's a balancing act, and in countering UB's statements, you over-balanced in the opposite way, making arguments that were also flawed.

Given that you seem to be unusual when taken as a sample of all humanity across history...

I daresay that the claim that "all humans share the same moral code" seems somewhat in conflict with reality...

I could take that a step further.

I'm not allowed to use myself as an example of any kind on this forum, without being subject to attack.

So, neither should you.
*shrug* If somebody wants to argue that God must exist because we all have the same God-given morality and the same God-desire built in, then I guess their next step is going to have to be proving that I don't exist. :D

It's a religion.

Religion -
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

However, the problem here is that religion does not mean cult, and so does not require that one adhere to an institutionalized system of beliefs. Our young friend does not seem to be aware that religion can also refer to a personal set of beliefs, and in Christianity, it should.

Discernment is what was taught by Christ. GnI, as an Atheist, can see this by examining the teachings attributed to Christ, and most would if they were to examine them as they are. The very idea of discernment requires one to personalize their religion. It still remains religion though.

Barr would like to claim that this is somehow cheating in his attempt to pigeonhole the religion, but you can't say it's inconsistent for a relgious belief to adhere to the core of that belief. Logically, the opposite would be true, it would inconsistent to ignore discernment, even if discernment really frustrates him because it makes his argument ludicrous.
Well, I do agree about what you're saying about Christ teaching discernment. That's probably why I question whether your proposal is indeed a personal religion rather than a philosophy. I think part of the difficulty comes in mapping Discernment to that definition. If we are to make ethical and moral judgements on the basis of empathic insight on a case-by-case basis then that would seem to preclude the use of any "set" of either attitudes or practices. Perhaps even our beliefs are subject to a continuous re-evaluation as experience, understanding and circumstance dictate, though excepting standing up for the convictions of others, it is difficult to envisage where this might be exemplified.

In my limited studies, what strikes me in Jesus in his sermons and attitudes to the temples is precisely the approach that one should behave in such a way as though to surpass any set of principles, including those set up on the basis of surpassing previous sets of principles. It would seem to encourage a reactionary response to standards rather than a favourable one. For instance, we can imagine a hypothetical modern Jesus trumping his own advice and saying that we should walk a third mile when asked to walk one and it has been said that one should walk two.


While this is a noble ideal, whether Religion or otherwise, I also question whether it is the unique bearer of the title "Religion of Christianity". There are certainly many recognised "Christian" leaders (insert/delete quotation marks as appropriate) to whom this would seem like a heresy. You should see the flak Brian McLaren and his ilk get for a similar approach, regularly denounced as having strayed from Christianity despite proposing little more than what you're suggesting Christianity to be.

I think therefore that there are multiple, separate Religions that share the same name, which probably seems obvious. One of which is your own proposition, which a number of similarly identified Christians would be ready to accept (and, simultaneously, scrutinise unceasingly). Another of which is the very cult that Barringtonia sees in the right-wing evangelicals a-la Pat Robertson, the God Channel and so on. There will no doubt be many others, too.

The problem is, if they're of the same name, how can society at large seek to distinguish sufficiently between them, especially when one of them is so vocal and widespread? Certainly, if an individual is acting on the basis of discernment, this is unimportant, as they can look past the banners and identities to what the underlying message is. But when the means by which you teach discernment is being impeded by a louder voice that shares your name claiming that that name is a corporate identity itself, only those of an already discerning nature will be able to hear what you have to say, and it is probably these that least need to hear it.

Does religion ever 'become a choice'? When I realised I was an Atheist, it wasn't anything I chose....It came on naturally? By ruling out the alternatives?

I daresay that the claim that "all humans share the same moral code" seems somewhat in conflict with reality...

Yes, and they should be required to prove it.

Trying to prove the negative is illogical.

*shrug* If somebody wants to argue that God must exist because we all have the same God-given morality and the same God-desire built in, then I guess their next step is going to have to be proving that I don't exist. :D
As Mark Twain put it, "It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black."

EO's argument is that "most" = "all" (even though he has not proven that "most" applies either), but we all know that won't wash. This isn't horseshoes and close doesn't count. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are a minority -- you still count towards "all," and as long as you do, then it cannot be said that "all" people think in a way that you do not.

As Mark Twain put it, "It takes just one white crow to prove that not all crows are black."

EO's argument is that "most" = "all" (even though he has not proven that "most" applies either), but we all know that won't wash. This isn't horseshoes and close doesn't count. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are a minority -- you still count towards "all," and as long as you do, then it cannot be said that "all" people think in a way that you do not.

And I say that you people who supposedly think you're so scientific are trying to prove a negative.

Why not place the burden of proof on the people who claim such a thing?

Until they show up with proof....

Yes, and they should be required to prove it.


One could invent a timemachine and ask someone living 150 years ago if they believe their morality is the same as ours...

Well, I do agree about what you're saying about Christ teaching discernment. That's probably why I question whether your proposal is indeed a personal religion rather than a philosophy. I think part of the difficulty comes in mapping Discernment to that definition. If we are to make ethical and moral judgements on the basis of empathic insight on a case-by-case basis then that would seem to preclude the use of any "set" of either attitudes or practices. Perhaps even our beliefs are subject to a continuous re-evaluation as experience, understanding and circumstance dictate, though excepting standing up for the convictions of others, it is difficult to envisage where this might be exemplified.

In my limited studies, what strikes me in Jesus in his sermons and attitudes to the temples is precisely the approach that one should behave in such a way as though to surpass any set of principles, including those set up on the basis of surpassing previous sets of principles. It would seem to encourage a reactionary response to standards rather than a favourable one. For instance, we can imagine a hypothetical modern Jesus trumping his own advice and saying that we should walk a third mile when asked to walk one and it has been said that one should walk two.


While this is a noble ideal, whether Religion or otherwise, I also question whether it is the unique bearer of the title "Religion of Christianity". There are certainly many recognised "Christian" leaders (insert/delete quotation marks as appropriate) to whom this would seem like a heresy. You should see the flak Brian McLaren and his ilk get for a similar approach, regularly denounced as having strayed from Christianity despite proposing little more than what you're suggesting Christianity to be.

I think therefore that there are multiple, separate Religions that share the same name, which probably seems obvious. One of which is your own proposition, which a number of similarly identified Christians would be ready to accept (and, simultaneously, scrutinise unceasingly). Another of which is the very cult that Barringtonia sees in the right-wing evangelicals a-la Pat Robertson, the God Channel and so on. There will no doubt be many others, too.

The problem is, if they're of the same name, how can society at large seek to distinguish sufficiently between them, especially when one of them is so vocal and widespread? Certainly, if an individual is acting on the basis of discernment, this is unimportant, as they can look past the banners and identities to what the underlying message is. But when the means by which you teach discernment is being impeded by a louder voice that shares your name claiming that that name is a corporate identity itself, only those of an already discerning nature will be able to hear what you have to say, and it is probably these that least need to hear it.
What an outstanding post! :)

I bolded the last sentence because I think this points to the difference between the two sets of urges at work in the development of religiosity -- personal experience and social bonding -- and the individual variations that affect both of those. Like individuals with a propensity towards mystical/transcendental experiences, so too individuals with a propensity towards discernment/critical judgment in their thinking are less likely to be swayed by what others tell them about something. They will always seek to gain first-hand knowledge in order to make up their minds. They cannot do otherwise because their brains are hardwired to work that way. So it does not matter what the priest says about the message of Christ's teaching. The discerning Christian will always read the Bible himself, consider the teachings and what is taught about them, and make up his own mind.

Likewise for a Christian whose brain is hardwired differently, it really does not matter if Christ himself urged individual discernment of truth. That person is not able to do that because that is not how his brain works. He will always seek the guidance of a higher power/teacher/mentor. No matter how much such a person tries to use discernment, his attempts will always lead him to acceptance of the teachings of someone else or an attempt to integrate the whole package of all teachings, even contradictory ones.

Jacobia, being a discerning person capable of following the instruction to use discernment that he got from Christ himself (obviously also a discerning person), may think that non-discernment is not truly Christian, but I would say that is not really the case.

Discernment does not come from Christ. It is inherent or not within each person, and a person who has less of that ability cannot do it to the same degree as a person who has more of it. Period. If Christianity is going to claim to be a universal religion, then it cannot expect people to do things they simply cannot do. It can neither reject a person who cannot find their own way to the divine, nor a person who insists on finding their own way.

Yes, and they should be required to prove it.

Trying to prove the negative is illogical.

"All humans share the same moral code" is a negative? Hmmm... must be backwards day.

Yes, and they should be required to prove it.

Trying to prove the negative is illogical.

Hahaha! This is lovely. You make a positive assertion that cannot be proven, and you try to defend it by claiming that those who have made no assertion at all of their own should somehow prove the thing they never said. Proving a negative is not the only thing that is illogical, EO.

Understand: A critique about your assertion is not an assertion of its own. If I say that you have not proven your argument, all I have to do to prove that is point to the lack of proof connected to your argument. I do not have to prove another, different argument to validate the fact that you have not proven yours.

Haha, I was being too harsh with you - though you know you can be coy with the best of them -- coy, cute, all that sort of thing. :p

But we should remember that all we have of most periods of history is snapshots. The more recent the period, the more snapshots survive, but we still do not know and cannot know the whole, true story of what really, really happened for periods as recent as 300 years ago.

History is a game of filling in the blanks, of balancing facts with speculation. Some speculations are more reasonable than others because they have more snapshots that seem to back them up. Others are pure fantasy games for scientists/scholars. For instance, it always bothers me to see tv programs that show the detailed lifestyles and vocalizations of polka-dotted and rainbow-striped dinosaurs, as if there is anything at all in the fossil record to tell us this is how those animals looked, behaved, or sounded. There is not enough information in the few snapshots of dinosaurs we have to make such expansive connections between them and modern animals.

Likewise, it drives me nuts to see scholars pretend like they have evidence to back up their theories of what happened to the Neanderthals, considering the extremely meager actual materials we have to tell us anything at all about Neanderthals. It even bothers me to see scholars reconstruct ancient cities, complete with paint jobs and house plants, when they do not have records of how those particular people actually furnished/decorated their lives and are merely speculating based on what other, later cultures did.

But on the other hand, there is validity to the "if it looks, swims and quacks like a duck" approach, if it is properly applied.

So, if throughout all of the history we actually have, certain things have been done a certain way for certain reasons and always using certain kinds of artifacts, and we have proof that people outside the limits of historical record also had those same artifacts, I think it is a reasonable speculation to say that they were doing the same or similar things that historical people were doing. In addition, if the majority of well documented examples fall into a certain category (such as polytheism), then it is not unreasonable to suggest that less well documented but predominantly similar examples probably also fall into that category, or at least are more likely to do so than not. Then, for the sake of argument, we may proceed on the acknowledged assumption (acknowledging that it is an assumption) that this is the state of things.

When presented by unsupported extreme statements such as UB's or Soviet's, it is correct to point out that they cannot prove their assertions and therefore their arguments will be rejected.

But I think the way you presented your argument made you look like an extremist of the persnickety variety, rejecting any statement about the past that could not be immediately proven by documentary evidence. That is not how history works, because it would make it impossible to rely on any historical information at all.

It's a balancing act, and in countering UB's statements, you over-balanced in the opposite way, making arguments that were also flawed.

I got you figured... start out with the 'cute' and the 'coy', so I won't grumble at the implication that I (might have, one time, in all of recorded history *grin*) made a flawed statement...?

I'm not actually sure I object to being cast as an 'extremist of the persnickety variety', to be honest... I will always object to jumping to any conclusions, and always for the same reasons - I see it as fundamentally flawed to make unsupportable assumptions.

So - if I appear to be questioning what might be considered common knowledge... I'm okay with that - because 'common knowledge' has a habit of proving to be neither 'common', nor (oftentimes) actually 'knowledge'.

I don't think my argument is flawed - we really don't know much about the start of Sumerian traditions. We know even less about what came before it. To assume either monotheism or polytheism is to assume more than we can support.

It came on naturally? By ruling out the alternatives?

I was a Christian... I gradually realised I didn't actually believe what I was being sold. I haven't found another story that is any more convincing.

Implicit Atheist by default. No 'choices' made.

And I say that you people who supposedly think you're so scientific are trying to prove a negative.

Why not place the burden of proof on the people who claim such a thing?

Until they show up with proof....
Your closed-mindedness (which I have observed in many threads) apparently makes it difficult for you to read and follow long arguments.

1) Only one or two people in this thread has made the postive assertion that there is no god, and claimed science as support for their argument.

2) I am not one of those people.

3) The people who have made such an assertion have been countered with the same skepticism, by the same skeptics, as you have been countered by.

If you would bother to pay attention to the ongoing argument, rather than just jumping in with rants that you keep ready for any occasion, you will find that you make fewer embarrassing mistakes, such as assuming that people are supporting an argument that they are in fact attacking.

Your closed-mindedness (which I have observed in many threads) apparently makes it difficult for you to read and follow long arguments.

1) Only one or two people in this thread has made the postive assertion that there is no god, and claimed science as support for their argument.


You can't read what I type, which is why you think I have a problem.

I am saying (and I'll put it in all caps for you)

THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ASSERTING THAT RELIGION IS INNATE

So why bother trying to prove the negative?

I was a Christian... I gradually realised I didn't actually believe what I was being sold. I haven't found another story that is any more convincing.

Implicit Atheist by default. No 'choices' made.Wow. That's exactly my life story. However, I have never entirely ruled out the possibility that there are gods. I still stick to "I don't know".

I got you figured... start out with the 'cute' and the 'coy', so I won't grumble at the implication that I (might have, one time, in all of recorded history *grin*) made a flawed statement...?

I'm not actually sure I object to being cast as an 'extremist of the persnickety variety', to be honest... I will always object to jumping to any conclusions, and always for the same reasons - I see it as fundamentally flawed to make unsupportable assumptions.

So - if I appear to be questioning what might be considered common knowledge... I'm okay with that - because 'common knowledge' has a habit of proving to be neither 'common', nor (oftentimes) actually 'knowledge'.

I don't think my argument is flawed - we really don't know much about the start of Sumerian traditions. We know even less about what came before it. To assume either monotheism or polytheism is to assume more than we can support.
Fine, be that way. See how you are? :p

But as long as you know you're doing it, then I have no further complaint, though I still maintain that of all of UB's remarks, his cavalier claim about "all" ancient cultures was one of the less egregious mistakes, and to spend so much time on it is to wander too far from the sense of this debate.

You can't read what I type, which is why you think I have a problem.

I am saying (and I'll put it in all caps for you)

THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ASSERTING THAT RELIGION IS INNATE

So why bother trying to prove the negative?

I'm not sure where you got your argument from.

The thread was started with the premise that (some) people might be innately given towards 'religiosity', by Bottle - who isn't "the religious people". She based the thread around a premise I suggested. I, also, am not one of 'the religious people'.

I'm not sure where your 'argument' stands, on that basis.

You can't read what I type, which is why you think I have a problem.

I am saying (and I'll put it in all caps for you)

THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE ASSERTING THAT RELIGION IS INNATE

So why bother trying to prove the negative?

That doesn't make any sense. The negative of what? Connect the dots, EO. We acknowledge that some religious people have made that assertion. What negative are you now saying we shouldn't waste time with?

I'm not sure where you got your argument from.

The thread was started with the premise that (some) people might be innately given towards 'religiosity', by Bottle - who isn't "the religious people". She based the thread around a premise I suggested. I, also, am not one of 'the religious people'.

I'm not sure where your 'argument' stands, on that basis.

There seem to be people like Collins who posit that religion is innate.

So instead of trying to prove the negative, why not ask them for proof?

That doesn't make any sense. The negative of what? Connect the dots, EO. We acknowledge that some religious people have made that assertion. What negative are you now saying we shouldn't waste time with?

More proof that you don't bother reading my posts - you are just kneejerking what you think I'm saying.

I posted that Collins is a respected researcher who believes in God - he even wrote a book on the subject - I posted a link - And since he posits that religion is innate - why try to prove a negative?

Or did you not bother to connect the fucking dots I posted?

Wow. That's exactly my life story. However, I have never entirely ruled out the possibility that there are gods. I still stick to "I don't know".

I do also.

I'm 'implicit'... I lack faith. I don't have faith that there is a lack.

If the sig is distracting you, it is kind of by way of an experiment. It isn't a statement of my conviction.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

:rolleyes:

Leuba's study is inherently flawed. It doesn't address theisim and atheism. Instead, it focuses on a very particular type of theism. Any person who was essentially a deist would end up being labeled as an atheist by these questions. Polytheists likely would as well. In fact, anyone who simply took issue with the term "personal God" would do so. One could easily take that phrase to exclude a single universal God.

On top of that, IIRC, the question also included a phrase about "interfering with the world." Some would answer no because of the use of the word "interfere". Others would answer no because they don't think God meddles in the world much, if at all. And so on...

Not to mention that the poll was inherently skewed by viewing religion from the Judeo-Christian model. Most Eastern religions wouldn't be covered by the poll at all, and would likely be listed as atheists.

To pretend that this study says anything at all about the true proportion of theists and atheists even among those polled, much less among scientists as a whole.

There seem to be people like Collins who posit that religion is innate.

So instead of trying to prove the negative, why not ask them for proof?

Again, what negative? You mean, why try to prove that it is not innate? But that is called presenting an argument of one's own.

Party A posits that religion is innate. If Party B doubts that or disagrees, then all they have to do is ask for proof. It will either not come, or they will be presented with proofs they can critique.

Then, completely separately, Party B has an argument they want to posit, to wit that religion is not innate. Likewise, Party A can now ask for proof which will either come or not.

There are two different activities here. One is countering the other guy's argument. The other is presenting one's own argument.

Again, what negative? You mean, why try to prove that it is not innate? But that is called presenting an argument of one's own.

Party A posits that religion is innate. If Party B doubts that or disagrees, then all they have to do is ask for proof. It will either not come, or they will be presented with proofs they can critique.

I'm saying that you're Party B. And you don't have to present any argument - except poking holes in whatever Party A posits.

You don't have to make your own positive assertion about the innate nature of man.

Fine, be that way. See how you are? :p

But as long as you know you're doing it, then I have no further complaint, though I still maintain that of all of UB's remarks, his cavalier claim about "all" ancient cultures was one of the less egregious mistakes, and to spend so much time on it is to wander too far from the sense of this debate.

:)

Ah, you know me. I'll fight the big fights, but I can't just let a 'x is always true' logicslip pass.

If you truly can't back up your assertion any other way than by ignoring Soheran's evidence, the point pretty much goes to Soheran, regardless of said ignoring, because you can rest assured that not all of us ignored it.

Soheran's evidence doesn't demonstrate what Soheran or the researchers who carried it out says it does. They used questions based upon Leuba's study (and this article also mentions Leuba's study) - questions that are inherently flawed and would label a very large proportion of theists as atheists or non-believers.

The study is flawed, so we can draw no real conclusions about the proportions of theists and atheists in science from it. At best, we can say that there is no evidence to suggest that scientists are any less likely to be religious than any other group. From this data, if the polling method were random, we could draw the conclusion that scientists are less likely to characterize their beliefs as including a personal God - whatever they might make of that term.

I do also.

I'm 'implicit'... I lack faith. I don't have faith that there is a lack.

If the sig is distracting you, it is kind of by way of an experiment. It isn't a statement of my conviction.Well, you know I took your sig and adjusted it to be a statement of my conviction. If that is the right word. *looks up 'conviction'* And in a forum with lots of US Christians and Jews, that's quite an experiment, too.

More proof that you don't bother reading my posts - you are just kneejerking what you think I'm saying.

I posted that Collins is a respected researcher who believes in God - he even wrote a book on the subject - I posted a link - And since he posits that religion is innate - why try to prove a negative?

Or did you not bother to connect the fucking dots I posted?

Again, define what you mean by negative. Are you implying that Collins should not be challenged because you respect him? Or because a respected writer holds a certain opinion, no one should bother holding a different one? Are you suggesting that the writer's resume is proof of his assertions?

Or do you mean something else by "negative"?

There seem to be people like Collins who posit that religion is innate.

So instead of trying to prove the negative, why not ask them for proof?

I'm not sure where the 'trying to prove a negative' comes in. I think maybe we are confused. This thread is about whether the 'tendency' towards being religious might be innate... introducing a source that claims we are all christian until we oppose our nature, or some such... doesn't address the original topic. And... now you seem bogged down in trying to get someone here... to prove what some other (not here, I assume) person says...?

I'm saying that you're Party B. And you don't have to present any argument - except poking holes in whatever Party A posits.

You don't have to make your own positive assertion about the innate nature of man.
OK, my friend, you need to read the whole posts. I read your whole posts. You need to read mine, too, if you're going to respond to them. If you read my whole post, you will see what role Party B actually plays in a reciprocal debate. As Party B, I am allowed to present my own argument, even at the same time that you present yours. Get it?

EDIT: In other words, I don't have to present my own argument to counter yours, but why shouldn't I present my argument if I have one?

And by the way, in case you missed it, I am not a person arguing that religion is not innate. My position is more nuanced than that. Kindly read back through the thread.

:)

Ah, you know me. I'll fight the big fights, but I can't just let a 'x is always true' logicslip pass.
Oh, all right, then. ;)

I agree that this survey does in fact evidence that the people found in the AMS were majoritively atheist and that in comparison the people found in the NAS are more atheist based on this study. That's not the conclusion you're claiming, but it is the only valid conclusion based on the evidence presented.

Actually, that isn't a valid conclusion based on the evidence at all. All they can say is that most of those polled did not believe in a personal God. One can certainly be a theist and not characterize the deity or deities you believe in as "personal".

This is the problem with religiosity studies. One has to be VERY careful with the wording of the questions. Even then, an inherent bias is overwhelmingly likely.

Well, you know I took your sig and adjusted it to be a statement of my conviction. If that is the right word. *looks up 'conviction'* And in a forum with lots of US Christians and Jews, that's quite an experiment, too.

I noticed. :) I think you've now spawned your own response - I think someone now has a sig that reads: "There Is No United Beleriand".

If I were to create a sig that was an accurate statement of my conviction, it would read something more along the lines of "I'm Not Sure What The Truth Is... But I'm Still Looking". But, that doesn't really make the point I wanted to make in the thread that spawned this sig... and it isn't nearly so concise, and is much less likely to elicit the sort of responses I hoped for/expected.

Okay, I know this comment wasn't directed at me, and this is a TOTAL tangent and just an opportunity for me to brag shamelessly, but...

I just received notice from the NIDCD that I got a predoctoral grant for my thesis studies on the structure and function of medial vestibular nucleus neurons! Huzzah and merrymaking!

Grats!


I'd share about the grant my lab recently got for the work I'm doing, but it wouldn't be relevant to the current discussion. =)

Ok, I'll weigh in.

Yes, it's a choice. But, a lot of us feel compelled to make that choice, because of the nature of consciousness.

This is my opinion about consciousness, its relation to spirituality, and the human need for religion. This is not to say that all people “need” religion – but it is a common social construct across cultures, even those that have had little or no prior contact with each other.

Consciousness
We first consider consciousness – and the problems inherent in defining it, or even observing it by scientific means – and its existence as a self-referential “bootstrapping” event.

Ronald Laing, a Scottish psychiatrist, defines a "person" (as opposed to a physical being), "in a twofold way; in terms of experience, as a center of orientation of the objective universe; and in terms of behavior, as the origin of actions." ... "My experience and my action occur in a social field of reciprocal influence and interaction."

This is a self-referential or "bootstrapped" approach in which a "person" is defined only through his/her relationships with others. The process for this definition is the recursive interaction between "experience" and behavioral response. Laing makes the point that we can never understand "people" using the mechanical causal logic of "things". We will only understand them by trying to see into their experiences. However, our modern western culture thinks almost exclusively in material-causal terms, hence the large red warning flag raised by Laing with respect to what we call "normality".

Goedel's theorem is a theorem which says that there is a limit to logical constructs, theorems etc. which can be built from material-causal (Aristotelian) logic, beyond which such linear tools cannot hope to securely expose self-consistent truths and where the tools can lead us deeply into false inference. The limit is inherent in the proposition that "all Cretans are liars". This proposition, the liars paradox of the Greeks, was the avenue of attack used by Goedel in formulating his proof.

The difference in the "all Cretans are liars" proposition from countless other material-causal propositions that we could make, such as "all Cretans have two legs", is that we have given the Cretans "consciousness" in this liars paradox. That is, they must be "conscious" of truth before they can lie. Thus in the attempt to prove that the liars paradox is provable or disprovable using material-causal logic, mechanical thinking comes into a direct confrontation with "consciousness", and can't deal with it.

Consciousness is thus beyond linear logic, but that does not say that it is beyond reasoning, As David Bohm says; "Rational law is not restricted to an expression of CAUSALITY." ... "... a rational explanation takes the form; 'As things are related in a certain idea or concept, so they are related in fact.'" This opens the door to an acceptance of a natural order between things which is essentially a "massless" phenomena. As Bohm argues, the full perception of gravity experienced by Newton, based on Newton's notes, could be expressed; "as with the order of movement of an apple in fall, so with that of the moon and so with all." The natural order characterizing the dynamic interrelationships between things was dropped out of this experience by Newton in framing gravity in terms of material-causal logic; i.e. F = g*m1*m2/d**2.

The inclusion of natural order in rational thought opens the door to concepts such as bootstrapping where a web of interrelationships can be used in a self-defining context. The bootstrapping concept makes use of this view of nature in which there is a natural "order" through which every subsystem consists of all other subsystems. This is consistent with Heraclitus' view of nature as being an unfolding dynamic "ordered" by the "logos", the inherent coherency underlying everything.

The bootstrapping principle implies a natural reality in which everything references everything else, a "holographic" situation. Bootstrapping, seen in this way, is about building a holographic (conscious) view of things.

As Ronald Laing pointed out, people ARE IN THEMSELVES holographic or "bootstrapped" constructs in that their "person" is defined by a self-referential recursion between the experience and behavior of themself and those with whom they interact. And Laing's lament is that people do not accept the role of complex experience (including fantasy and negation) as their self-engendering agent and are thus alienating themselves from nature; "What we call 'normal' is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience."

It seems clear from the evolving history of scientific thought, which is just now opening its doors to nonlinear concepts such as bootstrapping; and, indeed, proclaiming that this technique is capable of unifying our view of the whole of nature, that we have heretofore tried to force-fit linear, material-causal explanations on all of our existence and experience. What has this meant? For one thing, it has meant all those things that Laing iterates above which are involved in the alienation of our own complex experience. It has meant the denial of our own consciousness.

Consciousness IS bootstrapping. So when science says that bootstrapping shall provide the ultimate understanding of nature, it is something of a tautology. It is like saying; Let's begin to accept and embrace our consciousness so that we, as an enfolded part of nature, can understand ourselves.

In mathematical terms, our mind has the ability to handle the imagery of extended self-referential relationships which mathematically, are expressible only in higher dimensional space. Linear, material-causal logic, which we insist on using to explain all experience, is UNCONSCIOUS AND LOW DIMENSIONAL. This is why the Artificial Intelligence people have been so confident that AI will be able to reproduce human consciousness. It is because the target we are setting for ourselves is not true consciousness at all but a bastardized mechanical surrogate which we have erroneously labelled consciousness.
So, the AI folks are right, it is very likely that machines will be able to reproduce the kind of "consciousness" which will be able to leverage the self-alienation which plagues us today.

As Laing says, "the life I am trying to grasp is the me that is trying to grasp it." It seems time to accept and embrace this self-referentiality, frightening as it is in its limitlessness, going on forever like the endless Celtic knot; a fractal trajectory in eternal inconsumate courtship with strange attractors defined by its own ex nihilo "being".

Spirituality – a level higher than self-alienated individual consciousness?

When we look at individual religions, we notice a common thread – not necessarily one of God (since some religions have no God, as in Buddhism), but one of a deeper need for interconnectedness – not just with other people, but with the universe itself. Whether through prayer or meditation, or through the use of drugs such as mushrooms, or through ascetic practices such as fasting and flagellation, there seems to be a common attempt to reach a higher level of consciousness. Even people who are not religious, such as Timothy Leary, attempted to reach a higher level of consciousness by using LSD. Why is it that people find communal use of certain drugs such as ecstasy and even simple marihuana to be a better experience than use alone? Why is orgasm better with another person as opposed to solitary masturbation?

Why do people in various religions gather together for worship, prayer, and mutual experience? If consciousness is “all in our heads” and simultaneously more than “in our heads” due to the bootstrapping feedback cycle between our minds and our world, is spirituality an attempt to bootstrap to a higher contact between ourselves and the universe? When people gather together, whether for godless meditation, or for worshipping a God or Gods, what or who are we trying to contact?

Humans, like any other biological creature, reproduce. However, we note that any organism does not have the “right” to reproduce – it can certainly overextend its own environment. Given a certain birth rate, it is only a matter of time before resources are exhausted – even given the capability to move to a large number of inhabitable worlds. What limits our capability in this area is consciousness – it is a fundamental survival attribute of humans (as opposed to most other creatures on this planet). Consciousness is the means by which instincts and drives can be controlled. Human birth is not a “miracle,” nor is life itself; these are mindless, spiritless biological processes. What is a miracle is consciousness. It is the direct intervention of spirit in the world. Ever-increasing quantity of human life threatens the existence of consciousness. The miracle lies in choosing alternatives to this biological progression… Sex does not have to mean reproduction, nor does anger have to mean physical violence. Our manifestations of the variations of religion and spirituality are the mechanism we have grown for ourselves to help bootstrap ourselves to this higher level of consciouness – our need for such a mechanism is self-referential and self-reinforcing – and is held at a deeper level than simple logic would dictate.

Here I apply the concepts just discussed, but in the light of my own experience with Christianity. I welcome other interpretations and other religions in your own experience – even those that have been experienced by atheists who may have had what amounts to a spiritual experience.

What is important in any religion is the personal connection it makes with the spiritual, and the transformative power that connection holds for that individual. What is unimportant in religion is the social doctrine that grows up around it, for doctrine and dogma too often interfere with the spiritual connection… The essential truth of Christianity, or of any religion, for that matter, is not found in its history, nor in its theology, nor in its “morality”; the essential truth lies in the nature of what must be believed. For Christianity, what must be believed is the Absolute Paradox, the thing which is impossible for reason, even conscious reason, to understand and comprehend: that God and Man became one and the same, that the eternal and infinite became temporal and finite, that a logical and empirical paradox came into existence. The capacity for faith – a belief in that which neither reason nor custom nor history can explain – is unique to consciousness. Faith is a reaching of consciousness towards an archetype, a leap beyond the mental faculties, a bootstrapping event, a connection of spirit and mind through an archetypal image. The leap of faith does for Christianity what participation mystique does for the old religions – it reconnects the conscious mind with the spirit, in Christianity’s case bootstrapping consciousness by the archetype of the Absolute Paradox.

In short, it is possible that our consciousnesses, which we perceive as individual, may be part of a greater whole - a holographic whole - and we feel a need to reassociate ourselves with each other as well as a perceived greater whole.

Actually, that isn't a valid conclusion based on the evidence at all. All they can say is that most of those polled did not believe in a personal God. One can certainly be a theist and not characterize the deity or deities you believe in as "personal".

True.

So there are a number of possibilities:

1. A large number of American scientists believe in a "god" they do not classify as a "personal" god. Sorry, I'm with Dawkins on this one. They aren't really theists - at least not as the term is usually used.
2. A large number of Amerian scientists are religious in a non-Abrahamic sense: perhaps they subscribe by Eastern religions, or are polytheists, or something of the sort. I have no studies on hand that prove this wrong, but I find it hard to believe.
3. The conclusion of the study is correct, and a majority of American scientists are atheists or agnostics.

*snip*snip*snip*snip*snip*snip*snip*snip*snip
uh... did you just copy and paste that all in, or actually write it?

uh... did you just copy and paste that all in, or actually write it?

I posted it a LONG LONG TIME AGO...

I posted it a LONG LONG TIME AGO...
On GoodShare.org (http://www.goodshare.org/)?

However, the fact that you've just copied and pasted it doesn't change that it probably has some validity. Indeed, that the individual derives much of what we understand as conscious activity from their environment is a subtle yet valuable fact, and what it says about spirituality is interesting, since while I personally don't put much truck to what it says about the origin of consciousness, at least a degree of thought has gone into it and the author has shown himself to be no sheep.

Ok, I'll weigh in.

Yes, it's a choice. But, a lot of us feel compelled to make that choice, because of the nature of consciousness.

This is my opinion about consciousness, its relation to spirituality, and the human need for religion...

...In short, it is possible that our consciousnesses, which we perceive as individual, may be part of a greater whole - a holographic whole - and we feel a need to reassociate ourselves with each other as well as a perceived greater whole.

Very... big. Unless I missed it, though - it doesn't actually deal with whether or not there is some neural design that makes some people more 'likely' to be religious.

Or - is the point of the block, that you are arguing we are all hardwired for god?

On GoodShare.org (http://www.goodshare.org/)?

However, the fact that you've just copied and pasted it doesn't change that it probably has some validity. Indeed, that the individual derives much of what we understand as conscious activity from their environment is a subtle yet valuable fact, and what it says about spirituality is interesting, since while I personally don't put much truck to what it says about the origin of consciousness, at least a degree of thought has gone into it and the author has shown himself to be no sheep.

No, here on NSG.

*takes off the sheet*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790939&postcount=1

Very... big. Unless I missed it, though - it doesn't actually deal with whether or not there is some neural design that makes some people more 'likely' to be religious.

Or - is the point of the block, that you are arguing we are all hardwired for god?

It's not that God necessarily exists, but our consciousness does, and since our consciousness (and our internal wiring) is holographic (destroying a part of your brain doesn't wipe out much), we have the urge to be reunited with a larger whole.

It's even possible that since we experience things together "better" than alone, there may be indeed a universal subconscious that people in religious activities are tapping into (of course, sex and drugs can tap into these as well).

No, here on NSG.

*takes off the sheet*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790939&postcount=1
Still looks rather like this.

*Takes off the next sheet*
http://www.goodshare.org/conscien.htm

Fair enough if you've taken a little inspiration from elsewhere. ;)

It's not that God necessarily exists, but our consciousness does, and since our consciousness (and our internal wiring) is holographic (destroying a part of your brain doesn't wipe out much), we have the urge to be reunited with a larger whole.

It's even possible that since we experience things together "better" than alone, there may be indeed a universal subconscious that people in religious activities are tapping into (of course, sex and drugs can tap into these as well).
our consciousness is holographic? in what way?

It's not that God necessarily exists, but our consciousness does, and since our consciousness (and our internal wiring) is holographic (destroying a part of your brain doesn't wipe out much), we have the urge to be reunited with a larger whole.

It's even possible that since we experience things together "better" than alone, there may be indeed a universal subconscious that people in religious activities are tapping into (of course, sex and drugs can tap into these as well).

I'm not saying god exists... I am saying, is your conjecture that we are all hardwired the same way? And that that 'setting'... what? Makes some more likely to be attracted to (something about) religion? Makes us all equally likely to be religious? Makes us all seek something, and some of us will accept religion?

How does your premise connect to the opening post, and the original premise within it?

No, here on NSG.

*takes off the sheet*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790939&postcount=1

*looks shocked* The hell you say.

I'm not saying god exists... I am saying, is your conjecture that we are all hardwired the same way? And that that 'setting'... what? Makes some more likely to be attracted to (something about) religion? Makes us all equally likely to be religious? Makes us all seek something, and some of us will accept religion?

How does your premise connect to the opening post, and the original premise within it?
The supposition of the article, I guess, is that rather than an internal wiring pointing any given individual human to God or Religion, the tendency towards them arises from the biology of collectivism in a similar, "holographic" manner (as he puts it) as does human consciousness. Just as human consciousness supposedly encourages organs to work together to give motion and life to the whole, so too does this social consciousness encourage congregation of a spiritual nature.

I'm not saying god exists... I am saying, is your conjecture that we are all hardwired the same way?

Yes. The proof is in the holographic nature of memory, which has been proven over and over again during surgical damage to the brain.


And that that 'setting'... what? Makes some more likely to be attracted to (something about) religion? Makes us all equally likely to be religious? Makes us all seek something, and some of us will accept religion?

All of the above. It encourages experiments in group consciouness, whether through singing, religion, prayer, drugs, sex, dancing, etc. Since this also encourages us to work together on common goals, it has probably shown some survival value.

How does your premise connect to the opening post, and the original premise within it?

So the question of the thread is…

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


Yes.

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?

Everyone has the predisposition - it's just that they accept other outlets for the feeding of the need for group consciousness.

True.

So there are a number of possibilities:

1. A large number of American scientists believe in a "god" they do not classify as a "personal" god. Sorry, I'm with Dawkins on this one. They aren't really theists - at least not as the term is usually used.

Anyone who believes in a god or gods is a theist, by definition. One might argue that they aren't religious, as the term is usually used. They might be the "spiritual, but not religious" types or even the, "Sure, there's a god, but I'm not going to worry about it" types, or any other number of things most people wouldn't label "religious." But no one with any sense of the word theist could claim that such people are atheist.

2. A large number of Amerian scientists are religious in a non-Abrahamic sense: perhaps they subscribe by Eastern religions, or are polytheists, or something of the sort. I have no studies on hand that prove this wrong, but I find it hard to believe.

I would guess, from my own experiences anyways, that scientists are unlikely to be members of any organized religion. Our minds are too geared to question and be skeptical of everything to accept religion handed down from others. Instead, scientists who are religious (or spiritual or theist or whatever word you wish to use) tend to have their own viewpoints drawn from a variety of sources. They may self-identify with one religious group or other, but even those among that group would often deny them such status.

Meanwhile, even members of an Abrahamic religion might answer "no" to a question about a personal God, depending on how they interpreted the wording. Given the room to give more than a yes or no answer, they might say something like, "No, God is universal," interpreting the descriptor "personal" to refer to a God specific to a person or group of people.

3. The conclusion of the study is correct, and a majority of American scientists are atheists or agnostics.

The study cannot demonstrate that. It's certainly possible, although most other studies I've seen on the subject have contradicted that. But this study cannot in any way be used as evidence of that, as the study itself is so inherently flawed.

Not only were the questions flawed but, as Jocabia pointed out, the methods were flawed. They didn't get a representative sampling of all scientists. Instead, they polled a very small sub-section - and one that would include scientists in a very specific branch of science.

Yes. The proof is in the holographic nature of memory, which has been proven over and over again during surgical damage to the brain.Surgical damage to the brain will lead to loss of functionality. What are you talking about?


Yes.This "yes" is based on what?

Yes. The proof is in the holographic nature of memory, which has been proven over and over again during surgical damage to the brain.


No, I'm not getting it.

How does the nature of memory - holographic or otherwise - 'prove' that we are all (equally) wired (or - not wired maybe) for tendency towards religiosity?

Recall isn't the only thing that happens in a brain... and, while it may impact the continuation of adherence to one specific religion, I'm not sure 'memory' alone can be shown to account for inclination to approach religion, at inception.

On the other hand - we can observe that functional areas of the brain respond to 'spiritual' stimulus, and we can create laboratory 'spiritual' experiences by stimulation of functional areas of the brain. These experiences may have some contingent impact (or demand) on memory, but their functionality is independent of memory.... so what is the connection with your 'holographic memory' model?

Why, given effectively identical stimuli over a prolonged period - do some people achive a strong affinity for religion, some achieve a casual affinity, and some find no affinity? It looks like it parallels the kind of activity we see in addictive personality... an innate prediliction in some subjects.

The 'holographic memory' model seems to be kind of 'off-topic' for this...?

Surgical damage to the brain will lead to loss of functionality. What are you talking about?


Exactly - we seem to be talking about something 'functional', and the 'holographic memory' mdoel doesn't (seem to) address this.

Exactly - we seem to be talking about something 'functional', and the 'holographic memory' mdoel doesn't (seem to) address this.No, really, what is this about? Holonomic brain theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory)? I don't get it...

No, really, what is this about? Holonomic brain theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory)? I don't get it...

Basically - it seems to boil down to something like: our actions (and reactions) are actually fairly simple reactions to stimuli (from any of the five senses, and - perhaps -from 'internal' stimuli), filtered through a kind of 'survival-of-the-fittest' mechanism in our brains... a program that 'filters' according to what has worked before... and what achieves good results.

The connection to the 'holographic memory' model seems to be that they are arguing the 'program' through which everything is filtered, is a kind of 'mask' - stored as a holographic image.

That's what I get, anyway... :)

I believe that people can choose whether or not to be religious, because humans posses free will. I don't mean free will necessarily in the Biblical sense, though I am Christian. I mean that even if there is some genetic predisposition in some people to make them religious it doesn't mean that they will be. Think about people who are brought up in homes where the religion is important to the parents and grandparents, but the child grows up atheist/agnostic, or even people whose family was not religious but the child grows up believing in a religion.

Maybe a better example would be to look at alcoholism. My mother's father was an alcoholic, and so are (or in some cases, were) her brothers and sister. My mother knows that she likely has a predisposition towards alcoholism, but she chooses to drink in moderation. It's rare that she would have more than two or three drinks a month. I guess the main point of this rambling* post is that people are free to make decisions about their lifestyle, regardless of genetics.

*Apologies for the rambling.

No, I'm not getting it.

How does the nature of memory - holographic or otherwise - 'prove' that we are all (equally) wired (or - not wired maybe) for tendency towards religiosity?

Recall isn't the only thing that happens in a brain... and, while it may impact the continuation of adherence to one specific religion, I'm not sure 'memory' alone can be shown to account for inclination to approach religion, at inception.

On the other hand - we can observe that functional areas of the brain respond to 'spiritual' stimulus, and we can create laboratory 'spiritual' experiences by stimulation of functional areas of the brain. These experiences may have some contingent impact (or demand) on memory, but their functionality is independent of memory.... so what is the connection with your 'holographic memory' model?

Why, given effectively identical stimuli over a prolonged period - do some people achive a strong affinity for religion, some achieve a casual affinity, and some find no affinity? It looks like it parallels the kind of activity we see in addictive personality... an innate prediliction in some subjects.

The 'holographic memory' model seems to be kind of 'off-topic' for this...?

We have a holographic memory. A side effect of this is that we feel unfulfilled, in a group contact or group memory sense.

We feel that a part exists, but is missing. We even have a sense of what that part might be, but we can't put a name to it.

Some satisfy this urge to reunite with the missing part through various activities - of which religion is one.

And yes, it's addictive because it is so innate.

Okay, I know this comment wasn't directed at me, and this is a TOTAL tangent and just an opportunity for me to brag shamelessly, but...

I just received notice from the NIDCD that I got a predoctoral grant for my thesis studies on the structure and function of medial vestibular nucleus neurons! Huzzah and merrymaking!

woooohoooo!!! congratulations!!

let the research begin!

Basically - it seems to boil down to something like: our actions (and reactions) are actually fairly simple reactions to stimuli (from any of the five senses, and - perhaps -from 'internal' stimuli), filtered through a kind of 'survival-of-the-fittest' mechanism in our brains... a program that 'filters' according to what has worked before... and what achieves good results.

The connection to the 'holographic memory' model seems to be that they are arguing the 'program' through which everything is filtered, is a kind of 'mask' - stored as a holographic image.

That's what I get, anyway... :)But this 'mask' is an acquired feature, not an innate one.

We have a holographic memory. A side effect of this is that we feel unfulfilled, in a group contact or group memory sense.

We feel that a part exists, but is missing. We even have a sense of what that part might be, but we can't put a name to it.

Some satisfy this urge to reunite with the missing part through various activities - of which religion is one.

And yes, it's addictive because it is so innate.

I don't feel that "a part exists, but is missing".

Add to which, even if your model could be shown to be a rule that I am the only exception to... why do some people tend towards religion as the fulfillment of this 'need'? And - others just don't.

I'm sorry - but this is all coming across as classic Snake Oil trading.

I don't feel that "a part exists, but is missing".

Add to which, even if your model could be shown to be a rule that I am the only exception to... why do some people tend towards religion as the fulfillment of this 'need'? And - others just don't.

I'm sorry - but this is all coming across as classic Snake Oil trading.

Maybe you're fulfilling the need in some other way.