NationStates Jolt Archive

But this 'mask' is an acquired feature, not an innate one.

Yes, it is portrayed as an evolutionary process. One assumes 'masks' are constantly acquired, and that this 'reward recognition' component decides which 'mask' best fits the survival paradigm, and thus maintains or updates the active 'filter'.

I see where you are going... if we argue the holographic memory model as an 'innate' reason why we are all looking for various truths, the holonomic model says the particular process we follow is (definitively) not innate.

Yes, it is portrayed as an evolutionary process. One assumes 'masks' are constantly acquired, and that this 'reward recognition' component decides which 'mask' best fits the survival paradigm, and thus maintains or updates the active 'filter'.

I see where you are going... if we argue the holographic memory model as an 'innate' reason why we are all looking for various truths, the holonomic model says the particular process we follow is (definitively) not innate.

so is there a good way to combine the two, because that makes sense.

Maybe you're fulfilling the need in some other way.

See, Snake Oil. You are trying to sell me a 'need' so you can push this 'cure'. When you meet someone who doesn't respond to the 'need' speech, you assert they are already cured.

Why should I buy this?

See, Snake Oil. You are trying to sell me a 'need' so you can push this 'cure'. When you meet someone who doesn't respond to the 'need' speech, you assert they are already cured.

Why should I buy this?

The cure could be sex, in my model. Or a lot of things.

The cure could be sex, in my model. Or a lot of things.
What's your model again? :rolleyes:

so is there a good way to combine the two, because that makes sense.

Except that the two models conflict.

If you assert we are all wired the same, because we all use the 'holographic memory' mdoel (I'm still not convinced you can connect the two), the holonomic brain model suggests we are not all wired the same.

After all (assuming both models) - if we were all wired the same, we'd react about the same way to about the same stimuli.

(The same basic 'mask' would be made, and the same basic stimuli processed).

What's your model again? :rolleyes:

holographic memory

The cure could be sex, in my model. Or a lot of things.

That's the cure. You asserted a 'need'... for which I haven't seen any evidence. And, you can't seem to address why it might be sex for me but 'god' for someone else.

holographic memorycan you explain that in your own words?

Anyone who believes in a god or gods is a theist, by definition.

I believe in the beauty of the universe. If I were to call it "God" I would be no less of an atheist for doing so.

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.

Only if they were completely unfamiliar with the usual use of the term "personal God."

Sorry if I'm skeptical.

Instead, they polled a very small sub-section - and one that would include scientists in a very specific branch of science.

How so?

*looks shocked* The hell you say.

i NEVER would have guessed!

I believe in the beauty of the universe. If I were to call it "God" I would be no less of an atheist for doing so.

If you believed that the "beauty of the universe" were a deity, that would make you a theist, by definition.

Only if they were completely unfamiliar with the usual use of the term "personal God."

Most people don't really use the term much at all - even most religious people. That's the whole problem. Leuba took one religious viewpoint, made it the religious viewpoint, and formed questions using it. He (and those who have modeled later studies after it) then labeled anyone who answered "no" as an atheist.

Even I would have to question someone on exactly what they meant by "personal God", and I'm a Christian - one of the groups in which the term may often be used. I've heard it used in all sorts of ways - and I've heard all sorts of people who wouldn't use it, for any number of reasons. There really is no "usual use" of the term. You might be able to broadly characterize general use of the term, but when you get down to asking people about their personal beliefs, it gets much more messy.

Sorry if I'm skeptical.

Skepticism is good. Now point it in the right direction. Even a cursory look at the study of religiosity tells you that such study is a pain in the ass. Religion is so different from individual to individual, that you almost have to have an in-depth conversation with someone before you can categorize their beliefs - if you even can.

How so?

A list of authors from a single journal? That pretty much narrows it down to a specific field - probably even a subset of that field.

It also limits to those who actually wish to be published in (and therefore submit to) that journal. In my experience, every lab has its favorite journals that it is more likely to submit to. There are some that anyone would be happy to get into, but they're still very field specific. I work in a biology/bioengineering lab. We might submit to stem cell journals, reactive oxygen species journals, biomaterials journals, etc. If we get something really exciting, we'll submit to Nature/Nature:Medicine/etc. But I couldn't even name a prestigious physics journal. I could only name one or two chemistry journals. And so on.....

If you believed that the "beauty of the universe" were a deity, that would make you a theist, by definition.

Not if your conception of "deity" is radically different from the conventional one.

There really is no "usual use" of the term. You might be able to broadly characterize general use of the term, but when you get down to asking people about their personal beliefs, it gets much more messy.

I'll grant this - but then, Jocabia's original claim, which after all is what I was contesting, that the majority of scientists are theists, is just as questionable.

This problem is not specific to this poll, but to polls on this subject generally.

A list of authors from a single journal?

No. Their source was American Men of Science (now American Men and Women of Science).

Not if your conception of "deity" is radically different from the conventional one.



I'll grant this - but then, Jocabia's original claim, which after all is what I was contesting, that the majority of scientists are theists, is just as questionable.

This problem is not specific to this poll, but to polls on this subject generally.

Sure, if you redefinite to mean something other than the definition. I say theist means person. Proof. Or you know we could use the conventional definition as that would make the most sense.


No. Their source was the American Men of Science (now the American Men and Women of Science).

Which is a list of scientists in a journal/biographical reference. You have to qualify for inclusion which by definition makes it not a random sampling.

Not if your conception of "deity" is radically different from the conventional one.

Conventional doesn't matter. The word theist requires belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Every conception of "deity" is different from the next. It doesn't matter if your conception meets some arbitrary "norm" or not. If you have a conception of a deity, and you believe in it, you are a theist.

Besides, the conception of God as nature is hardly a new one - or even an unusual one.

I'll grant this - but then, Jocabia's original claim, which after all is what I was contesting, that the majority of scientists are theists, is just as questionable.

Questionable, yes. More likely based on what evidence we actually have? Absolutely. The majority of people are theists. Scientists are people. Until we have some sort of evidence to separate scientists from the rest of the population in this regard, it makes much more sense to state that most scientists are theists than to state otherwise.

This problem is not specific to this poll, but to polls on this subject generally.

Indeed, but this poll is exceedingly obvious in its flaws. To be fair, it wasn't carried out by sociologists who regularly study religiosity. And it those who did carry it out don't seem to have consulted such sociologists.

No. Their source was American Men of Science (now American Men and Women of Science).

Ah, you are correct. I must have been thinking of something else.

Of course, that still narrows the field quite a bit. How do the editors of AMS choose the people who are nominated? It isn't really clear. They say you have to have made some sort of significant achievement in your field, but that statement is rather subjective. It gets narrowed even further with the fact that the only scientists included are those who bother to take the time to fill out the questionnaire and send it back (I certainly don't have numbers on this, but I wouldn't guess that the percentages are high).

I really don't think you can get an accurate depiction of scientists as a whole from a book like this.

Conventional doesn't matter. The word theist requires belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less.

Every conception of "deity" is different from the next. It doesn't matter if your conception meets some arbitrary "norm" or not. If you have a conception of a deity, and you believe in it, you are a theist.

Besides, the conception of God as nature is hardly a new one - or even an unusual one.



Questionable, yes. More likely based on what evidence we actually have? Absolutely. The majority of people are theists. Scientists are people. Until we have some sort of evidence to separate scientists from the rest of the population in this regard, it makes much more sense to state that most scientists are theists than to state otherwise.



Indeed, but this poll is exceedingly obvious in its flaws. To be fair, it wasn't carried out by sociologists who regularly study religiosity. And it those who did carry it out don't seem to have consulted such sociologists.



Ah, you are correct. I must have been thinking of something else.

Of course, that still narrows the field quite a bit. How do the editors of AMS choose the people who are nominated? It isn't really clear. They say you have to have made some sort of significant achievement in your field, but that statement is rather subjective. It gets narrowed even further with the fact that the only scientists included are those who bother to take the time to fill out the questionnaire and send it back (I certainly don't have numbers on this, but I wouldn't guess that the percentages are high).

I really don't think you can get an accurate depiction of scientists as a whole from a book like this.

One of the sources this very limited study was the people in the NAS who are, of course a very elite group of scientists. Its biggest criticism is that it has a political agenda. That hardly makes it representative of the population of scientists. As such any conclusion based on it and extended to the entire population will be flawed.

The older source is the AMS. And as you pointed out it is reserved for those who apply, who must first be nominated, and then are subjectively selected.

It also does not have any real advantages except for maybe a bit of a star on your chest. I don't see why anyone would actually attempt to get inserted and I don't know of any scientists, and I know more than a few, who are actually in the list. Also, I can't seem to find a fixed number of people in it. I know if it compares to the number of scientists in the NAS (which the study compared to the AMS) then it's a very small percentage of American scientists, and an even smaller percentage of scientists in the world.

The AMS lists about 20% of scientists and engineers in the country and NAS represents about .1%. Hardly representative since their sampling isn't random.

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.

Just to clarify on these points:

I do not, her claim was that having A's in what I assume are A levels, means she fully understands science, it does not - I chose neurophysiology as it's currently the best means of showing why we are susceptible to memorising and transmitting information, which leads to religion but does not mean religion is innate - information processing is the innate function of our brain - to Muryavets: I was not 'discerning' - science does not need 'discernment'

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

I cannot see why it's not a sentence - perhaps it's your comprehension skills :)

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?

I need to edit this post as I need to see what this point refers to - edit: right, I'm really beginning to question your comprehension skills now, 'he didn't understand science in any way' - how on earth do you draw that conclusion from the post?

Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Clearly he was a genius :)

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

This has been provided to some degree by another poster, I need to read that but I'd like to make another point here:

Scientists need to earn money for research purposes. This is a very political process since funding can be withheld, at the highest levels (see POTUS - stem cell research), if it's deemed to be contrary to God's teachings. Let us remember there's a raging debate about evolution, which you can claim is localised to a 'sect' but it affects national and state policy - hardly a 'sect'.

This puts scientists in a tricky position, do they run they risk of having funding cut or do they play the political game? Despite this, scientists are still dropping in number regards religion daily and being open about it.

Finally, your continued assumptions that I'm ranting or upset can probably be explained by the psychological concept of transference:

That is, because you are angry, you are reading my posts in an angry way and therefore seeing my posts as angrily written, when I can assure you, they're not.

Francis S. Collins on Colbert - http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=79238&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Flnk%3Dv%26ml_video%3D79238&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Francis S. Collins gets caught in the same inconsistencies as pro-religious posters are getting caught in, by a comedian :)

Eve Online makes a very good point if I've read correctly. The onus on this debate is for science to disprove religion, not for religion to prove itself, which personally, I believe it can't, science can

Not adding to the debate here, just clarifying what I've said so as not to risk being misinterpreted

I'm religious, and yes, it's a choice.

Called "Free Will" for a reason.

Response to Muryavets

If you read my posts from the first, you will see that my base position is that the brain is designed to receive and transmit information.

This makes the brain susceptible to what we call 'memes', information that is 'sticky' - powerful memes are what help to define us as a group, helping us to bond by bringing a cohesiveness to our '(hi)story' and allowing us to see ourselves on common ground

Monotheism is a more powerful meme than polytheism, it's more adaptable as well, thus it's success, call it the evolution of religion if you will

To another post you made - many religions, Greek ultimately has Chaos, who gave birth to Chronos, as the ultimate.

Hindu religion - Just as a single force in space can be mathematically conceived as having various spatial components, the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.

There's plenty more examples - to be honest, I can't think of a religion that doesn't have an ultimate source/power - happy to be enlightened

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

What am I trying to prove, and why it is "a negative"?

*confused*

Just to clarify on these points:

I do not, her claim was that having A's in what I assume are A levels, means she fully understands science, it does not - I chose neurophysiology as it's currently the best means of showing why we are susceptible to memorising and transmitting information, which leads to religion but does not mean religion is innate - information processing is the innate function of our brain - to Muryavets: I was not 'discerning' - science does not need 'discernment'

It's like arguing with a goldfish.

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

Her claim was that according to the people who teach science she fully understands it. Your response was to claim that to prove that she would have to get a phd. It was a ludicrous response defending a ludicrous claim.

And her claim about discernment is in reference to your squirming in a fashion you CLAIM others are.


I cannot see why it's not a sentence - perhaps it's your comprehension skills :)

I know you can't. That's unfortunate. Like I said, you really should take your time.


I need to edit this post as I need to see what this point refers to - edit: right, I'm really beginning to question your comprehension skills now, 'he didn't understand science in any way' - how on earth do you draw that conclusion from the post?

Like I said, I'm arguing with a goldfish. Here, since you're having trouble remembering what you think I'll offer it up to you and remind you.

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

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

According to you Einstein by believing in God MUST not fully understand science. Meanwhile you go on to refute yourself as the only one who claimed Einstein believed in God was you.



Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Clearly he was a genius :)

Um, then why did you misrepresent him? And why are you arguing with yourself? You're the one who presented him as religious.


This has been provided to some degree by another poster, I need to read that but I'd like to make another point here:

Scientists need to earn money for research purposes. This is a very political process since funding can be withheld, at the highest levels (see POTUS - stem cell research), if it's deemed to be contrary to God's teachings. Let us remember there's a raging debate about evolution, which you can claim is localised to a 'sect' but it affects national and state policy - hardly a 'sect'.

Ha. This is comedy GOLD. Unless all religions hold that evolution cannot have occurred and that stem cell research should not be performed, then you have no point here. If you meant to only make your point about CERTAIN Christians, then say that. What you said is about ALL religions and as such was an ignorant and unsupportable assertion.

Worse, by defending it you have constantly attempting to dismiss anyone who doesn't hold the beliefs you are ranting against saying they don't matter. People like myself who do not agree with the religious right.


This puts scientists in a tricky position, do they run they risk of having funding cut or do they play the political game? Despite this, scientists are still dropping in number regards religion daily and being open about it.

Again, you've not supported this claim. The study that suggested that referenced a political group of scientists that are an elite part of the scientifc community. Any conclusions about them CANNOT be applied to the scientific community as a whole.


Finally, your continued assumptions that I'm ranting or upset can probably be explained by the psychological concept of transference:

That is, because you are angry, you are reading my posts in an angry way and therefore seeing my posts as angrily written, when I can assure you, they're not.

No. Your posts are funny. I sincerely hope you continue. My favorite part is that you argued with yourself about Einstein.

The reason I claim you're ranting can be best be represented by this summarial montage...

"It's not fair, Christians personalize their beliefs so I can't paint them all with the same brush."
"Stop doing that. Stop explaining your beleifs. You HAVE to belief what I SAY Christians believe."
"Come on. Stop it. You're disproving my argument. Discernment isn't fair and as such I have to complain about it repeatedly."
"Einstein believed in God and it has no bearing on his intelligence."
"Einstein didn't believe in God."

I'm serious. This stuff is gold. I especially love the part where you repeatedly complain about discernment because discernment makes the Christian religion personal and you can't make prejudicial posts about personal religion.

Francis S. Collins on Colbert - http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=79238&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Flnk%3Dv%26ml_video%3D79238&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

Francis S. Collins gets caught in the same inconsistencies as pro-religious posters are getting caught in, by a comedian :)

Eve Online makes a very good point if I've read correctly. The onus on this debate is for science to disprove religion, not for religion to prove itself, which personally, I believe it can't, science can

Not adding to the debate here, just clarifying what I've said so as not to risk being misinterpreted

Speaking of not fully understanding science. Exactly HOW can science disprove religion?

I'll tell you what I'll just give you one religion to disprove. Nice simple religion. Here you go.

Religion X:
A single God exists.

"Einstein believed in God and it has no bearing on his intelligence."
"Einstein didn't believe in God."

Einstein didn't believe in God, I said it's entirely consistent for Einstein to believe in God given the times he was living yet fully understand science . Greater kudos to him for not believing in God despite those time, his full understanding clearly led him to reject religion

In the meantime, consider this, moving away from neurophysiology to geology to show the illiogical nature of religion:

Our planet is old. Really, really old. I'll borrow John MacPhee's metaphor to try to impart a sense of this. Stretch your arms out completely, side-to-side. The tip of your left index finger represents the coalescence of earth from the solar system's proto-cloud. The wrist of your right hand represents the Cambrian explosion. The middle of your right palm is the K-T extinction and if someone draws a file across the nail of your right index finger, he will have completely erased the entire time that humans have been on this planet. And our sun is not a first-generation star. The heavy metals and other elements which make it possible for you and I to debate online, were formed as the result of the catastrophic destruction of earlier stars, yet all of this supposedly took place so that you could accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour.

What you're asking me to accept is that ~15 billion years ago, God said "Lux fiat!" He then let things simmer for about 10 billion years, stirring occasionally until the scene of all his main action sequences formed itself from the proto-stellar cloud which was our solar system at the time. He then let it bake another billion and a half years before allowing the first unicellular life to develop, but it wasn't until 500 million years ago that multicellular life was in abundant evidence. 200 million years after that, we have 'things that creepeth on the ground'. Several major waves of evolutionary development and extinctions occur, lasting about 120 million years until the K-T extinction boundary and then 60 million more years before something recognizably human trod the boards of the theatre created to house him. But still, we don't pick up the story until most of that 5 million years has run out and then, God supposedly creates Adam, although no biblical estimates place him earlier than the documented rise of agricultural societies (somewhat problematic, don't you think?) Now God creates all of human kind for the purpose of worshipping him, but he only bothers to tell a few illiterate goatherds--Canaanite trailer trash--whom he will use as the principle vessel for the delivery of his message. While this is going on, millions of human beings are living and dying in a complete state of ignorance about God and his obvious plan for creation (almost as if they were never really part of the Whole Point of the Excercise!).

So God decides to create a new convenant, etc. and chooses to incarnate himself as someone so obscure that no mention of him is made in his lifetime. This is God's message of hope and redemption for all humans, even though hundreds of thousands will die before Jesus' followers even get around to composing hagiographies about him and millions will die unsaved over the next 2,000 years because they will never get the message in time.

So why disbelieve? Because the Christian historical narrative only makes sense if one focusses only on a narrow 3,000-3,500 year slice of Ancient Near East history and ignores the totality of biological, geological and, indeed human history. Seen in context, it's regional religion which started as a syncretic cult forming around the followers of a Galilean preacher and it was in the right time, at the right place with the right blend of values and messages and it rode the Roman sociological rollercoaster right into the modern day. And the evidence of my senses and the accumulated knowledge of science is somehow wrong or grossly incomplete.

My points stand

Speaking of not fully understanding science. Exactly HOW can science disprove religion?

I'll tell you what I'll just give you one religion to disprove. Nice simple religion. Here you go.

Religion X:
A single God exists.

Agreed, hence science cannot prove God does not exist, it can prove why we want him to exist - religion is still bunk

Scientists need to earn money for research purposes. This is a very political process since funding can be withheld, at the highest levels (see POTUS - stem cell research), if it's deemed to be contrary to God's teachings. Let us remember there's a raging debate about evolution, which you can claim is localised to a 'sect' but it affects national and state policy - hardly a 'sect'.

This puts scientists in a tricky position, do they run they risk of having funding cut or do they play the political game? Despite this, scientists are still dropping in number regards religion daily and being open about it.

It's certainly true that scientists often have to get caught up in politics. I found myself caught up in it not too terribly long ago (unfortunately to no avail, from what I can tell). I hate that aspect of it, but it's something I can't avoid in my field.

However, I'm not at all certain what you think this has to do with the discussion at hand. The involvement of a scientist in politics is generally as a matter of clarification of the science. Religion really doesn't come into it. I have a feeling that most religious extremists simply assume from the start that the scientists who oppose their policies are not religious, but that certainly doesn't make it so.

Eve Online makes a very good point if I've read correctly. The onus on this debate is for science to disprove religion, not for religion to prove itself, which personally, I believe it can't, science can

Not adding to the debate here, just clarifying what I've said so as not to risk being misinterpreted

My dear, science cannot disprove religion any more than religion can prove itself. God, by most definitions, is supernatural - outside the universe. As such, the very question is outside the realm of science - outside the method of science, which is confined within the universe.

My points stand

You haven't made any. Once again, you try to take a single conception of religion, say, "I don't agree with this," and then somehow jump to the conclusion that all religion is the same.

Agreed, hence science cannot prove God does not exist, it can prove why we want him to exist - religion is still bunk

You really don't understand how science works at all, do you? Science doesn't prove anything. That isn't the method. Science works by disproving hypotheses, thus moving closer and closer to the "right" answer. It is logically impossible to use the methods of science to prove something, as doing so would require that we disprove every single alternative idea.

We can certainly hypothesize about the origins of religion, what evolutionary advantages it might serve, etc. But none of that would disprove the possibility that there really is a divine essence that drives those things. As such, science can never dispel religion. And, in reality, there is no reason for it to do so.

Yes, I gave you a choice.

Yes, I gave you a choice.Who are you? Charles Russell?

However, I'm not at all certain what you think this has to do with the discussion at hand. The involvement of a scientist in politics is generally as a matter of clarification of the science. Religion really doesn't come into it. I have a feeling that most religious extremists simply assume from the start that the scientists who oppose their policies are not religious, but that certainly doesn't make it so.

"Evolution"
"Under God"
"Abortion"
"Stem-cell research"

This is not science intruding into politics, this is religion intruding into politics

My dear, science cannot disprove religion any more than religion can prove itself. God, by most definitions, is supernatural - outside the universe. As such, the very question is outside the realm of science - outside the method of science, which is confined within the universe.

God is different to religion - science cannot disprove God, it can religion, mere logic can actually.

You haven't made any. Once again, you try to take a single conception of religion, say, "I don't agree with this," and then somehow jump to the conclusion that all religion is the same.

One either disagrees with the science, or you can provide an alternative of how the solar system, world, life and humans came to be.

I'm waiting for 1 Christian to outline what they do believe in

Who are you? Charles Russell?

Read the name.

Science cannot disprove Santa Claus
Science cannot disprove the Easter Bunny
Science cannot disprove God

It can disprove religion

It can point out the illogical nature of religion, it can explain why we construct religion, it can make it so darn obvious that religion is bunk that you'd have to be religious not to understand it

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).

Do you get that it is not enough to simply say that such-and-such is so? That you actually have to show why or how it is so in order to get others to believe and agree with you?

If the memory is hardwired to maintain wholeness, even when the brain is injured, then account for the condition known as amnesia.

While you're at it, you may want to explain as precisely as you can how memory actually works and what it is for, and then show us how this is comparable to the function and processes of religion.

Then, provide proof that supports your assertion that communal experience is "better" than solitary experience. While you are doing that, define "better."

Then explain how any of that implies the existence of a "universal subconscious."

And then explain the connection between a "universal subconscious," or any of the contributing factors you name (memory, collective experience), and religion. Do not forget to define the term religion as well, since this thread has already touched upon the difference between personal mystical experience and the social bonding function of organized or ritualized religion.

I did not see any such proofs in the long excerpt you posted, nor have you offered any in your subsequent remarks. The long excerpt, in particular, seems to rely on rather broad assumptions on the part of the author, and if he had proofs to back up those assumptions, they should be presented for us as well.

"Evolution"
"Under God"
"Abortion"
"Stem-cell research"

This is not science intruding into politics, this is religion intruding into politics

Once again, you're doing some sort of weird dance to avoid the actual subject. This has even less to do with anything we've been talking about. You mentioned scientists getting involved in politics. Now all of a sudden you want to discuss religion involved in politics? Why did you mention scientists in politics?

God is different to religion - science cannot disprove God, it can religion, mere logic can actually.

A belief in God is a religious belief.

Science can certainly disprove religious beliefs about the mechanisms that run the universe, if one holds such beliefs. But most religious beliefs - especially today - don't deal with the natural. Instead, they deal with that which lies outside of this universe, and thus outside of the realm of science.

One either disagrees with the science, or you can provide an alternative of how the solar system, world, life and humans came to be.

I don't see how science is at all at odds with God. I don't need to provide any sort of alternative, because I believe science is on the right track. And we amend scientific hypotheses and theories as we gain new evidence.

I'm waiting for 1 Christian to outline what they do believe in

Quite a bit actually. Is there a specific part you want to hear about?

Science cannot disprove Santa Claus
Science cannot disprove the Easter Bunny
Science cannot disprove God

Both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are described as being part of this universe. Of course science can test for and disprove them. Only if they are said to be truly supernatural - not confined by this universe or its rules - are they outside the realm of science.

Read the name.I did. That's why I asked.

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.
Four unsupported assertions:

1) You offer no proof that people "feel unfulfilled."

2) You offer no proof that people have a feeling about any missing parts.

3) You offer no proof of the motivation you assign to the reason people engage in activities.

4) You have failed to prove that the condition you claim exists is innate in the human brain. By the way, you have so far failed to prove that the condition itself exists.

Once again, you're doing some sort of weird dance to avoid the actual subject. This has even less to do with anything we've been talking about. You mentioned scientists getting involved in politics. Now all of a sudden you want to discuss religion involved in politics? Why did you mention scientists in politics?

Ok, I mentioned scientists in politics to outline the fact that, despite all the posts on both sides debating the nature of polls, scientists are constrained in their choice to publicly announce their true beliefs for fear of losing funding at best, being firebombed at worst. I've never heard stories of atheists hanging outside of churches and shouting, if I may say, unchristian insults at those who work there.

I hope that's an acceptable explanation - I do see I was sidetracked into an odd tangent.

Science can certainly disprove religious beliefs about the mechanisms that run the universe, if one holds such beliefs. But most religious beliefs - especially today - don't deal with the natural. Instead, they deal with that which lies outside of this universe, and thus outside of the realm of science.

So we can disprove everything except for the statement - a higher intelligence exists - ? What has any religion to do with any of this? Are we fawning to please him, I do not accept a God who insists on this.

I don't see how science is at all at odds with God. I don't need to provide any sort of alternative, because I believe science is on the right track. And we amend scientific hypotheses and theories as we gain new evidence.

Quite a bit actually. Is there a specific part you want to hear about?

Yes, just 1 :)

Maybe you're fulfilling the need in some other way

The cure could be sex, in my model. Or a lot of things.
If an innate urge can be fulfilled by anything, then it is not an innate urge towards religion. Therefore, even if this urge you are describing does exist, it does not answer the OP question.

Ok, I mentioned scientists in politics to outline the fact that, despite all the posts on both sides debating the nature of polls, scientists are constrained in their choice to publicly announce their true beliefs for fear of losing funding at best, being firebombed at worst. I've never stories of atheist hanging outside of churches and shouting, if I may say, unchristian insults at those who work there.

Scientists are constrained by no such thing. Our religion doesn't become an issue at all - and I work in the middle of the Bible Belt. The types of funding we use have nothing to do with religion, nor does religion become a discussion.

And, while there certainly are those who are insanely crazy, I've never heard of anyone being bombed for simply being an atheist.

I have actually heard stories, by the way, of atheists going out of their way to insult believers. I've seen it happen. We call them "militant atheists" and they are very similar in perception to extremists of any given religion.

So we can disprove everything except for the statement - a higher intelligence exists - ?

We can (theoretically, of course - we don't yet have the technology or the reach to do many tests) use the methods of science to disprove hypotheses about the workings of the universe. If someone says, "According to my religion, the Earth is a perfect sphere," science can disprove that assertion.

When someone speaks about the divine, however, as long as the divine - to them - is outside of that structure, science cannot disprove it. It is outside the realm of science.

What has any religion to do with any of this?

Assertions about the divine are religion.

Are we fawning to please him, I do not accept a God who insists on this.

Huh?

Yes, just 1 :)

Ok......

Response to Muryavets

If you read my posts from the first, you will see that my base position is that the brain is designed to receive and transmit information.

This makes the brain susceptible to what we call 'memes', information that is 'sticky' - powerful memes are what help to define us as a group, helping us to bond by bringing a cohesiveness to our '(hi)story' and allowing us to see ourselves on common ground

Monotheism is a more powerful meme than polytheism, it's more adaptable as well, thus it's success, call it the evolution of religion if you will

To another post you made - many religions, Greek ultimately has Chaos, who gave birth to Chronos, as the ultimate.

Hindu religion - Just as a single force in space can be mathematically conceived as having various spatial components, the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.

There's plenty more examples - to be honest, I can't think of a religion that doesn't have an ultimate source/power - happy to be enlightened
Which of my posts are you responding to?

Also, thinking back on the thread, I find it interesting that you earlier argued that polytheism was the ancient norm, but now you seem to be suggesting the opposite. Maybe this is an illusion because I don't know why you are telling me this -- what you are referring to.

Assertions about the divine are religion.Not necessarily. Religion comes from the Latin word for duty. Religion is something more along the lines of ritual, patterns of worship and thinking, de-individualized belief and rather group belief or even institutionalized belief, etc

Not necessarily. Religion comes from the Latin word for duty. Religion is something more along the lines of ritual, patterns of worship and thinking, de-individualized belief and rather group belief or even institutionalized belief, etc

Aren't political beliefs similar, in that we de-individualize belief, and change to group belief, and institutionalize it (The Party! or The Fuhrer! or the politics of your choice...)

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
If you believed that the "beauty of the universe" were a deity, that would make you a theist, by definition.

Not if your conception of "deity" is radically different from the conventional one.
<snip>

Only if the conception of "deity" is radically different from the one used by the Abrahamic religions.

Other religions, particularly animistic ones, have different conceptions of "deity," under which what Dempublicents1 describes would not be unconventional at all.

Which of my posts are you responding to?

Also, thinking back on the thread, I find it interesting that you earlier argued that polytheism was the ancient norm, but now you seem to be suggesting the opposite. Maybe this is an illusion because I don't know why you are telling me this -- what you are referring to.

Yes, fair enough, I should post the URLs to your original statements, please give me a little time as there's a fair few pages here

Here you go - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12513389&postcount=413 and here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12513382&postcount=411

My point is that polytheism is entirely natural first. Yet the way the brain works, the more we process information, the more we simplify.

For example, when we first learn to catch a ball, we really have to think about it. It's an entirely new experience. Yet as we gain experience, the brain manages to simplify the process for catching a ball. Most people catch a ball without thinking much after a certain age.

First however, we place a symbol for every new experience, then we sort that symbol and cross-reference it with: experiences we've had before.

The more common factors, the more we can narrow down the basic predictions to allow us to, say, catch a ball. Our hands and eyes learn to predict where the ball is likely to go.

Monotheism is likely to become a necessity for nomadic tribes first, as they did not have the time to carry around homages to every God.

The Roman era allowed for the meme of monotheism to take grip on a large audience for a large amount of time. The ramifications are still being felt today.

Science cannot disprove Santa Claus
Science cannot disprove the Easter Bunny
Science cannot disprove God

It can disprove religion

It can point out the illogical nature of religion, it can explain why we construct religion, it can make it so darn obvious that religion is bunk that you'd have to be religious not to understand it

1. For logical failures in a belief system to count as a disproof of them, you would first need to demonstrate that the system of logic you are using is a generally effective method for determining the truth quality of statements about reality.

2. Scientific explanations of religion count no more as a disproof of religion than do scientific explanations of chemical bonds count as disproofs of chemical bonds.

Please try to understand the nature of both logic and science before using either as means of proving or disproving anything. And for Mod's sake, stick to the thread topic. We're here to discuss whether or not being religious is a choice, not why you think religion is silly.

Aren't political beliefs similar, in that we de-individualize belief, and change to group belief, and institutionalize it (The Party! or The Fuhrer! or the politics of your choice...)

Except you won't go to hell for eternity for choosing the wrong politician

1. For logical failures in a belief system to count as a disproof of them, you would first need to demonstrate that the system of logic you are using is a generally effective method for determining the truth quality of statements about reality.

2. Scientific explanations of religion count no more as a disproof of religion than do scientific explanations of chemical bonds count as disproofs of chemical bonds.

Please try to understand the nature of both logic and science before using either as means of proving or disproving anything. And for Mod's sake, stick to the thread topic. We're here to discuss whether or not being religious is a choice, not why you think religion is silly.

I don't think religion is silly, I hope I have not said that - I've simply said it's wrong.

Agreed, hence science cannot prove God does not exist, it can prove why we want him to exist - religion is still bunk

How does showing a reason for the need to think something prove that the something is bunk?

My body needs vitamin C. I believe oranges, a source of vitamin C, are good for me to eat. In fact, I feel an urge to eat foods that are rich in vitamin C -- they look, smell and taste good to me -- possibly because of my body's need. Is that proof that oranges are, in fact, poisonous, or that my body does not really need vitamin C?

Except you won't go to hell for eternity for choosing the wrong politicianSure? I like to think that all Bush-voters are going to Hell indeed.

How does showing a reason for the need to think something prove that the something is bunk?

My body needs vitamin C. I believe oranges, a source of vitamin C, are good for me to eat. In fact, I feel an urge to eat foods that are rich in vitamin C -- they look, smell and taste good to me -- possibly because of my body's need. Is that proof that oranges are, in fact, poisonous, or that my body does not really need vitamin C???

I don't think religion is silly, I hope I have not said that - I've simply said it's wrong.Which would make its followers some kind of silly.

Monotheism is likely to become a necessity for nomadic tribes first, as they did not have the time to carry around homages to every God.


You create a false basis of assumption. Why do we need 'homages' to a number of gods? Indeed - what are these homages you think are needed?

The most basic form of institutionalised religion will exist when one member (or more) of the group is allowed 'time off' from normal behaviours to deal with the 'religious stuff'. Even in a nomadic people, a relatively small group is required to support a 'priest'. How that 'priest' interacts with god(s) is going to vary... some will use images of god, some will make propitiation offerings, some will just pray to the clouds.

The 'how' is likely to be largely dictated by the actions of the 'people'. A heavily nomadic people are less likely to use artifacts... and what artifacts they might use are likely to be symbolic (possibly pictorial).

Thus, monotheism and polytheism are each equally reasonable assertions for the first religions.

Science cannot disprove Santa Claus
Science cannot disprove the Easter Bunny
Science cannot disprove God

It can disprove religion

It can point out the illogical nature of religion, it can explain why we construct religion, it can make it so darn obvious that religion is bunk that you'd have to be religious not to understand it
Religion is a set of assertions about a thing (such as God).

If "disprove" means "show to be false," then the assertions cannot be disproven without disproving the subject of the assertions. If science cannot show that God does not exist (or show/prove/disprove anything else about God), then it cannot show that the assertions of relgions about God are false.

All science can do is show that some of the assertions of religion are false - such as some religions' claims about the origin of the Earth. Science can do this because the Earth can be subjected to scientific proofs, whereas God cannot. Science can also be used to cast doubt on the assertions of religion by demonstrating the flaws in the logic of some religious teachings, but other logical disciplines can also be used to do this, not just science.

But you should realize that casting doubt on an assertion is not proof that the assertion is false.

You create a false basis of assumption. Why do we need 'homages' to a number of gods? Indeed - what are these homages you think are needed?

The most basic form of institutionalised religion will exist when one member (or more) of the group is allowed 'time off' from normal behaviours to deal with the 'religious stuff'. Even in a nomadic people, a relatively small group is required to support a 'priest'. How that 'priest' interacts with god(s) is going to vary... some will use images of god, some will make propitiation offerings, some will just pray to the clouds.

The 'how' is likely to be largely dictated by the actions of the 'people'. A heavily nomadic people are less likely to use artifacts... and what artifacts they might use are likely to be symbolic (possibly pictorial).

Thus, monotheism and polytheism are each equally reasonable assertions for the first religions.

By homages I mean the paraphenalia: the statues, the temples, the enormous amounts of jewelry religious institutes manage to gather to themselves.

Yes, in a sense, a particular tribe or culture can believe in monotheism, it's as likely as believing in polytheism, but polytheistic religion will always be subverted by monotheistic religion - it's a more powerful meme.

Not necessarily. Religion comes from the Latin word for duty. Religion is something more along the lines of ritual, patterns of worship and thinking, de-individualized belief and rather group belief or even institutionalized belief, etc

There is nothing inherent in religion that requires it to be organized or institutionalized. Even ritual and "patterns of worship and thinking" can be individual.

By homages I mean the paraphenalia: the statues, the temples, the enormous amounts of jewelry religious institutes manage to gather to themselves.

Yes, in a sense, a particular tribe or culture can believe in monotheism, it's as likely as believing in polytheism, but polytheistic religion will always be subverted by monotheistic religion - it's a more powerful meme.

You keep saying 'meme' like it is meaningful. Curious. No da?

Nomadic tribes are less likely than sedentary tribes to use 'paraphenalia' for the exact reason you seem to be hinting at - it is cumbersome. But, that is equally true for monotheism AND polytheism... a nomadic tribe is unlikely to carry much extra materia for one god or a hundred.

Also - it has to be said: jewels, statues and temples... not essential to 'religion'.

As for the assertion that polytheism will always evolve into monotheism... it just isn't born out by the facts. The Egyptian monotheism under Akhenaten becomes a polytheism on his death... the pure Hebrew monotheism (that had evolved out of an earlier polytheism) of the Pentatauch becomes a duality, and then a pantheon in the Greek and latter Hebrew Scriptures.

Religion is a set of assertions about a thing (such as God).

If "disprove" means "show to be false," then the assertions cannot be disproven without disproving the subject of the assertions. If science cannot show that God does not exist (or show/prove/disprove anything else about God), then it cannot show that the assertions of relgions about God are false.

All science can do is show that some of the assertions of religion are false - such as some religions' claims about the origin of the Earth. Science can do this because the Earth can be subjected to scientific proofs, whereas God cannot. Science can also be used to cast doubt on the assertions of religion by demonstrating the flaws in the logic of some religious teachings, but other logical disciplines can also be used to do this, not just science.

But you should realize that casting doubt on an assertion is not proof that the assertion is false.

Understood - to answer the OP, I've asserted that my answer is that we are susceptible to religion, in the same way we are susceptible to songs, to urban legends, why advertising works, but no different to them.

We bond as a culture/tribe through the telling of stories, singing songs, grabbing onto UBs that conform to an aspect of our entrenched views (see - stereotyping of Muslims) that provide an answer to 'where do we come from.

Many things could not be explained, 'what is thunder', 'what are the stars', 'what is disease' - the only possible answer for someone ignorant of science is 'God'. Created in our own image.

but other logical disciplines can also be used to do this, not just science.

Yes, simple 'logic' itself even

...The Egyptian monotheism under Akhenaten becomes a polytheism on his death... .Um, no. The prior polytheism was just restored. The pseudo-monotheism of Aton was dropped into oblivion and Akhetaten destroyed as soon as Neferneferuaten Smenkhkare (Nefertiti) had died.

... the pure Hebrew monotheism (that had evolved out of an earlier polytheism) of the Pentatauch becomes a duality, and then a pantheon in the Greek and latter Hebrew Scriptures.what pantheon?

Um, no. The prior polytheism was just restored. The pseudo-monotheism of Aton was dropped into oblivion and Akhetaten destroyed as soon as Neferneferuaten Smenkhkare (Nefertiti) had died.


The worship of one god... that would be a monotheism, right?

The return to the 'prior polytheism'... that would fit with 'becomes a polytheism'... right?

I didn't say the Egyptian 'religion' had always been a monotheism... I just used it as an example of the exact reverse of what the other poster was claiming as a universal truth.


what pantheon?

Depending on interpretation, there are either two levels, four levels or nine levels of 'demi-gods' in the Biblical Pantheon. (Actually, it can be stretched even further than nine, depending on which premises you are willing to accept).

The basic 'two-level' model suggests either: 'Seraphim and Kherubim' or 'Angels and Archangels' - assuming that those two groupings are actually just different descriptors for the same levels.

The 'four-level' model suggests that Seraphim, Kherubim, Angels and Archangels are each different entity collectives, but that any other references you might find refer to earthly powers, not heavenely ones.

The 'nine-level' model suggests that Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Virtues, Potentates (or Powers), Cherubim and Seraphim are all denominations of the heavenly Host.

One can go further if one assumes that 'messengers', 'watchers' and 'giants' are also examples of non-temporal power, along with a number of others like 'Lilim' and 'Baalim'.

Yes, fair enough, I should post the URLs to your original statements, please give me a little time as there's a fair few pages here

Here you go - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12513389&postcount=413 and here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12513382&postcount=411

My point is that polytheism is entirely natural first. Yet the way the brain works, the more we process information, the more we simplify.

For example, when we first learn to catch a ball, we really have to think about it. It's an entirely new experience. Yet as we gain experience, the brain manages to simplify the process for catching a ball. Most people catch a ball without thinking much after a certain age.

First however, we place a symbol for every new experience, then we sort that symbol and cross-reference it with: experiences we've had before.

The more common factors, the more we can narrow down the basic predictions to allow us to, say, catch a ball. Our hands and eyes learn to predict where the ball is likely to go.

Monotheism is likely to become a necessity for nomadic tribes first, as they did not have the time to carry around homages to every God.

The Roman era allowed for the meme of monotheism to take grip on a large audience for a large amount of time. The ramifications are still being felt today.

Originally posted by Barringtonia
By homages I mean the paraphenalia: the statues, the temples, the enormous amounts of jewelry religious institutes manage to gather to themselves.

Yes, in a sense, a particular tribe or culture can believe in monotheism, it's as likely as believing in polytheism, but polytheistic religion will always be subverted by monotheistic religion - it's a more powerful meme.
FIRST, IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I should announce that I am an animist polytheist. Now, to my response to your posts:

1) If our thinking and behaviors get simpler and more streamlined the more used to them we get, kindly explain why medicine is so much more complicated now than it was 1000 years ago. Explain this also for physics, economics, and any number of modern social structures and systems. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, of a tendency in the human brain towards more simple thinking over time. (A few individual examples notwithstanding. /sarcasm/)

2) If polytheism is an under-developed "first idea," as it were, then account for the existence of ancient monotheism and modern polytheism. If your assertions had any validity at all, I would expect there to be no such thing as Hinduism or Shinto in today's world, yet millions of people practice both those religions in modernized, industrialized, globalized, urban settings. Are you suggesting that India is not a modern nation, or perhaps that Japan is underdeveloped and has not been exposed to new ideas?

Or perhaps you mean to suggest that India and Japan, both ancient nations informed by even more ancient cultures, have not been practicing tossing the ball of their religions long enough to get the hang of it.

3) Your notion of what constitutes religion -- temples and what you call "paraphernalia" -- shows ignorance of how many religions, including polytheistic ones work. Ancient records, particularly Roman records, indicate that non-urbanized and/or semi-nomadic tribes, in places such as Africa and Europe, often did not use elaborate paraphernalia in their rituals and did not build permanent temples. They sometimes constructed monuments in special places that were visited frequently, but these shrines were not comparable in function to the grand temples of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. No, the functions that were conducted in temples in urbanized settings, tended to be carried out in natural settings or temporary structures among peoples without established towns. Otherwise, believers did without paraphernalia or used small items such as portable icons (small figurines, etc).

There is absolutely nothing in the historical record to indicate that the polytheistic religions of nomads were any less portable than monotheistic religions.

I would also point out that in modern polytheism -- let's stick with Hinduism and Shinto for the moment -- temporariness and portability are still common. Shinto relies much more on small shrines than large temples, and even on impromptu, temporary structures/settings that are set up for each occasion and discarded afterwards. Even the established temples usually consist of small, simple structures within elaborate naturalized park settings -- groves, as it were. The grandest and oldest of all Shinto temples, the Grand Temple at Ise, is in fact never more than 20-30 years old (if that much) because the tradition requires that the temple be taken down and rebuilt anew periodically. Pieces of the old temple are then sold as good luck charms. In fact, Shinto is so unconcerned with paraphernalia that it does not even have a written liturgy, preferring to create fresh prayers for each occasion, even among its professional priests. The kind of temporariness that would be of use to nomads continues to this day.

Hinduism has many large, permanent temples, but it also relies heavily on small shrines and, especially, portable ones, so that believers can carry their gods with them wherever they may go. Some of these shrines are the size of a modern wallet. I suppose a nomad, even an ancient one, could have managed to pack one of those, don't you?

4) Like many people who are not polytheists, you assume that a belief in multiple gods means that ALL of the gods must be worshipped. This is not the case. The gods of polytheist religions are specialists. Believers tend to actively worship only those that directly affect areas of their personal lives. So, if you are a lawyer, you will be more concerned with gods associated with law, government, justice, etc, than with gods associated with the fertility of crops. If you are a parent, you will be concerned with the gods that protect children, but not so much with the gods that rule diseases and medicine, unless your child is sick, or you happen also to be a doctor. So it is not necessary for polytheists to be prepared to make offerings to every single god in a given pantheon.

Again, pointing to our modern examples, Shintoists tend to worship mostly their own families' ancestral kami (deified ancestors) and the kami that represent the national government and social structure (ancestors of the nation). After that, it all depends on what the worshipper needs at any given moment -- to cure a disease, get a promotion, find a lover, win the lottery, etc. They will pray to the kami in charge of the given issue on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis. They do not do it all the time.

In Hinduism, the gods are also associated with different aspects of practical life as well as different spiritual paths. Hinduists may worship all the gods, or just one, or a specialized set of gods, depending on what it is they are trying to achieve in their lives. Hinduists describe themselves as "devotees" of this or that god. That does not mean that they do not believe that the Hindu gods they don't worship don't exist. Just that they are not followers of some of their gods.

Your ignorance of how polytheists actually practice their religions invalidates your assertions about them.

The worship of one god... that would be a monotheism, right?
The return to the 'prior polytheism'... that would fit with 'becomes a polytheism'... right?By "become" you did not mean "evolve into" ? Because that was not the case.

Depending on interpretation, there are either two levels, four levels or nine levels of 'demi-gods' in the Biblical Pantheon. (Actually, it can be stretched even further than nine, depending on which premises you are willing to accept).

The basic 'two-level' model suggests either: 'Seraphim and Kherubim' or 'Angels and Archangels' - assuming that those two groupings are actually just different descriptors for the same levels.

The 'four-level' model suggests that Seraphim, Kherubim, Angels and Archangels are each different entity collectives, but that any other references you might find refer to earthly powers, not heavenely ones.

The 'nine-level' model suggests that Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Virtues, Potentates (or Powers), Cherubim and Seraphim are all denominations of the heavenly Host.

One can go further if one assumes that 'messengers', 'watchers' and 'giants' are also examples of non-temporal power, along with a number of others like 'Lilim' and 'Baalim'.Ok, OK, I'm familiar with the subject. (I've read Milton's Paradise Lost, very heavy stuff for a non-native-englisher)


And @Muravyets: thunderous applause. I'm saving that to my NS Quotes.

snip

We're on a tangent again here however, I think it's quite clear that the world is divided into Monotheistic and Atheist, with Hindi being a billion strong exception, take Shinto if you want (After World War II, Shinto lost its status as the state religion of Japan. Some Shinto practices and teachings, once given a great deal of prominence during the war, are no longer taught or practiced today, while others still exist as commonplace activities such as omikuji (a form of fortune-telling) and the Japanese New Year that few people give religious connotations to.

Even Hindi's believe that all their gods are simply representations of facets of One

Polytheism has died as the world has grown more globalised, from Roman rule through to modern day.

Within monotheism we have the even simpler meme - a human embodiment of that religion - Islam, Christianity and Buddhism.

One of them should be right eh?

Then Atheism, counting most Chinese as having superstition through culture but no coded religion as such - Confucianism/Taoism do not suppose Confucius/Lao Tze as God.

Atheism or religion?

One allows for everything science lets us understand and is consistent, or one that says that there is a God, one for whom their codes are consistent only in their inconsistency.

You should note that, to say there is a God(s) is to say that he waited between 11 and 20 billion years just so he could start his funny experiment to make us love him or go to hell - or you proffer your own alternative.

One is right, one is not.

I pick.....ammmm....Atheism

FIRST, IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I should announce that I am an animist polytheist. Now, to my response to your posts:

1) If our thinking and behaviors get simpler and more streamlined the more used to them we get, kindly explain why medicine is so much more complicated now than it was 1000 years ago. Explain this also for physics, economics, and any number of modern social structures and systems. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, of a tendency in the human brain towards more simple thinking over time. (A few individual examples notwithstanding. /sarcasm/)

There's more medicines because we're getting more efficient at creating them, we're simplifying the processes so that now, when H5N1 threatens the world, we have a cure withing 6 months to a year as opposed to when the Plague hit in 1400, we never found a cure.

We're building on our experiences to simplify the processes for understanding more. Thus we can create more.

Not towards more simple thinking taking simple as opposite to complicated, 'simple' as in more efficient, simpler processes.

By "become" you did not mean "evolve into" ? Because that was not the case.


'Evolve into' can be a very rapid process, and might entail something that appears to be retrogressive.

The Egyptian polytheism 'evolved' into a monotheism and 'evolved' back... the process was much the same, either way.

This is speaking to the other posters 'meme' idea of religious evolution being one way.


Ok, OK, I'm familiar with the subject. (I've read Milton's Paradise Lost, very heavy stuff for a non-native-englisher)


I was something of an 'angelologist' for a while. I haven't even got started here. :)


And @Muravyets: thunderous applause. I'm saving that to my NS Quotes.

We love Muravyets. She's one of our superstars. :)

??

Showing why I believe vitamin C is good for me does not prove that my beliefs about vitamin C are bunk.

Showing why people believe in god(s) does not prove that those beliefs are bunk.

Now, if I believed vitamin C is good for me because it gives me the power to fly, you could prove that that belief is bunk, because you can prove that I cannot fly.

But, if I believe that vitamin C is good for me because a god made it good for me, you cannot disprove that because you cannot show any evidence against or for the existence of the god or how or why it does whatever I say it does. The fact that vitamin C is good for me physiologically, and that you can show how it benefits me, does not disprove - it doesn't even address - my assertion that a god made it that way.

If I were making such an assertion, of course.

Even Hindi's believe that all their gods are simply representations of facets of One


Hinduism does not describe the whole scope of polytheism.


You should note that, to say there is a God(s) is to say that he waited between 11 and 20 billion years just so he could start his funny experiment...

If I were God, that's the way I'd do it...

Except you won't go to hell for eternity for choosing the wrong politician
By the way, only some religions believe that choosing the wrong religion/god will send a person to hell. So that matters only to people who believe it.

'Evolve into' can be a very rapid process, and might entail something that appears to be retrogressive.

The Egyptian polytheism 'evolved' into a monotheism and 'evolved' back... the process was much the same, either way.

This is speaking to the other posters 'meme' idea of religious evolution being one way.But the Egyptian population never really believed in Akhenaten's "monotheism", that strange concept of mixing the apotheosis of his father with Atum and Ra to develop a rather unpopular sun-deity.
What does 'meme' mean? Adaptive?

I was something of an 'angelologist' for a while. I haven't even got started here.*shudder* just don't

We love Muravyets. She's one of our superstars.Indeed. I would write posts like that, if I weren't so damn lazy (and if I took this more seriously). :)

Hey, guess what. I was addressed by two Mormons today. It was a good Friday, after all. ;)

Understood - to answer the OP, I've asserted that my answer is that we are susceptible to religion, in the same way we are susceptible to songs, to urban legends, why advertising works, but no different to them.

We bond as a culture/tribe through the telling of stories, singing songs, grabbing onto UBs that conform to an aspect of our entrenched views (see - stereotyping of Muslims) that provide an answer to 'where do we come from.

Many things could not be explained, 'what is thunder', 'what are the stars', 'what is disease' - the only possible answer for someone ignorant of science is 'God'. Created in our own image.
Yes, I remember that post of yours. I thought it missed the point of the OP.

One allows for everything science lets us understand and is consistent, or one that says that there is a God, one for whom their codes are consistent only in their inconsistency.

One can allow for everything science lets us understand and still believe in God. You are setting up a false dichotomy here.

You should note that, to say there is a God(s) is to say that he waited between 11 and 20 billion years just so he could start his funny experiment to make us love him or go to hell - or you proffer your own alternative.

Do human beings need to be God's only focus? Is 11 or 20 billion years a "long time" to God, particularly if God is not bound by our timeline?

Why is it that you can't understand the fact that there are religious ideas you've probably never even thought of or heard of through others?

Yes, simple 'logic' itself even
Yes, that's right. I'm glad you're keeping up. Simple logic is capable of revealing illogic. It is not capable of proving the non-existence of God, however, nor is it capable of proving anything positive about the nature of God to show that the assertions of any given religion about him/her/it are false or incorrect. It can only show up the internal weaknesses of the arguments presented by the religion. Nothing more.

By the way, only some religions believe that choosing the wrong religion/god will send a person to hell. So that matters only to people who believe it.

'some'?

Hindi - Karma
Christianity - Hell
Islam - I'm not sure I want to know but if someone can enlighten me
Buddhism - we are in hell
Atheism - there is no hell

Ammm....that's 85% of the world covered (I don't stand by that figure but I'd be surprised if it was far off)

By "become" you did not mean "evolve into" ? Because that was not the case.

Ok, OK, I'm familiar with the subject. (I've read Milton's Paradise Lost, very heavy stuff for a non-native-englisher)


And @Muravyets: thunderous applause. I'm saving that to my NS Quotes.
Ye gods! ;) Not one of my 50-paragraph posts, I hope.

Yes, I remember that post of yours. I thought it missed the point of the OP.

The original OP: Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?

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

My answer: Understood - to answer the OP, I've asserted that my answer is that we are susceptible to religion, in the same way we are susceptible to songs, to urban legends, why advertising works, but no different to them.

We bond as a culture/tribe through the telling of stories, singing songs, grabbing onto UBs that conform to an aspect of our entrenched views (see - stereotyping of Muslims) that provide an answer to 'where do we come from.

Many things could not be explained, 'what is thunder', 'what are the stars', 'what is disease' - the only possible answer for someone ignorant of science is 'God'. Created in our own image.

So to put it simply:

Yes, it's biological, religion is not innate

Yes, some people are more predisposed, even if merely from parenthood

'some'?

Hindi - Karma
Just as a point, Karma isn't about belief; it's about the repurcussions of benevolent and malevolent action.

Ye gods! ;) Not one of my 50-paragraph posts, I hope.I'll search the forum...

Yes, that's right. I'm glad you're keeping up. Simple logic is capable of revealing illogic. It is not capable of proving the non-existence of God, however, nor is it capable of proving anything positive about the nature of God to show that the assertions of any given religion about him/her/it are false or incorrect. It can only show up the internal weaknesses of the arguments presented by the religion. Nothing more.

Yes, I never said that science can disprove God

Religious reason - because God is unknowable - then why religion? Why base your life on something that says nothing about how you should live
Atheist reason - you can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place - I can't disprove goblins - they might be hiding somewhere!

Religion is illogical

Just as a point, Karma isn't about belief; it's about the repurcussions of benevolent and malevolent action.

Yes, so I will come back as an untouchable (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html), and since untouchables are cursed by god for their previous life misdemeanours they must remain in the lowly caste position they remain in until today

Yay karma!

Once again, it would be helpful if you would keep at least the first line of the post you are responding to, so others will know what you are talking about. Now, as to the falsehoods in your response:

[quote]We're on a tangent again here however, I think it's quite clear that the world is divided into Monotheistic and Atheist, with Hindi being a billion strong exception,
You have made your viewpoint relevant to this discussion.

take Shinto if you want [I](After World War II, Shinto lost its status as the state religion of Japan. Some Shinto practices and teachings, once given a great deal of prominence during the war, are no longer taught or practiced today, while others still exist as commonplace activities such as omikuji (a form of fortune-telling) and the Japanese New Year that few people give religious connotations to.
This is a flat-out lie that I hear over and over again from people who, quite frankly, are religious bigots, either out to prove that all religions are false or that all religions other than their own are false. You may want to learn some facts before embarrassing yourself this way again. I refer you to the following sites, for starters:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shinto.htm

http://jinja.jp/english/s-0.html

http://www.shinto.org/
(click on the images to get to the pages which will give you language choices)

http://www.shinto.org/isf/eng/top-e.htm

And for general future reference, I refer you to the same sites I recommended to Sovietstan:

http://www.adherents.com/

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

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

If you are going to talk, it really does help to know what you are talking about.

Even Hindi's believe that all their gods are simply representations of facets of One
Hindus. Hindi is the name of a language.

And thus, Hinduism would fall under the heading of religions that worship many gods that are considered manifestations of one divine being. Now I challenge you to show me the Hindu temples to that One. Show me the monotheism at work there.

And while you're at it, show me the monotheism at work in Shinto, in the polytheistic religions of Oceania, South America, Africa, and the Arctic regions. Oh, right, that would require you to actually learn about those religions, wouldn't it?

Polytheism has died as the world has grown more globalised, from Roman rule through to modern day.
Another lie. I refer you to the sites referenced above.

Within monotheism we have the even simpler meme - a human embodiment of that religion - Islam, Christianity and Buddhism.
What does this sentence mean?

One of them should be right eh?
Why can't they all be wrong?

Then Atheism, counting most Chinese as having superstition through culture but no coded religion as such - Confucianism/Taoism do not suppose Confucius/Lao Tze as God.
And what in the name of Pooky the Wonder Imp is the bolded smart-ass remark supposed to mean? Wow, you must find it very easy to win arguments when everyone involved agrees to simply wipe out whole segments of reality to suit your "meme." Too bad we don't do that here at NSG. You have absolutely no basis on which to claim that the majority of Chinese do not have religion. Even with that meaningless qualification of "coded."

Atheism or religion?

One allows for everything science lets us understand and is consistent, or one that says that there is a God, one for whom their codes are consistent only in their inconsistency.

You should note that, to say there is a God(s) is to say that he waited between 11 and 20 billion years just so he could start his funny experiment to make us love him or go to hell - or you proffer your own alternative.

One is right, one is not.

I pick.....ammmm....Atheism
Brother, your argument makes about as much sense and is based on as much fact as the religions you claim to debunk.

There's more medicines because we're getting more efficient at creating them, we're simplifying the processes so that now, when H5N1 threatens the world, we have a cure withing 6 months to a year as opposed to when the Plague hit in 1400, we never found a cure.
So, then, by your argument, since we should by now be more efficient at thinking about god, shouldn't we be able to make up more of them?

We're building on our experiences to simplify the processes for understanding more. Thus we can create more.

Not towards more simple thinking taking simple as opposite to complicated, 'simple' as in more efficient, simpler processes.
Bullshit. That is not what you said, and you have yet to show how monotheism is more efficient than polytheism.

[QUOTE]This is a flat-out lie that I hear over and over again from people who, quite frankly, are religious bigots, either out to prove that all religions are false or that all religions other than their own are false. You may want to learn some facts before embarrassing yourself this way again. I refer you to the following sites, for starters:

If you are going to talk, it really does help to know what you are talking about.

Yes - Of the 30 percent of [Japanese] adults surveyed who claimed to have a religion, 75 percent considered themselves Buddhists, 19 percent Shintoists, while 12 percent considered themselves to be Christians. Adjusted for the entire population, including the non-religious, 6 percent are Christians.

Uh oh

Hindus. Hindi is the name of a language.

I and U are next to each other on the keyboard, I generally write Hindu.

And thus, Hinduism would fall under the heading of religions that worship many gods that are considered manifestations of one divine being. Now I challenge you to show me the Hindu temples to that One. Show me the monotheism at work there.

But the Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb. The Hiranyagarbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself.

And while you're at it, show me the monotheism at work in Shinto, in the polytheistic religions of Oceania, South America, Africa, and the Arctic regions. Oh, right, that would require you to actually learn about those religions, wouldn't it?

They're dying out, no need, monotheism is winning in this world by a large %

What does this sentence mean?

I need to check and edit


Why can't they all be wrong?

Why yes, yes they are


And what in the name of Pooky the Wonder Imp is the bolded smart-ass remark supposed to mean? Wow, you must find it very easy to win arguments when everyone involved agrees to simply wipe out whole segments of reality to suit your "meme." Too bad we don't do that here at NSG. You have absolutely no basis on which to claim that the majority of Chinese do not have religion.

Wo hui shuo zhongwen, wo zai beijing qi nian gongzuo - I suspect I can claim better than you

Brother, your argument makes about as much sense and is based on as much fact as the religions you claim to debunk

I may not agree with your opinion but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it

'some'?

Hindi - Karma
Christianity - Hell
Islam - I'm not sure I want to know but if someone can enlighten me
Buddhism - we are in hell
Atheism - there is no hell

Ammm....that's 85% of the world covered (I don't stand by that figure but I'd be surprised if it was far off)
85% of the world geographically, perhaps, but not reflective of the numbers of people who practice various religions or sects of religions.

First of all, karma is not hell. It is not a system of punishment for wrong doing, although many people hear an over-simplified explanation of it that makes it seem so. Karma includes both good and bad consequences of actions/choices and is part of the larger conceptions of the wheel of life and samsara. Again, your ignorance is the undoing of your argument. So we can take Hinduism off your already short list.

Second, Buddhism does not teach that we are in hell. Buddhism talks about "hell" in various contexts, mostly symbolic ones, to indicate the suffering of life, which Buddhism tries to help people see as an illusion from which they may liberate themselves. Buddhist "hell" concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with punishment for choosing the wrong religion, as implied by your original remark. Your ignorance trips you up again, and your list gets shorter.

Third, as you have done throughout, you again conveniently leave off your list anything that tends to refute your claims, such as those Christian denominations that question the existence of hell (such as the Unitarians). If you took them into consideration, you'd have to amend your claim from "Christian" to "many Christians" - not as sweeping.

Fourth, the implied prejudice in your remark about Islam causes me to be suspicious of all your remarks about religion. What really is your motive here, sir?

Fifth, just ignoring the existence of other religions won't make them go away. I refer you back to the reference sites I listed earlier. They will give a true idea of the breakdown of world religions and some information about which ones include a hell concept and which ones don't.

The original OP:

My answer:

So to put it simply:

Yes, it's biological, religion is not innate

Yes, some people are more predisposed, even if merely from parenthood
If it's biological, then how is it not innate?

Yes, I never said that science can disprove God

Religious reason - because God is unknowable - then why religion? Why base your life on something that says nothing about how you should live
Atheist reason - you can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place - I can't disprove goblins - they might be hiding somewhere!

Religion is illogical
You are proving yourself to be an expert on illogic. You say religion is wrong because it makes an assumption about something about which it has no facts, but atheism is right because it makes an assumption about something about which it has no facts. Excellent.

Yes, so I will come back as an untouchable (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html), and since untouchables are cursed by god for their previous life misdemeanours they must remain in the lowly caste position they remain in until today

Yay karma!

Not the same as "hell."

85% of the world geographically, perhaps, but not reflective of the numbers of people who practice various religions or sects of religions.

I think you're clutching at straws here, are you now saying that each denomination is a separate religion? They're still monotheistic no?

First of all, karma is not hell. It is not a system of punishment for wrong doing, although many people hear an over-simplified explanation of it that makes it seem so. Karma includes both good and bad consequences of actions/choices and is part of the larger conceptions of the wheel of life and samsara. Again, your ignorance is the undoing of your argument. So we can take Hinduism off your already short list.

Good actions - good consequences
Bad actions - bad consequences

Let's put that back in the basket shall we?

Second, Buddhism does not teach that we are in hell. Buddhism talks about "hell" in various contexts, mostly symbolic ones, to indicate the suffering of life, which Buddhism tries to help people see as an illusion from which they may liberate themselves. Buddhist "hell" concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with punishment for choosing the wrong religion, as implied by your original remark. Your ignorance trips you up again, and your list gets shorter.

Our purpose is to achieve enlightenment, we have not, therefore we are in hell

Third, as you have done throughout, you again conveniently leave off your list anything that tends to refute your claims, such as those Christian denominations that question the existence of hell (such as the Unitarians). If you took them into consideration, you'd have to amend your claim from "Christian" to "many Christians" - not as sweeping.

I am truly ignorant on Unitarians - do we all go to heaven no matter what according to their denomination?

Fourth, the implied prejudice in your remark about Islam causes me to be suspicious of all your remarks about religion. What really is your motive here, sir?

Granted on prejudice, but I see Muslims as even more vocal in their use of religious intolerance than Christians, I see Christians as more than Buddhists.

Fifth, just ignoring the existence of other religions won't make them go away. I refer you back to the reference sites I listed earlier. They will give a true idea of the breakdown of world religions and some information about which ones include a hell concept and which ones don't

The very few

Not the same as "hell."

Tell that to the Dalits

Yes, so I will come back as an untouchable (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0602_030602_untouchables.html), and since untouchables are cursed by god for their previous life misdemeanours they must remain in the lowly caste position they remain in until today

Yay karma!
What few formal bodies compose the Religion of Hinduism actively oppose the concept of untouchability. Indeed, the Caste system as a whole is a bastardisation of the Hindu notion of Varnas, which encourages the split of people into groups based on skills rather than on belief, race, wealth, class or blood, and while still unfortunately prevalent in much of Indian society, it is not prescribed or even endorsed by the religion.

If it's biological, then how is it not innate?

Ahh, the crux of the question.

Is that innateness because of a need to know God or is it because there are evolutionary advantages to having them?

You are proving yourself to be an expert on illogic. You say religion is wrong because it makes an assumption about something about which it has no facts, but atheism is right because it makes an assumption about something about which it has no facts. Excellent.

No - I'm saying religion is wrong because it has no basis with which to pronounce its view of the world - it's a guess, an uneducated guess

Atheism has plenty of basis - from geology, to biology, to anthropology, to neurophysiology, to physics to...etc etc

But the Egyptian population never really believed in Akhenaten's "monotheism", that strange concept of mixing the apotheosis of his father with Atum and Ra to develop a rather unpopular sun-deity.


Most Christians treat their religion as though it were a polytheism - with Jehovah and Satan as the duality around which a war of demigods rages.

Polytheism or monotheism? Sometimes, a thing can be one, the other, both... or neither.


What does 'meme' mean? Adaptive?


A 'meme' is the 'ideas' equivalent of biological 'genes'. The idea is that pieces of information are evolving, replicating, 'surviving' and expanding their borders... much like genetic pieces of information.

It's not necessarily a bad model... but some people treat it as though it were gospel and concrete. Take our 'other poster' here, for an example - he is convinced that the 'memes' for religion have 'evolved' in a certain direction.

One big problem is - memetic data doesn't have DNA and leaves no footprints. Anything we guess historically (or into the future) based on 'memes' must be just that - a guess.


*shudder* just don't


:D


Hey, guess what. I was addressed by two Mormons today. It was a good Friday, after all. ;)

I never understood that. This guy is supposed to have walked on lepers, fed the blind, and healed the water... why is it the bit where he gets stapled to a post the 'Good' Friday?

Wo hui shuo zhongwen, wo zai beijing qi nian gongzuo - I suspect I can claim better than you


Why? Because you speak Chinese? Maybe you are Chinese?

Of course - neither of those things would qualify you as any more 'expert' than anyone else, on any subject except what you believe.

Atheism - there is no hell


Belief in god does not equate to belief in an afterlife.

The original OP:

My answer:

So to put it simply:

Yes, it's biological, religion is not innate

Yes, some people are more predisposed, even if merely from parenthood

Your idea of 'put it simply' looks a lot like my idea of 'make conflicting statements'.

If the predisposition is biological.... the predisposition is innate... no?

If the predisposition is innate, it is 'nature' that determines if we will be predisposed... not the 'nurture' of our parents. (Of course, our parents may well assist in deciding which religion the predisposition finds itself applied to).

Yes, I never said that science can disprove God

Religious reason - because God is unknowable - then why religion? Why base your life on something that says nothing about how you should live
Atheist reason - you can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place - I can't disprove goblins - they might be hiding somewhere!

Religion is illogical
That's not the Atheist reason. "I can't disprove it exists because it clearly doesn't" is a ridiculous attitude, and most Atheists know better than that.

The Atheist position is that a combination of logic and empirical observation has convinced them of the falsity of all existing definitions of God, and the reason science cannot disprove it is that God is not defined in any concrete terms that can be subjected to scientific evaluation.

In any case, as something of a pantheist mystic, I like to think of gods as phenomena that are entirely physical in nature, similar to that entity pointed to by the the Gaia hypothesis. Not only is "God" observable, it is explainable in some set of physical rules that will become part of the scientific model in the near future.

Most Christians treat their religion as though it were a polytheism - with Jehovah and Satan as the duality around which a war of demigods rages.

Polytheism or monotheism? Sometimes, a thing can be one, the other, both... or neither.Oh yes, the Mormons I talked to today had a hard time explaining what Satan is doing as the archenemy of god in a universe all created by god. They couldn't quite say what the purpose of god creating Satan was, all knowing what this dude would do.

A 'meme' is the 'ideas' equivalent of biological 'genes'. The idea is that pieces of information are evolving, replicating, 'surviving' and expanding their borders... much like genetic pieces of information.

It's not necessarily a bad model... but some people treat it as though it were gospel and concrete. Take our 'other poster' here, for an example - he is convinced that the 'memes' for religion have 'evolved' in a certain direction.

One big problem is - memetic data doesn't have DNA and leaves no footprints. Anything we guess historically (or into the future) based on 'memes' must be just that - a guess.What would such 'memes' be? Pieces of scripture?

:DOK, go ahead...

I never understood that. This guy is supposed to have walked on lepers, fed the blind, and healed the water... why is it the bit where he gets stapled to a post the 'Good' Friday?You do know why. Liar. ;)

Ahh, the crux of the question.

Is that innateness because of a need to know God or is it because there are evolutionary advantages to having them?

What innateness? You said it wasn't innate. Now it is?

No - I'm saying religion is wrong because it has no basis with which to pronounce its view of the world - it's a guess, an uneducated guess

Religion has exactly the same basis with which to pronounce its view of the world as any of us do for any part of our worldview - our own personal experiences and perception.

Atheism has plenty of basis - from geology, to biology, to anthropology, to neurophysiology, to physics to...etc etc

None of those studies provide a "basis" for atheism any more than they provide one for theism. Science doesn't speak to the existence or non-existence of the divine.

Edit:


In any case, as something of a pantheist mystic, I like to think of gods as phenomena that are entirely physical in nature, similar to that entity pointed to by the the Gaia hypothesis. Not only is "God" observable, it is explainable in some set of physical rules that will become part of the scientific model in the near future.

Just as a clarification, science certainly could speak to the existence or non existence of the divine under this model.



Belief in god does not equate to belief in an afterlife.

Not to mention that, in some conceptions, hell is the lack of an afterlife, not an afterlife in and of itself.

Your idea of 'put it simply' looks a lot like my idea of 'make conflicting statements'.

If the predisposition is biological.... the predisposition is innate... no?

If the predisposition is innate, it is 'nature' that determines if we will be predisposed... not the 'nurture' of our parents. (Of course, our parents may well assist in deciding which religion the predisposition finds itself applied to).

Indeed, hence 'merely parenthood', as one factor.

Absolutely nature makes us predisposed, as much as we are predisposed to enjoy music, as we are presdisposed to tell stories, as we are predisposed to bonding.

Now, you can say, well music was out there, perhaps God must also be out there.

Yet music doesn't tell us how to live our lives.

How does God? So what is religion?

Again, I don't say science disproves the existence of God, it does disprove religion. Name me a religion that has any basis whatsoever for saying it's version of life is right?

Atheism has many bases (basis's, basii?)

That's...

...future.

Are you a Vampire Princess, by any chance?

[QUOTE=Muravyets;12517977]



Yes - Of the 30 percent of [Japanese] adults surveyed who claimed to have a religion, 75 percent considered themselves Buddhists, 19 percent Shintoists, while 12 percent considered themselves to be Christians. Adjusted for the entire population, including the non-religious, 6 percent are Christians.

Uh oh
Don't break out the Gatorade yet, Coach. You forgot to take into account Buddhist-Shinto Syncretism, which is so all-pervasive in Japan that of the 30% of Japanese who self-identify as religious, 90-95% participate in observances at Shinto shrines on major holidays and maintain Shinto style small shrines to their family spirits in their homes. The fact that more prefer to think of themselves as Buddhists rather than Shintoists is not meaningful because of that. A significant number of Japanese Buddhists practice Shinto and a significant number of Shintoists also practice Buddhism. Go look at the sources again.

And before you say that syncretism means that Shinto has been subsumed by Buddhism, please compare the Buddhism of Japan to Buddhism in other countries. You will see syncretism occurring throughout the regions in which Buddhism is spread, and if you compare the religion in those places to the versions in India (it's homeland) you will see differences so great that they seem almost different religions altogether. And what are those differences? Why they are the affects of the native religions upon Buddhism because Buddhism changes itself to suit its environment. The fact that Buddhism dovetails nicely with Shinto, and Taoism, and the native animist religions of, say, Indonesia, Thailand, etc, does not mean that those native religions no longer exist.

I and U are next to each other on the keyboard, I generally write Hindu.
Proofreading is your friend.

[I]But the Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb. The Hiranyagarbha is alternatively viewed as Brahma, the creator who was in turn created by God, or as God (Brahman) himself.
That does not answer my challenge. Try again.

They're dying out, no need, monotheism is winning in this world by a large %
Hahaha! So since it's been proven that your argument about the past is false, you now try to make it be about the future. "We haven't won yet, but we're going to!!" Who do you think you are, Dick Cheney?

I need to check and edit
Do that.

Why yes, yes they are
Then why do you spend so much time trying to prove that they are evidence of progress from polytheism. If they are wrong, why is it so important to you that they be somehow less wrong than polytheism? If you are suggesting atheism is the natural evolution of mankind, then that is a positive assertion that your denigration of other ideas does nothing to support. If you are going to make a positive assertion, then you must back it up with positive proofs.

So far, your argument seems to be, "If 1 is better than 12, then 0 is better than 1." But that begs the question, why is any of them better than any other? And why is 1 better than 12? And even if it is, why is 0 better than 1? You offer nothing in the way of support but falsehoods and insults against polytheists.

Wo hui shuo zhongwen, wo zai beijing qi nian gongzuo - I suspect I can claim better than you
"kavu smlekem, prosim." That's how you order coffee with milk in a Czech restaurant. Wowee, it's the global village.

You can be wrong in Chinese as easily as you can in English.

I may not agree with your opinion but I'll fight to the death for your right to express it
Don't put yourself out. With the quality of arguments you make, my rights would be doomed.

What would such 'memes' be? Pieces of scripture?


Song, ad jingle, poem, dirty limerick, line from a movie, proverb, old-wives-tale...

The 'piece of scripture' itself would be evidence OF a meme, I think... rather than the meme itself - which would be the idea as described in the text...


OK, go ahead...


No, you've suffered enough, padawan.

None of those studies provide a "basis" for atheism any more than they provide one for theism. Science doesn't speak to the existence or non-existence of the divine

How many times do I need to write this:

Science cannot disprove God, it can disprove religion

Song, ad jingle, poem, dirty limerick, line from a movie, proverb, old-wives-tale...

The 'piece of scripture' itself would be evidence OF a meme, I think... rather than the meme itself - which would be the idea as described in the text...I suppose I'll have to look that up.

No, you've suffered enough, padawan.No need to be dismissive.

Again, I don't say science disproves the existence of God, it does disprove religion. Name me a religion that has any basis whatsoever for saying it's version of life is right?

Mine. (to a point at least, I don't think any of us are completely right). It has all the basis I need to live my life in the way that I see fit.

Atheism has many bases (basis's, basii?)

Not really. Implicit atheism is merely a lack of belief. It has no (and needs no) basis. Explicit atheism has exactly the level of basis as theism - the person experience and perception of the believer.

How many times do I need to write this:

Science cannot disprove God, it can disprove religion

If science cannot disprove God, then it cannot disprove religion.

Don't break out the Gatorade yet, Coach. You forgot to take into account Buddhist-Shinto Syncretism, which is so all-pervasive in Japan that of the 30% of Japanese who self-identify as religious, 90-95% participate in observances at Shinto shrines on major holidays and maintain Shinto style small shrines to their family spirits in their homes. The fact that more prefer to think of themselves as Buddhists rather than Shintoists is not meaningful because of that.

Just as a related point - I did Market Research for a while. It can really all be in the question.. or at least, how the question is perceived to be answered.

e.g. based loosely on actual question and answer... I was the 'victim':

Questioner: Do you believe in God?
Victim: Erm... what exactly do you mean by 'believe in God'?
Questioner: (*pause*) Would you say it is possible there is an entity that created everything?
Victim: Er.... possible? sure.
Questioner: Okay. Thanks. (*Ticks 'Christian' box on form*)

Hahaha! So since it's been proven that your argument about the past is false, you now try to make it be about the future. "We haven't won yet, but we're going to!!" Who do you think you are, Dick Cheney?

Extraordinary - I've shown most of the world is monotheistic right now?

That supports my view that monotheism is more adapatable and survivable than polytheism

I'm personally not winning, there's far more religious people in the world than athiests, that number is dropping.

It's been happening since the most aptly named 'Enlightenment'.

How many times do I need to write this:

Science cannot disprove God, it can disprove religion

Not really. It can perhaps prove that a literal interpretation of the dogma, doctrine or documents of a given religion is inconsistent.

That's not the same thing as 'disproving religion'.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;12518150]

Just as a related point - I did Market Research for a while. It can really all be in the question.. or at least, how the question is perceived to be answered.

e.g. based loosely on actual question and answer... I was the 'victim':

Questioner: Do you believe in God?
Victim: Erm... what exactly do you mean by 'believe in God'?
Questioner: (*pause*) Would you say it is possible there is an entity that created everything?
Victim: Er.... possible? sure.
Questioner: Okay. Thanks. (*Ticks 'Christian' box on form*)

Religiosity is really one of the hardest things to study. You might create a form with a list of religions and ask someone to check one. Suppose someone checks, "Judaism." But then, you might sit down and talk to them and find that they share very few of the "traditional" views of Judaism and, in fact, believe in Christ as the Messiah. Most people wouldn't label that Jewish, and yet that person has.

Religion is so embedded in the personal, it is practically impossible to truly get accurate information on it without sitting down and having an in-depth conversation with everyone polled.

I suppose I'll have to look that up.


It's like the 'holographic' memory thing... it's moderately interesting to read about, but unlikely to serve any purpose in 'real life'.


No need to be dismissive.

Not dismissive. :) Just trying to limit my hijacks... a bit.

I think you're clutching at straws here, are you now saying that each denomination is a separate religion? They're still monotheistic no?
What does being monotheistic have to do with whether they believe in hell or not? Your claim was about hell beliefs, not monotheism.

Good actions - good consequences
Bad actions - bad consequences

Let's put that back in the basket shall we?
If it's the Basket of You Being Wrong, by all means.

Our purpose is to achieve enlightenment, we have not, therefore we are in hell
Wrong.

Or else, link to the Buddhist scriptures/writings that say that.

If you cannot, then you must admit that you are merely applying that interpretation to Buddhism so that you can include it in your list, but if it is not actually part of Buddhist belief, then your interpretations mean nothing.

I am truly ignorant on Unitarians - do we all go to heaven no matter what according to their denomination?
Finally, you admit ignorance of one thing. The first brick of the wall comes down.

You can look them up on religioustolerance.org. for starters.

Granted on prejudice, but I see Muslims as even more vocal in their use of religious intolerance than Christians, I see Christians as more than Buddhists.
And an admission of bias. Another brick. Thank you.

The very few
:rolleyes: You really are not very different from the religious fanatics I have argued with.

Tell that to the Dalits

A link would be nice.

And again, the injustices of the Hindu caste system (one of the world's nastiest) do not change the fact that karma =/= a belief in hell.

Ahh, the crux of the question.

Is that innateness because of a need to know God or is it because there are evolutionary advantages to having them?

How does one preclude the other? It can easily be both. Especially if evolution is God's plan, eh?

religioustolerance.orgis religioustolerance.org leaning towards any particular religion?

if you look at how religions are set up around the globe, by region, you'll see for the most part that they stay in one place. christians are the minority in the middle east and souther asia, as well was across much of northern africa, where there have been muslum empires in the past. europe is pretty much christian, as are all of the european colonies, with perhaps the exception of india. the chances of someone picking a religion different from the one they were born into are low. i think this probably has more to do with social norms and expectations than with any biological reason; certain experiences lend themselves towards making a person more religious.

No - I'm saying religion is wrong because it has no basis with which to pronounce its view of the world - it's a guess, an uneducated guess

Atheism has plenty of basis - from geology, to biology, to anthropology, to neurophysiology, to physics to...etc etc
No, atheism cannot make that claim because none of those sciences speaks to the existence or non-existence of God/god(s) or any of that kind of thing. All atheism does is say that since there is no empirical or scientific evidence that proves the existence of God/god(s), atheism chooses to assume that there is no such thing.

But that has no more foundation than the opposite choice made by religious people, i.e., in the absence of proof that there is none, they choose to assume that is one or more (to varying degrees of insistence).

Since the proof EITHER WAY is not there, neither position can claim to be proven right. But if proof ever does become available, then one group will have to change their position.

[QUOTE]Don't break out the Gatorade yet, Coach. You forgot to take into account Buddhist-Shinto Syncretism, which is so all-pervasive in Japan that of the 30% of Japanese who self-identify as religious, 90-95% participate in observances at Shinto shrines on major holidays and maintain Shinto style small shrines to their family spirits in their homes. The fact that more prefer to think of themselves as Buddhists rather than Shintoists is not meaningful because of that. A significant number of Japanese Buddhists practice Shinto and a significant number of Shintoists also practice Buddhism. Go look at the sources again.


As posted before:

Some Shinto practices and teachings, once given a great deal of prominence during the war, are no longer taught or practiced today, while others still exist as commonplace activities such as omikuji (a form of fortune-telling) and the Japanese New Year that few people give religious connotations to.

Shinto is practiced as part of culture, not of religion

And what are those differences? Why they are the affects of the native religions upon Buddhism because Buddhism changes itself to suit its environment.

As do all religions

Proofreading is your friend.

That is true :)


That does not answer my challenge. Try again.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=temples+to+brahma+india&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-28,GGLD:en

Then why do you spend so much time trying to prove that they are evidence of progress from polytheism. If they are wrong, why is it so important to you that they be somehow less wrong than polytheism? If you are suggesting atheism is the natural evolution of mankind, then that is a positive assertion that your denigration of other ideas does nothing to support. If you are going to make a positive assertion, then you must back it up with positive proofs.

Monotheism is more easily transmittable, like a more efficient virus

So far, your argument seems to be, "If 1 is better than 12, then 0 is better than 1." But that begs the question, why is any of them better than any other? And why is 1 better than 12? And even if it is, why is 0 better than 1? You offer nothing in the way of support but falsehoods and insults against polytheists.

Right - if the debate is about polytheism vs. monotheism - I have no more to say than both are wrong. For more, see previous answer


"kavu smlekem, prosim." That's how you order coffee with milk in a Czech restaurant. Wowee, it's the global village.

Welcome :)

You can be wrong in Chinese as easily as you can in English.

Yes, but likely to be more of an 'expert' on Chinese people's views than you


Don't put yourself out. With the quality of arguments you make, my rights would be doomed.

Yes, they are doomed

A link would be nice.

And again, the injustices of the Hindu caste system (one of the world's nastiest) do not change the fact that karma =/= a belief in hell.

Last post for the evening - I should sleep

My post on 'untouchables' provide the link

How many times do I need to write this:

Science cannot disprove God, it can disprove religion
And how many times do we have to we have to tell you that it cannot do that?

You cannot disprove a set of assertions without addressing the subject of the assertions, and since science has no way of addressing the subject of God, then it cannot disprove the assertions religion makes about God.

Science can only disprove the assertions religion makes about scientific things, like the age of the planet. But those things are mere side-stories, not the main topic of any religion.

How does one preclude the other? It can easily be both. Especially if evolution is God's plan, eh?

Ooh ooh, one more post then :)

Evolution is part of God's plan? As Mr. Omniscient (or are you going to point me to a religion where the supreme being is not all knowing), why so many dead-ends, what was the point of 90% of life that has become extinct?

Note - Mr. Omniscient refers to God, not you Muryavets :)

Just as a related point - I did Market Research for a while. It can really all be in the question.. or at least, how the question is perceived to be answered.

e.g. based loosely on actual question and answer... I was the 'victim':

Questioner: Do you believe in God?
Victim: Erm... what exactly do you mean by 'believe in God'?
Questioner: (*pause*) Would you say it is possible there is an entity that created everything?
Victim: Er.... possible? sure.
Questioner: Okay. Thanks. (*Ticks 'Christian' box on form*)
Exactly. And in a country that takes census information, but in which so many people practice overlapping but distinct religions simultaneously, well...they can only check one box on the form. Only 30% self-identify as religious? I wonder how many self-identify as "other."

Extraordinary - I've shown most of the world is monotheistic right now?
No, you haven't.

That supports my view that monotheism is more adapatable and survivable than polytheism
No, it doesn't, not only because you haven't shown it, but also because it does not follow. Your view of "progress" is too simplistic. To maintain it, you have to delete too much of current and historical reality.

I'm personally not winning, there's far more religious people in the world than athiests, that number is dropping.

It's been happening since the most aptly named 'Enlightenment'.
Ah, yes, the Enlightenment. One of my favorite periods that gave us all my favorite thinkers. However it also gave us the Industrial Revolution and all of its concommittent evils, as well as the older evils of social inequality (caste system, anyone?) that survived from previous ages and merely attached themselves to the new industrial-imperialist models. Simplistic thinking trips you up again. The Enlightenment did not signal a clean break with a presumably benighted past, nor has its legacy fully emerged a mere 300-200 years later.

is religioustolerance.org leaning towards any particular religion?

No, it does not. Explore their site to see what they are about.

In short, they are a small, ecumenical committee who compile and update information about world religions in an attempt to provide a resource against misinformation about religions. They do this because they agree that ignorance supports bigotry, while full information undermines bigotry. Their mission and bias is to act against religious intolerance, bigotry and/or persecution. In general. In reference to everyone.

No, it does not. Explore their site to see what they are about.

In short, they are a small, ecumenical committee who compile and update information about world religions in an attempt to provide a resource against misinformation about religions. They do this because they agree that ignorance supports bigotry, while full information undermines bigotry. Their mission and bias is to act against religious intolerance, bigotry and/or persecution. In general. In reference to everyone.and what is this speakout.org which they link to? it features a pretty idiotic religion-selector-test...
and their texts about scientology are a little too naive, somehow

Yes, but likely to be more of an 'expert' on Chinese people's views than you


Not a logical assertion.

Muravyets has been drawing her information from international data collections... you seem to think your anecdotal evidence of 'being' Chinese makes you more of an expert on the statistical religiosity?

[QUOTE=Muravyets;12518150]




As posted before:

Some Shinto practices and teachings, once given a great deal of prominence during the war, are no longer taught or practiced today, while others still exist as commonplace activities such as omikuji (a form of fortune-telling) and the Japanese New Year that few people give religious connotations to.

Shinto is practiced as part of culture, not of religion
Repeating your own lies does not make them true. I provided you with evidence. Ignoring it does not lend credence to your argument.



As do all religions
And?


That is true :)




http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=temples+to+brahma+india&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-28,GGLD:en

Oh, how cute. Posting a google search page. Lazy, friend, lazy.

And I'll remind you that Brahma is just one of the gods in the great trimvirate of Brahma/Sarasvati - Vishnu/Lakshmi - Shiva/Kali (and all those gods' other names as well). Even Brahma himself is merely a manifestation of the divine whole. I asked you for evidence that that divine whole is an object of worship in Hinduism, i.e. for evidence of monotheism in Hinduism. Information about Brahma is not it.

Monotheism is more easily transmittable, like a more efficient virus
Again, repeating an assertion neither proves nor clarifies it. You have not shown any reason why anyone should agree with your assertion that monotheism is easy, or simpler, or more efficient than polytheism.

Right - if the debate is about polytheism vs. monotheism - I have no more to say than both are wrong. For more, see previous answer
Oh, so you are abandoning the argument you have been pursuing with me all these pages? Good. It wasn't working for you anyway.



Welcome :)



Yes, but likely to be more of an 'expert' on Chinese people's views than you
Another unsupported claim.

Well, if knowing a few words of a language makes one an expert in the beliefs of those people, then you can take it from me that all the Czechs and all the English-speaking Americans and a few Italians too, all think you're wrong.


Yes, they are doomed
And now you presume to threaten my rights? Which ones, my right to practice a religion or my right to express my opinion? Or both?

Or perhaps I misunderstand you. Maybe you are just admitting your own incompetence.

and what is this speakout.org which they link to? it features a pretty idiotic religion-selector-test...
and their texts about scientology are a little too naive, somehow

You can't get very accurate info on scientology without joining, from what I understand. They don't get in-depth until you start contributing.

Ooh ooh, one more post then :)

Evolution is part of God's plan? As Mr. Omniscient (or are you going to point me to a religion where the supreme being is not all knowing), why so many dead-ends, what was the point of 90% of life that has become extinct?
How should I know? I'm not god.

Note - Mr. Omniscient refers to God, not you Muryavets :)
You didn't need to tell me that. I'm conceited but not that much.

You can't get very accurate info on scientology without joining, from what I understand. They don't get in-depth until you start contributing.
They get paid by the word, apparently. :D

Last post for the evening - I should sleep

My post on 'untouchables' provide the link
I am disinclined to sift through all these pages to look for it, but as I recall we were discussing hell beliefs, not the social injustices of India. And your insistence that social injustice = hell is just that, your insistence. It is not proof of what the meaning of karma is.

and what is this speakout.org which they link to? it features a pretty idiotic religion-selector-test...
and their texts about scientology are a little too naive, somehow

religioustolerance.org displays ads with related links to pay for their site. I've also seen ads for salad dressings there, with links, but that doesn't make them a culinary site.

Make up your own mind about them. I find them a valuable resource for first level research. However, your use of the term "naive" makes me think you had an expectation for what they would say about scientology. So are you dissatisfied because they show bad methodology or because they don't fit your preconceptions?

You didn't need to tell me that. I'm conceited but not that much.

Pah, I know you better. It was the 'Mr' bit you objected to.... :D

Pah, I know you better. It was the 'Mr' bit you objected to.... :D
Shh. As futile as it is, I still like to keep up the pretense of being even a little humble. Makes me look good. ;)

Shh. As futile as it is, I still like to keep up the pretense of being even a little humble. Makes me look good. ;)

That was humble! :) I liked the way you said "makes me look good", when what you mean is "makes me look as perfect as I really am".

Good humbility. Full marks!

:D

That was humble! :) I liked the way you said "makes me look good", when what you mean is "makes me look as perfect as I really am".

Good humbility. Full marks!

:D
*falls about laughing!*

Man, it is good to be back. Catch up with you all later. :D

*falls about laughing!*

Man, it is good to be back. Catch up with you all later. :D

And it is great to have you. Back! ....Have you back ...Whatever. ;)

You can't get very accurate info on scientology without joining, from what I understand. They don't get in-depth until you start contributing.Yeah, but once you join, you get completely brainwashed. No, thanks. Scientology needs to be placed under government surveillance all over the planet.

Ooh ooh, one more post then :)

Evolution is part of God's plan? As Mr. Omniscient (or are you going to point me to a religion where the supreme being is not all knowing), why so many dead-ends, what was the point of 90% of life that has become extinct?

Note - Mr. Omniscient refers to God, not you Muryavets :)

See, this is why I keep calling them rants. These aren't scientific questions. Why he would have evolution work the way it does is irrelevant to the FACT that it could very well have been among the many laws of the universe created by God.

Your answer does not address anything other than your own wish to claim that suggesting God exists is irrational. The fact that you don't recognize this why I refer to it as a rant.

How many times do I need to write this:

Science cannot disprove God, it can disprove religion

And here you prove you don't understand science or religion.

Again, if my entire relgious belief is "there is a God" how does science disprove this?

Yes, I never said that science can disprove God

Religious reason - because God is unknowable - then why religion? Why base your life on something that says nothing about how you should live
Atheist reason - you can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place - I can't disprove goblins - they might be hiding somewhere!

Religion is illogical

Ha. Um, how do you KNOW it doesn't exist? Let's here this logic.

I'm pretty sure "religiosity" isn't even a word :eek:

I'm prety sure "religiosity" isn't even a word :eek:the english word would be religiousness, but you can surely accept religiosity as an adaption from other languages. :eek:

the english word would be religiousness, but you can surely accept religiosity as an adaption from other languages. :eek:

I've actually heard "religiosity" used in the context of sociological studies. It might just have become a more popular word over time - not sure.

I've actually heard "religiosity" used in the context of sociological studies. It might just have become a more popular word over time - not sure.it would be the more latinized, scientific term, instead of the more colloquial "religiousness" wish-wash term (adding -ness to an adjective is a pretty ugly way to create a noun...).

it would be the more latinized, scientific term, instead of the more colloquial "religiousness" wish-wash term (adding -ness to an adjective is a pretty ugly way to create a noun...).

Ah, makes sense then. If I ever used the term "religiousness", I'd have to look at it and think, "Is that actually a word?" =)

Are you a Vampire Princess, by any chance?
'fraid not. See, look, I have a reflection, can hold crucifixes and survive holy water and everything! Not even the slightest bit of bloodlust! Nope!

...

*Shifty glancing around*

(Actually, the Myu is more like the greek letter. In the middle of the alphabet, see? :D)

I'm pretty sure "religiosity" isn't even a word :eek:
From Merriam-Webster Online (bold added):

religiose
One entry found for religiose.
Main Entry: re·li·gi·ose
Pronunciation: ri-'li-jE-"Os
Function: adjective
Etymology: religion + 1-ose
: RELIGIOUS; especially : excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious
- re·li·gi·os·i·ty /-"li-jE-'ä-s&-tE/ noun

The times I've heard and read it in the US media, it has referred specifically to the scripture-waving, breast-beating, over-acting bullshit that has dominated US politics so much recently. Things like the unseemly carrying on about 10 Commandments monuments in front of courthouses, as if being told to move one is tantamount to being fed to a lion. That sort of thing. Anyway, apparently, "religiosity" is the noun form of the adjective "religiose."

However, in this debate it has been used I think as a synonym for religiousness -- without any implied sarcasm.

However, I do believe that some people's brains are hardwired to always make themselves the center of attention, at any cost, so maybe the definition above is appropriate to this thread.

Religiosity is mostly not chosen sadly but rather imposed upon children in various forms of initiation into a religious community. Obviously it can be the result of a choice to enter a religion as is the choice to not do so.

I was «born» a catholic, but I chose atheism.

Spirituality is the natural form. "Religiosity" demands off-the-shelf, prefabricated and ready-made forms of Spirituality.

I think the better question to to ask is whether the tendency to defer to hierarchical structures is ingrained in humans.

I think the better question to to ask is whether the tendency to defer to hierarchical structures is ingrained in humans.

I'm not sure that's the proper question. I think the proper question is why do people accommodate so easily to teachings and scriptures that order them to do this and that, or otherwise suffer eternally in hell. It's an avowal of authoritarianism.

I'm not sure that's the proper question. I think the proper question is why do people accommodate so easily to teachings and scriptures that order them to do this and that, or otherwise suffer eternally in hell. It's an avowal of authoritarianism.

But you'd have to defer to hierarchical structures in order to accomodate to teachings and scriptures, though. I believe my point still stands, though I'll agree with you that subscribing to organized worship is an avowal of authoritarianism.

Spirituality is the natural form. "Religiosity" demands off-the-shelf, prefabricated and ready-made forms of Spirituality.

I think the better question to to ask is whether the tendency to defer to hierarchical structures is ingrained in humans.

Do you think it's possible that because people tend towards both spirituality and community, and large communities tend towards heirarchical structures of some kind, we end up with both the problems of heirarchy and religion based on those two more basic tendencies of spirituality and community?

But you'd have to defer to hierarchical structures in order to accomodate to teachings and scriptures, though. I believe my point still stands, though I'll agree with you that subscribing to organized worship is an avowal of authoritarianism.

I see your point now that you've connected the dots for me. I'm not sure that it's so much a hierarchical structure rather than the basic economy of any theistic religion, heaven or hell as rewards and penalties for behaviour.

I'm not sure that's the proper question. I think the proper question is why do people accommodate so easily to teachings and scriptures that order them to do this and that, or otherwise suffer eternally in hell. It's an avowal of authoritarianism.

I think your last comment might be the answer you were looking for.

Life can be hard and uncomfortable... and not all the choices are good. So - you hand over the choices and judgements to someone 'bigger' than you, and it takes the stress away.

It also means, if it all goes wrong, you were 'only following orders'...

Do you think it's possible that because people tend towards both spirituality and community, and large communities tend towards heirarchical structures of some kind, we end up with both the problems of heirarchy and religion based on those two more basic tendencies of spirituality and community?
This is my point of view. Spirituality is one kind of experience, community is another kind of experience, and religion (organized) is an attempt to build a social matrix around the inherently personal experience of spirituality.

In addition, I think that the basic tendencies towards spirituality and community vary in kind and intensity from individual to individual, just like other inherent personality traits, such as timidity or aggressiveness, etc.

And thus we see the problems with organized religion. Because spiritual experience is so personal, it is impossible to create a code of behavior that will enable everyone to share the same idea or feeling. So the majority of followers of a religion will never have a spiritual experience through it, but end up following its rules and participating in its rituals just to have the social bonding. If pressed, they would have to admit they either don't really understand the message or don't really believe it or don't really care about all the rules. This is why so much of religious practice seems like nothing more than superstition.

And because every person has their own level of receptiveness to both spirituality and community bonding, it is impossible to establish a religious structure (or any social structure) which will be equally meaningful and satisfying to all people. So, if a religion is evangelical, or if it is an instrument of social or political power, this means that many, many people will have to be pressured, even forced, to comply with it, or else it must give up any desire to convert or control.

Religions that are content to appeal to smaller groups of people tend to avoid these problems more than religions that seize political power or seek to bring in very large numbers of followers. So, for instance, the kinds of animistic religions that are basically cults of family/clan ancestors that apply only to members of that bloodline, tend not to get into conflicts with followers. Likewise sects such as the Congregationalists, who avoid centralized leadership and instead operate as independent congregations, each making its own decisions. And if some members of a congregation don't like where it is going, they are free to establish their own. But religions like Islam, Mormonism, and the big Christian churches have terrible histories because of their global ambitions.

From Merriam-Webster Online (bold added):



The times I've heard and read it in the US media, it has referred specifically to the scripture-waving, breast-beating, over-acting bullshit that has dominated US politics so much recently. Things like the unseemly carrying on about 10 Commandments monuments in front of courthouses, as if being told to move one is tantamount to being fed to a lion. That sort of thing. Anyway, apparently, "religiosity" is the noun form of the adjective "religiose."

However, in this debate it has been used I think as a synonym for religiousness -- without any implied sarcasm.

However, I do believe that some people's brains are hardwired to always make themselves the center of attention, at any cost, so maybe the definition above is appropriate to this thread.
But is it in OED?

And it's off-topic, but that 10 commandments thing? Isn't a large marble carving of the 10 commandments a graven image, and therefore in violation of the first commandment?

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

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

I chose "no" in the poll (I am religious) because religion is accessible to anyone who can think, and unless thinking itself is "a biological tendency" religion is not.

I chose "no" in the poll (I am religious) because religion is accessible to anyone who can think, and unless thinking itself is "a biological tendency" religion is not.So everyone is per se religious?

Muryavets: Repeating your own lies does not make them true. I provided you with evidence. Ignoring it does not lend credence to your argument.

I should clarify:

When I use italics in a posting - if it's a single word it's for emphasis, if it's a paragraph it's a c+p job. They're not my lies (not that they're lies anyway) but sources - you can c+p into Google to check the source (although I accept if your reply is that you should not need to make the effort).

So, given this section quoted above is about the dominance of monotheism and is specifically in relation to Japan.

First, 70% do not identify themselves as religious at all.
Of the 30% that do, I grant you sincretism but I hold that Buddhism is the dominant, which has subsumed the cultural practices of Shintoism.

In regard to China, the translation of my sentence is: I speak Chinese (I've used Zhongwen as opposed to Putonghua, which would technically be more correct - Zhongwen is 'the language of China', Putonghua is 'the common speak' but refers only to Mandarin) -I worked in Beijing for 7 years.

I have spoken extensively with Chinese people about their beliefs, in fact it's a major topic of debate in Chinese newspapers - China is irreligious.

To ignore what the Chinese themselves say is...well I'm not sure what it is.

To say I do not have a better judgement of what Chinese people believe in is to say that a doctor is no better qualified to judge your health than anyone else.

I would like to see where you proved to me that there are more polytheists than monotheists.

I still stand by counting China and Japan into my monotheist/atheist point.

So everyone is per se religious?

I must say UB, I've appreciated your clarifications throughout this

Take nicotine.

Our brain is susceptible to nicotine addiction, this does not mean nicotine has to exist or that the brain specifically evolved to be addicted to nicotine per se, it's simply that nicotine takes advantage of a brain feature.

So does the concept of God.

We like music, it doesn't mean music has to exist either, it means our brain is wired to be attracted to simple, repetitive sound waves (same for light waves) - our brain likes patterns and consistency - it can make predictions off them.

So everyone is per se religious?


Depends on what they think about.

I must say UB, I've appreciated your clarifications throughout this

Take nicotine.

Our brain is susceptible to nicotine addiction, this does not mean nicotine has to exist or that the brain specifically evolved to be addicted to nicotine per se, it's simply that nicotine takes advantage of a brain feature.

So does the concept of God.

We like music, it doesn't mean music has to exist either, it means our brain is wired to be attracted to simple, repetitive sound waves (same for light waves) - our brain likes patterns and consistency - it can make predictions off them.Oh, so if any outside, um, thing takes advantage of a body feature, that's how religion works. That's just like evolution works... ;) too bad for the ID folks...

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

So the question of the thread is…

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

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

No. It really depends on who your parents are as to what religion (ergo Catholic, Christian, or none at all) you are.

Imagine this: You're born in a middle class family in Kansas. You'd probably have a disposition towards Christianity, right? Now, imagine if you were born in Iran. You'd be Islamic... or an infidel.

Read into Richard Dawkins if you want more on this kind of thing...

No. It really depends on who your parents are as to what religion (ergo Catholic, Christian, or none at all) you are.

Imagine this: You're born in a middle class family in Kansas. You'd probably have a disposition towards Christianity, right? Now, imagine if you were born in Iran. You'd be Islamic... or an infidel.

Read into Richard Dawkins if you want more on this kind of thing...

That is not the question - both Islam and Christianity are beliefs.
The question is if leaning towards being religious is biological. A genetic condition if you wish.

You distinguish between Catholic and Christian?

May Christians of other denominations do not consider Catholics christians.

No. It really depends on who your parents are as to what religion (ergo Catholic, Christian, or none at all) you are.

Imagine this: You're born in a middle class family in Kansas. You'd probably have a disposition towards Christianity, right? Now, imagine if you were born in Iran. You'd be Islamic... or an infidel.

Read into Richard Dawkins if you want more on this kind of thing...You distinguish between Catholic and Christian? And then there's the rest being nothing at all? Are you a Mormon?

May Christians of other denominations do not consider Catholics christians.The orthodox churches, including the Catholic church, are the continuation of the original Christian community (founded by Yeshua). Thus they are rather more Christian than any protestants, who are only 'Christians' because of adherence to scripture.

You distinguish between Catholic and Christian? And then there's the rest being nothing at all? Are you a Mormon?

No, the three being examples.

If you wanted me to take 10 minutes and a half a page listing the individual reglious sects of every major, minor and minute religion, then you should've said something.

That is not the question - both Islam and Christianity are beliefs.
The question is if leaning towards being religious is biological. A genetic condition if you wish.

No, because religious beliefs cannot be coded into your DNA. Thus, they are not "biological."

Here, look. I'll give you a linky (www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html)... if it's legal. (I'm pulling it off of my Philosophy Profs. website... Dr. Tom Keith)

Be forewarned... This guy is ruthless when it comes to attacking the idea of Religion.

No, the three being examples.

If you wanted me to take 10 minutes and a half a page listing the individual reglious sects of every major, minor and minute religion, then you should've said something.

Link (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html)

Link (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html)

Didn't have one. Thanks.

something.

:p

No, the three being examples.

If you wanted me to take 10 minutes and a half a page listing the individual reglious sects of every major, minor and minute religion, then you should've said something.something.

No, because religious beliefs cannot be coded into your DNA. Thus, they are not "biological."This is not about any particular belief, this is about religiousness as such being a predisposition.

This is not about any particular belief, this is about religiousness as such being a predisposition.

Before or after birth?

Because I'm not basing my arguments on any particular belief, I'm saying beliefs are transferred from parent to child. Ergo, if the parents are atheist, the child is predisposed to be atheist as well.

That's what you say. However, you cannot be sure that there is not something as a biologically predisposed tendency towards, well, faith, religiousness, spirituality, whatever. A child will not necessarily be what the parents are.

Read the link on the previous page. It explains quite a bit.

(If it's early and you don't feel like reading the whole of it, I understand... its long)

Before or after birth?

Because I'm not basing my arguments on any particular belief, I'm saying beliefs are transferred from parent to child. Ergo, if the parents are atheist, the child is predisposed to be atheist as well.That's what you say. However, you cannot be sure that there is not something as a biologically predisposed tendency towards, well, faith, religiousness, spirituality, whatever. A child will not necessarily be what the parents are.

I should clarify:

When I use italics in a posting - if it's a single word it's for emphasis, if it's a paragraph it's a c+p job. They're not my lies (not that they're lies anyway) but sources - you can c+p into Google to check the source (although I accept if your reply is that you should not need to make the effort).

So, given this section quoted above is about the dominance of monotheism and is specifically in relation to Japan.

First, 70% do not identify themselves as religious at all.
Of the 30% that do, I grant you sincretism but I hold that Buddhism is the dominant, which has subsumed the cultural practices of Shintoism.

In regard to China, the translation of my sentence is: I speak Chinese (I've used Zhongwen as opposed to Putonghua, which would technically be more correct - Zhongwen is 'the language of China', Putonghua is 'the common speak' but refers only to Mandarin) -I worked in Beijing for 7 years.

I have spoken extensively with Chinese people about their beliefs, in fact it's a major topic of debate in Chinese newspapers - China is irreligious.

To ignore what the Chinese themselves say is...well I'm not sure what it is.

To say I do not have a better judgement of what Chinese people believe in is to say that a doctor is no better qualified to judge your health than anyone else.

I would like to see where you proved to me that there are more polytheists than monotheists.

I still stand by counting China and Japan into my monotheist/atheist point.

Um, wow. Let's, first, your claims are internet claims and have the value of, well, internet claims. Present evidence for them and we have some reason to give them any value.

However, even if we accept them outright, your claims are anecdotal. Who you've encountered in China is hardly a random sampling and hardly has any probabitive value. My father used to swear that because he was from the streets of Chicago and had encountered lots of black people that he could tell you what they believe too. Of course, my father was a racist and was just trying to justify his racism, but, perhaps, I should have accepted his "expertise" as well.

I chose "no" in the poll (I am religious) because religion is accessible to anyone who can think, and unless thinking itself is "a biological tendency" religion is not.

It isn't a matter of if it is 'accessible' or not... it's a matter of whether there is something implicit in the brain, flesh or whatever, that makes some people intrinsically more likely to be disposed towards religion.

Maybe a 'spiritual' gene, or something to do with hormone levels and brain-chemistry in utero...?

No. It really depends on who your parents are as to what religion (ergo Catholic, Christian, or none at all) you are.

Imagine this: You're born in a middle class family in Kansas. You'd probably have a disposition towards Christianity, right? Now, imagine if you were born in Iran. You'd be Islamic... or an infidel.

Read into Richard Dawkins if you want more on this kind of thing...

My household was of a Christian type - Roman Catholic father and Anglican mother, and yet - though the ideas 'stuck' with my sister, all four of the boys have tended towards varying degrees of Atheism/Agnosticism.

So - simple 'nurture' (in terms of the religion of the parents) doesn't cut it... being born into a 'Christian' family left us with no predisposition towards Christianity - or any othe religion.

You can buy into the idea of a mimetic virus, but that is still the vector... is the 'spiritual' immune system a feature of brain chemistry or physics? Is it genetic?

Before or after birth?

Because I'm not basing my arguments on any particular belief, I'm saying beliefs are transferred from parent to child. Ergo, if the parents are atheist, the child is predisposed to be atheist as well.

If the parent is Atheistic, the child may be exposed to Atheism. That doesn't mean the child will adopt those beliefs.

To follow the virus analogy - the parents and environment provide the different strains of virus that will be let loose upon the child's immune system... is there a mechanism that determines how well viruses (in general) will fare?

If the parent is Atheistic, the child may be exposed to Atheism. That doesn't mean the child will adopt those beliefs.

To follow the virus analogy - the parents and environment provide the different strains of virus that will be let loose upon the child's immune system... is there a mechanism that determines how well viruses (in general) will fare?um, that depends what you see as 'mechanism'. immunity can accelerate the immune response, that's all.
And what would you see as being exposed to Atheism? Normally atheistic parents just don't tell their kids anything about religion, but they don't actively tell them anything against religion.
And Jolt is getting slow again... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0256.gif

um, that depends what you see as 'mechanism'. immunity can accelerate the immune response, that's all.
And what would you see as being exposed to Atheism? Normally atheistic parents just don't tell their kids anything about religion, but they don't actively tell them anything against religion.
And Jolt is getting slow again... http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0256.gif

I only referred to Atheists because the other poster had.

If it works better, let us assume what (probably, for most of us) is more common - Christianity. Parents are supposed to raise their children in the traditions of the church, but - clearly, it doesn't always take.

So - we can have (for example) five children, all raised pretty much the same, by the same parents, in the same household. Let us assume that the parents are average and claim a religion but aren't especially observant.

For the sake of our argument, let us assume that only one of the children ends up 'religious'. What was it that made that one be assimilated, but spat out the rest?

I only referred to Atheists because the other poster had.

If it works better, let us assume what (probably, for most of us) is more common - Christianity. Parents are supposed to raise their children in the traditions of the church, but - clearly, it doesn't always take.

So - we can have (for example) five children, all raised pretty much the same, by the same parents, in the same household. Let us assume that the parents are average and claim a religion but aren't especially observant.

For the sake of our argument, let us assume that only one of the children ends up 'religious'. What was it that made that one be assimilated, but spat out the rest?Well, if children don't get actively indoctrinated, they will start thinking about themselves, the world, and possible higher beings by themselves. They will look at as many alternatives as they can get info about. In the end reason, or subconscious reasoning, will determine the mindset of the child. And from my experience that mindset will not change later on in most cases; there may be adjustments, but complete changes of weltanschauung are rare. That's because most people never take the time to examine their core beliefs, or don't want to.

Well, if children don't get actively indoctrinated, they will start thinking about themselves, the world, and possible higher beings by themselves. They will look at as many alternatives as they can get info about. In the end reason, or subconscious reasoning, will determine the mindset of the child. And from my experience that mindset will not change later on in most cases; there may be adjustments, but complete changes of weltanschauung are rare. That's because most people never take the time to examine their core beliefs, or don't want to.

I don't know. I was raised 'christian', and I was a 'christian'... but now I'm an Atheist... as are three of my four siblings.

I don't know. I was raised 'christian', and I was a 'christian'... but now I'm an Atheist... as are three of my four siblings.Oh, but you said you never fully dropped the possibility of the existence of god(s). And how Christian were you?

And have you seen the "There is no" thread ;)

Oh, but you said you never fully dropped the possibility of the existence of god(s). And how Christian were you?


I was 'saved'. Now I am an implicit atheist. I don't deny the possibility of gods, but I'm certainly more than a little skeptical.


And have you seen the "There is no" thread ;)

Yes - apparently, they decided Soveistan started it...

Um, wow. Let's, first, your claims are internet claims and have the value of, well, internet claims. Present evidence for them and we have some reason to give them any value.

However, even if we accept them outright, your claims are anecdotal. Who you've encountered in China is hardly a random sampling and hardly has any probabitive value. My father used to swear that because he was from the streets of Chicago and had encountered lots of black people that he could tell you what they believe too. Of course, my father was a racist and was just trying to justify his racism, but, perhaps, I should have accepted his "expertise" as well.

I do appreciate your efforts Jocabia and hereby seek to answer them: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/38101.htm

Religion in China

Buddhists 8%,
Taoists, unknown as a percentage (although Taoism is essentially a philosophy,much like Confucianism, there is a religious aspect in terms of having a 'divine being'.
Muslims, 1.4%,
Protestant Christians, 0.8 to 1.2%
Catholic Christians, 0.4% with official churches, with another 0.4 to 0.8% estimated to be attending unofficial Catholic services.

So, just over 10% - China's population is 1.3 billion.

Oddly enough, China has had its own Son of God, a man who claimed to be the brother of Jesus, his name was Hong Xuiqian, he started the Taiping Rebellion in 1851, which laid waste to China for 14 years and left millions dead in its wake.

It's very hard to admire the Taipings, and I won't make the effort. They were fanatics and they were absurd, their redeeming features more than outweighed by such charming practices as branding Taiping Tienguo on the faces of conscripts to prevent their desertion (as happened to the maternal grandfather of the philosopher Hu Shih, who was much more successful in helping modernize China; he had, after all, gone to Columbia University for a doctorate.) Yet stories like theirs --- of the amazing actions performed by desperate people in the grip of bizarre ideas --- form a large part of the story of our times. To ignore such convulsions is to falsify our own view of the world, to say nothing of showing disrespect to immense tragedies.

I'm pretty sure "religiosity" isn't even a word :eek:
Religiosity is a sociological term. "Religiousness" is another term that might work equally well, but religiosity deals more with how religious a person is as opposed to how a person is religious. In other words, religiosity is more about how religious active or dedicated a person is, while religiousness is more about which practices they engage in, which symbols they revere, etc.

I am sorry if my choice of terms was confusing. What I was trying to get at was a discussion about the tendency toward strong religious dedication or high levels of religious activity, and whether or not that is something a person can be innately predisposed toward. Obviously the specific practices or rituals a person follows are not going to be coded in their DNA or anything, but what about the underlying drive to be religious in some way?

I do appreciate your efforts Jocabia and hereby seek to answer them: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/38101.htm

Religion in China

Buddhists 8%,
Taoists, unknown as a percentage (although Taoism is essentially a philosophy,much like Confucianism, there is a religious aspect in terms of having a 'divine being'.
Muslims, 1.4%,
Protestant Christians, 0.8 to 1.2%
Catholic Christians, 0.4% with official churches, with another 0.4 to 0.8% estimated to be attending unofficial Catholic services.

So, just over 10% - China's population is 1.3 billion.

Oddly enough, China has had its own Son of God, a man who claimed to be the brother of Jesus, his name was Hong Xuiqian, he started the Taiping Rebellion in 1851, which laid waste to China for 14 years and left millions dead in its wake.

It's very hard to admire the Taipings, and I won't make the effort. They were fanatics and they were absurd, their redeeming features more than outweighed by such charming practices as branding Taiping Tienguo on the faces of conscripts to prevent their desertion (as happened to the maternal grandfather of the philosopher Hu Shih, who was much more successful in helping modernize China; he had, after all, gone to Columbia University for a doctorate.) Yet stories like theirs --- of the amazing actions performed by desperate people in the grip of bizarre ideas --- form a large part of the story of our times. To ignore such convulsions is to falsify our own view of the world, to say nothing of showing disrespect to immense tragedies.

Did you intend for you link to include the numbers you offered? It doesn't. Plagiarism is discouraged on this board. AND since I know where you got that from, don't you think it would be valuable to add in the part that tells that 100's of millions of Chinese believe in ancestor worship and various other types of other than natural views.

Meanwhile, add that up again. It doesn't come to 10%

Did you intend for you link to include the numbers you offered? It doesn't. Plagiarism is discouraged on this board. AND since I know where you got that from, don't you think it would be valuable to add in the part that tells that 100's of millions of Chinese believe in ancestor worship and various other types of other than natural views.

Meanwhile, add that up again. It doesn't come to 10%

Yes, hence the italizication as explained before - you can c+p into Google.

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

Therefore, for people unfamiliar with how "ancestor worship" is actually practiced and thought of, the use of the translation "worship" can be a cause of misunderstanding and is a misnomer in many ways. In English, the word "worship" usually refers to the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity or divine being. However, in other cultures, this act of "worship" does not confer any belief that the departed ancestors have become some kind of deity. Rather the act is a way to respect, honor and look after ancestors in their afterlives as well as possibly seek their guidance for their living descendants. In this regard, many cultures and religions have similar practices. Some may visit the grave of his parents or other ancestors, leave flowers and pray to them in order to honor and remember them while also asking their deceased ancestors to continue to look after them. However he would not consider himself as "worshipping" them.

Yes, hence the italizication as explained before - you can c+p into Google.

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

Therefore, for people unfamiliar with how "ancestor worship" is actually practiced and thought of, the use of the translation "worship" can be a cause of misunderstanding and is a misnomer in many ways. In English, the word "worship" usually refers to the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity or divine being. However, in other cultures, this act of "worship" does not confer any belief that the departed ancestors have become some kind of deity. Rather the act is a way to respect, honor and look after ancestors in their afterlives as well as possibly seek their guidance for their living descendants. In this regard, many cultures and religions have similar practices. Some may visit the grave of his parents or other ancestors, leave flowers and pray to them in order to honor and remember them while also asking their deceased ancestors to continue to look after them. However he would not consider himself as "worshipping" them.

You're amusing. So now it's other people's jobs to source your claims? Source your claims. Telling people it's plagiarized doesn't make it not plagiarized. Without a source, it's useless. Do your own work and stop asking other people to do it for you.

Meanwhile, Ancestor Veneration, which you conveniently left off your quote text "accidentally", is still a belief in spirits. Where do they go? Why do they go there? What do they do when they get there? You know there is much more to this than a simple belief their ancestors watch over them, as do I.

Your text compares it to a practice of other groups that is almost entirely reserved for those who believe in an afterlife as part of some greater religious belief.

Again, if my entire relgious belief is "there is a God" how does science disprove this?

Now, again, you've claimed several times that science can disprove religion. I'm still waiting for you to show how science disproves the above religious belief. Or even the practice of Ancestor veneration which is most certainly a belief in the supernatural.

Now, again, you've claimed several times that science can disprove religion. I'm still waiting for you to show how science disproves the above religious belief.
To be fair, science can't say anything about the existence of "God" until you define what you mean by God. Science certainly can disprove a whole host of things that people have claimed are "God," because people frequently make claims about God that ARE accessible to science. It is possible that science could disprove specific hypotheses about your God, if you provide any, but as long as you leave your concept of "God" totally vague then nobody (scientific or otherwise) can say much of anything about it.

Yes, I never said that science can disprove God

Religious reason - because God is unknowable - then why religion? Why base your life on something that says nothing about how you should live
Atheist reason - you can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place - I can't disprove goblins - they might be hiding somewhere!

Religion is illogical

I'll ask this again, how do you know that God doesn't exist?

To be fair, science can't say anything about the existence of "God" until you define what you mean by God. Science certainly can disprove a whole host of things that people have claimed are "God," because people frequently make claims about God that ARE accessible to science. It is possible that science could disprove specific hypotheses about your God, if you provide any, but as long as you leave your concept of "God" totally vague then nobody (scientific or otherwise) can say much of anything about it.

Sure. And you highlight the mistake he's making. Science can disprove certain beliefs about the supernatural. Science cannot address the existence of the supernatural however, and cannot address those religions that do not believe in a meddling God.

A concept of a non-meddling God isn't vague and it isn't touchable either. It's not the vagueness that disallows scientific discovery in the realm of God, but whether or not one's concept is of a God that regularly performs drastic miracles in the world or a God that only interacts with us spiritually.

Sure. And you highlight the mistake he's making. Science can disprove certain beliefs about the supernatural. Science cannot address the existence of the supernatural however, and cannot address that thos religions that do not believe in a meddling God.

Science can simply point out that the supernatural is completely unnecessary and does not explain anything about the world around us. If people choose to believe in "non-meddling" gods, science will say the same thing it says about non-meddling leprechauns: a resounding "meh."


A concept of a non-meddling God isn't vague and it isn't touchable either. It's not the vagueness that disallows scientific discovery in the realm of God, but whether or not one's concept is of a God that regularly performs drastic miracles in the world or a God that only interacts with us spiritually.
I'm not complaining about belief in a non-meddling God, and you're right that a non-meddling God doesn't have to be a vague God. I'm saying that, so far, YOUR God is vague and undefined. If you'd like to define it further, then it's possible that other people (scientists or not) might be able to say something about it. Otherwise it's just an amorphous somethingorother.

Science can simply point out that the supernatural is completely unnecessary and does not explain anything about the world around us.

Both parts of that are untrue. The supernatural is not necessary to science. That's not the same as unnecessary. And it doesn't necessarily explain anything about the natural world. It does or may explain our reality, however.

I'm assuming here that by world, you don't mean "the earth", but instead everything. If I'm wrong, correct me.


If people choose to believe in "non-meddling" gods, science will say the same thing it says about non-meddling leprechauns: a resounding "meh."

You mean a resounding "nothing". Science doesn't share your desire to weight in on religious ideologies and as such says nothing about those beliefs that do not apply to the natural world. It doesn't bother with so much as a "meh", since even that suggests an attempt to show it doesn't care, when in reality it's simply not capable of addressing it.


I'm not complaining about belief in a non-meddling God, and you're right that a non-meddling God doesn't have to be a vague God. I'm saying that, so far, YOUR God is vague and undefined. If you'd like to define it further, then it's possible that other people (scientists or not) might be able to say something about it. Otherwise it's just an amorphous somethingorother.

My God isn't important to the point. I've explained my beliefs in detail. MY God isn't vague so much as your understanding of MY God may be. And I'm happy to explain MY God in a thread where it's appropriate. Here, my beliefs have no bearing on the REALITY that science cannot address the existence of the supernatural and doesn't try. Only non-scientists who are confused about the role of science do.

Both parts of that are untrue. The supernatural is not necessary to science. That's not the same as unnecessary. And it doesn't necessarily explain anything about the natural world. It does or may explain our reality, however.

How? I've yet to encounter a supernatural explanation for anything. All the explanations turn out to be just guesses or claims that don't actually provide information. If you've got some to share, that would be great!


I'm assuming here that by world, you don't mean "the earth", but instead everything. If I'm wrong, correct me.

Well, I've never been to any other world, nor have I even left the surface of this one. So I'm not going to make any claims about what superstition may do on other worlds.


You mean a resounding "nothing". Science doesn't share your desire to weight in on religious ideologies and as such says nothing about those beliefs that do not apply to the natural world.

? Huh?

My entire point was that science doesn't care. If you want to claim that magical leprechauns exist, but they do nothing whatsoever to impact us or our world directly, then science and I will both shrug our shoulders and say "Meh." Because, at that point, why should we care?

Science is about explaining the natural world around us and learning how things work. Science "cares" about the supernatural only insofar as it might impact the natural. And if you assert that the supernatural DOESN'T impact the natural, then science doesn't care about the supernatural.

Now, if you claim that magical leprechauns exist AND that there is some reason why their existence directly impacts OUR existence, then science and I may perk up our ears and ask to hear more. We will ask, "How?" and "How do you know?" and "How can WE verify what YOU know?" But as long as your leprechauns are just quietly existing in an undefined supernatural realm, science and I really don't so much care.

It doesn't bother with so much as a "meh", since even that suggests an attempt to show it doesn't care, when in reality it's simply not capable of addressing it.

It doesn't care. Science doesn't care about supernatural claims, unless people begin trying to say that the supernatural impacts the natural in some way.


My God isn't important to the point. I've explained my beliefs in detail. MY God isn't vague so much as your understanding of MY God may be. And I'm happy to explain MY God in a thread where it's appropriate.

*shrug*


Here, my beliefs have no bearing on the REALITY that science cannot address the existence of the supernatural and doesn't try. Only non-scientists who are confused about the role of science do.
Science cannot address the existence of the supernatural, true. Science can, and does, address CLAIMS about supernatural forces that supposedly impact the natural realm.

In a sense, any human who talks about believing in God is potentially touching on such a discussion, because humans exist in the natural realm. If you freely admit that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in your God, then you're safe. But if you claim to have some actual experiential reason to believe in God, then science (and logic) can absolutely touch your claims and examine them in depth because you are claiming that something that occurred in the natural realm (i.e. a natural being's experience) was caused by a supernatural force.

For instance, science can provide other explanations for your experiences, and can ask whether you have any reason to attribute any particular cause to those experiences. If you have made a choice to arbitrarily choose to attribute certain experiences to "God," then science can inform you that you're being as arbitrary as somebody who chooses to attribute their experiences to leprechauns. Science has then provided ample reason to regard your beliefs as equivalent to those of leprechaun-believers.

Where on earth have I said that science can disprove God? You keep asking for this even though you paste my exact sentence saying that science cannot disprove God.

The link above the quoted text says 'ancestor veneration'. Either you're not reading the post thoroughly or you're purposely misrepresenting.

Now, Bottle says it correctly, if you're limiting this to a belief in a vague, non-meddling, no rules whatsoever God - why religion?

This is about religion.

...and if you can prove anything about the supernatural, please contact James Randi and collect your 1 million

...and if you can prove anything about the supernatural, please contact James Randi and collect your 1 million

Faith has nothing to do with proof. You either believe, or you don't.

If you don't, no amount of proof will suffice.

If you do, you don't need to bother with proof.

There seems to be a lot of insistence on conflating the two ideas here.

Just to help you out...

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Where on earth have I said that science can disprove God? You keep asking for this even though you paste my exact sentence saying that science cannot disprove God.

You said science can disprove religion. I gave you a religion and asked you to disprove it. You do know what religion means, yes?


The link above the quoted text says 'ancestor veneration'. Either you're not reading the post thoroughly or you're purposely misrepresenting.

How am I not reading it thoroughly? First of all, you're referencing a broader version of said veneration. In Chinese veneration they believe in an afterlife. You're an "expert" so of course you know this. Meanwhile, stop with the vague claims and say specifically what I "misrepresented".


Now, Bottle says it correctly, if you're limiting this to a belief in a vague, non-meddling, no rules whatsoever God - why religion?

This is about religion.

I'm referencing religion. Do you not know the meaning of the word? Religion does not only refer to massive worldwide beliefs. You know this right? Again, how can science disprove my religion? I'd be interested to have you explain that.

Just to help you out...

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Exactly. You are ignoring the first part of that. PERSONAL. It doesn't have to be institutionalized. I posted that definition earlier to help you stop acting like religion means institutionalized, but it hasn't prevented that repeated error.

Meanwhile, more plagiarism.

And if your point here is to show that it's not religion if it doesn't address a deity, then you're falling victim to the overly simplistic definitions dictionaries often use, particularly in regards to philosophy or abstract ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

...

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[3] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[4]

In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns"[5] and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."[6]

...and if you can prove anything about the supernatural, please contact James Randi and collect your 1 million

And if you can disprove the existence of the supernatural please contact every science journal in the world and collect five hundred times that amount.

Meanwhile, stop with the vague claims and say specifically what I "misrepresented".

This - Meanwhile, Ancestor Veneration, which you conveniently left off your quote text "accidentally"

Just to help you out...

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.source?

and btw I find it always somewhat funny when someone cites an enlish dictionary to demonstrate anything, just as if there were no other languages, especially latin, from where the word originates. religio means duty, service.

and btw I find it always somewhat funny when someone cites an enlish dictionary to demonstrate anything, just as if there were no other languages, especially latin, from where the word originates. religio means duty, service.
You probably shouldn't chuckle too hard. The language that predominates on this forum is English, so definitions of our terms are only really relevant in English. What a word may or may not mean in some other language is completely beside the point. And we've had PILES of discussions about how Latin or Greek root terms do NOT automatically equate to the English meanings of words.

option Numero UNO


people shoud be allowed to choose whatever spirituality they want, even if that means no spirituaity.

Exactly. You are ignoring the first part of that. PERSONAL. It doesn't have to be institutionalized. I posted that definition earlier to help you stop acting like religion means institutionalized, but it hasn't prevented that repeated error.

Meanwhile, more plagiarism.

Ok dokey - I'm with you now, running out of laptop battery but with you.

Proof is the definition we need to clarify here - if, by your meaning, that requires absolute show it in your face put on a plate evidence, then no, science does not disprove.

If we can show why we believe in religion, through study of how the brain works and show that it can be explained with scientific reasons and proof, then yes, science disproves.

At some point we can prove nothing except 'I am'. The rest requires science for proofs

option Numero UNO


people shoud be allowed to choose whatever spirituality they want, even if that means no spirituaity.
Just to be clear, I wasn't asking if people SHOULD be free to choose their religious orientation, I was asking if there is an innate component that we are unable to control. I absolutely believe that individuals should be free to choose how (and if) they worship.

Religion in China

Buddhists 8%,
Taoists, unknown as a percentage (although Taoism is essentially a philosophy,much like Confucianism, there is a religious aspect in terms of having a 'divine being'.
Muslims, 1.4%,
Protestant Christians, 0.8 to 1.2%
Catholic Christians, 0.4% with official churches, with another 0.4 to 0.8% estimated to be attending unofficial Catholic services.


You didn't leave it off in your first quote? Then perhaps you can highlight for me where you included it in your reference to the various religious beliefs of the Chinese?

You didn't mention it until I brought it up. You conveniently left off the most prevelent belief in China.

There's no biological tendecy but when someone's beeing brainwashed from a young age that there is a god, chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later i life in spite of all scientific evidence and the illogical nature of religion.

How? I've yet to encounter a supernatural explanation for anything. All the explanations turn out to be just guesses or claims that don't actually provide information. If you've got some to share, that would be great!

Opinion. You're welcome to it. That's not science and really offers no value other than to tell us what YOU think.



Well, I've never been to any other world, nor have I even left the surface of this one. So I'm not going to make any claims about what superstition may do on other worlds.

I assume you're not limiting our knowledge or quest for it to our planet, despite your sarcasm. If you are then your point is woefully inadequate since explaining our planet isn't something we limit ourselves to.


? Huh?

My entire point was that science doesn't care. If you want to claim that magical leprechauns exist, but they do nothing whatsoever to impact us or our world directly, then science and I will both shrug our shoulders and say "Meh." Because, at that point, why should we care?

Science says NOTHING. That's the point. It's not that it doesn't care, it's that it cannot address it. They are different. Scientists would love to be able to examine the existence supernatural if it were possible. Not caring is an active process that suggests a view. Not being able to address it is a passive process of science simply focusing on what it is capable of addressing.


Science is about explaining the natural world around us and learning how things work. Science "cares" about the supernatural only insofar as it might impact the natural. And if you assert that the supernatural DOESN'T impact the natural, then science doesn't care about the supernatural.

Again, you may want it to NOT CARE, but it simply doesn't address it. You don't care, science has no such bias.


Now, if you claim that magical leprechauns exist AND that there is some reason why their existence directly impacts OUR existence, then science and I may perk up our ears and ask to hear more. We will ask, "How?" and "How do you know?" and "How can WE verify what YOU know?" But as long as your leprechauns are just quietly existing in an undefined supernatural realm, science and I really don't so much care.

Repeating ludicrous statements don't make them less ludicrous.


It doesn't care. Science doesn't care about supernatural claims, unless people begin trying to say that the supernatural impacts the natural in some way.

Okay, so let me see if I can sum this up. You think science doesn't care about the supernatural, right?



*shrug*


Science cannot address the existence of the supernatural, true. Science can, and does, address CLAIMS about supernatural forces that supposedly impact the natural realm.

I know. I already said that. Thanks for agreeing.


In a sense, any human who talks about believing in God is potentially touching on such a discussion, because humans exist in the natural realm. If you freely admit that you have no reason whatsoever to believe in your God, then you're safe. But if you claim to have some actual experiential reason to believe in God, then science (and logic) can absolutely touch your claims and examine them in depth because you are claiming that something that occurred in the natural realm (i.e. a natural being's experience) was caused by a supernatural force.

Science can? Science can ONLY address natural forces. It cannot eliminate supernatural forces. EVER.


For instance, science can provide other explanations for your experiences, and can ask whether you have any reason to attribute any particular cause to those experiences. If you have made a choice to arbitrarily choose to attribute certain experiences to "God," then science can inform you that you're being as arbitrary as somebody who chooses to attribute their experiences to leprechauns. Science has then provided ample reason to regard your beliefs as equivalent to those of leprechaun-believers.

Providing other explanations only works if they are mutually exclusive.

For example, is it possible that God intended for human to have their current form? Sure.

Is it possible the natural forces as created by God are exactly what is necessary to create us? Yes.

Is it possible that we are intelligently designed? Yes.

Would their still be a totally natural explanation as far as science is concerned? Yep.

No scientific theory can or tries to eliminate the influence or, more importantly, the intent of God.

Ok dokey - I'm with you now, running out of laptop battery but with you.

Proof is the definition we need to clarify here - if, by your meaning, that requires absolute show it in your face put on a plate evidence, then no, science does not disprove.

If we can show why we believe in religion, through study of how the brain works and show that it can be explained with scientific reasons and proof, then yes, science disproves.

At some point we can prove nothing except 'I am'. The rest requires science for proofs

I'm talking about scientific level of disproof and so far nothing you said demonstrates A) an understanding of science nor B) an ability to disprove religion as a whole. Showing why or how we believe does not address the subject of that belief. Again, you do a disservice to religion, science and your argument.

Religiosity is a sociological term. "Religiousness" is another term that might work equally well, but religiosity deals more with how religious a person is as opposed to how a person is religious. In other words, religiosity is more about how religious active or dedicated a person is, while religiousness is more about which practices they engage in, which symbols they revere, etc.

Of course, in the end, religiosity studies have to focus on how a person is religious. It is impossible to objectively measure how religious a person is. We can make large assumptions like, "A really religious person will go to church/temple/etc. more often," but it is really a poor assumption. Many people go to church/temple/etc. to "keep up appearances" or simply for social networking and many people who hold very strong beliefs rarely or never attend. We can ask someone how strong their beliefs are, but that introduces huge amounts of error, both because a person may give an answer based on what they think sounds the best and because they may view the terms you use very differently.

In the end, every sociological study on religion I have seen as focussed on the "how", because that is all that can possibly be measured. They may conjecture on the strength of belief, but they cannot measure it.

Of course, in the end, religiosity studies have to focus on how a person is religious. It is impossible to objectively measure how religious a person is. We can make large assumptions like, "A really religious person will go to church/temple/etc. more often," but it is really a poor assumption. Many people go to church/temple/etc. to "keep up appearances" or simply for social networking and many people who hold very strong beliefs rarely or never attend. We can ask someone how strong their beliefs are, but that introduces huge amounts of error, both because a person may give an answer based on what they think sounds the best and because they may view the terms you use very differently.

In the end, every sociological study on religion I have seen as focussed on the "how", because that is all that can possibly be measured. They may conjecture on the strength of belief, but they cannot measure it.
This is true, of course, because we only can look at the manifestations of emotions (so far). But what you choose to measure is important.

For instance, you look at how frequently a person attends religious services, regardless of which religious services they are attending (temple, church, mosque, etc). You look at how frequently they pray, regardless of to what or whom they are praying. You can't escape some level of qualitative investigation, but you place more emphasis on the quantitative.

There's no biological tendecy but when someone's beeing brainwashed from a young age that there is a god, chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later i life in spite of all scientific evidence and the illogical nature of religion.


I strongly disagree. There are many people who have picked up faith in latter life, there are people that have choosen freely with out any form of 'brainwashing' as to scinetific evidance which, evidance are we talking about, do you claim to have such that disprooves the existance of God?

I strongly disagree. There are many people who have picked up faith in latter life, there are people that have choosen freely with out any form of 'brainwashing' as to scinetific evidance which, evidance are we talking about, do you claim to have such that disprooves the existance of God?
None of what you said refutes what Nationalian said. He/she is completely right that if somebody is indoctrinated in religion at a young age then "chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later in life." Indeed, over 90% of the people who identify as religious belong to precisely the same religion and denomination as their parents.

True, 90% is not 100%. There are still people who pick up religion later in life, or move to religions other than what they were reared to, but Nationalian did not claim that ALL religious people were religious due to their upbringing.

None of what you said refutes what Nationalian said. He/she is completely right that if somebody is indoctrinated in religion at a young age then "chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later in life." Indeed, over 90% of the people who identify as religious belong to precisely the same religion and denomination as their parents.

True, 90% is not 100%. There are still people who pick up religion later in life, or move to religions other than what they were reared to, but Nationalian did not claim that ALL religious people were religious due to their upbringing.

Yes, fear of death can lead to terrible things.

Having said that, I have to accept Jocabia's position that given:

God is personal to each individual and...
If this is a definition of religion then...
Science cannot disprove that God.

Say anything about God's intent on earth, however, and I say that we can challenge beyond reasonable doubt that science provides a better answer.

Despite not being able to disprove God, we can find no evidence for God whatsoever. Same for unicorns.

None of what you said refutes what Nationalian said. He/she is completely right that if somebody is indoctrinated in religion at a young age then "chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later in life." Indeed, over 90% of the people who identify as religious belong to precisely the same religion and denomination as their parents.

True, 90% is not 100%. There are still people who pick up religion later in life, or move to religions other than what they were reared to, but Nationalian did not claim that ALL religious people were religious due to their upbringing.

Hey Bottle,

Let me rephrase that to make myself clearer.

Nationalian said:
'There's no biological tendecy......'

I strongly disagree. This no more than subjective conjecture, again unless I see any evidance to the contrary?

Nationalian said:
'.... but when someone's beeing brainwashed from a young age that there is a god,'

I strongly disagree again this is no more than subjective conjecture. Does Nationalian have proof that such brainwashing goes on? Upbringing, or brainwashing?


Nationalian said:
'....chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later i life in spite of all scientific evidence and the illogical nature of religion.'

I strongly disagree, which evidance are we taking about here? Again can it been shown that religoin is 'illogical' in nature?

Hey Bottle,

Let me rephrase that to make myself clearer.

Nationalian said:
'There's no biological tendecy......'

I strongly disagree. This no more than subjective conjecture, again unless I see any evidance to the contrary?

Nationalian said:
'.... but when someone's beeing brainwashed from a young age that there is a god,'

I strongly disagree again this is no more than subjective conjecture. Does Nationalian have proof that such brainwashing goes on? Upbringing, or brainwashing?


Nationalian said:
'....chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later i life in spite of all scientific evidence and the illogical nature of religion.'

I strongly disagree, which evidance are we taking about here? Again can it been shown that religoin is 'illogical' in nature?

I think it's time for the tables to be turned, please show one reason to believe in God.

I think it's time for the tables to be turned, please show one reason to believe in God.

*shrug* Because it make me feel better, because it helps me make sense of the why questions, because it fills a niche in my life.

Does that help?

Nationalian said:
'....chances are pretty high that he's going to believe it later i life in spite of all scientific evidence and the illogical nature of religion.'

I strongly disagree, which evidance are we taking about here? Again can it been shown that religoin is 'illogical' in nature?

Some of it is, yes. And some of it can be shown to be illogical in nature and to go directly against scientific evidence. And despite this, people STILL share the religion of their parents often times. And all of this supports what Nat said.

We can look at just those religious beliefs that reject science and/or logic. And if Peep is correct what we would expect to see is a nearly equal incidence of recurrence (keeping the religion of one's parents) to those who hold beliefs that accept science and logic.

So we have Peep's hypothesis which is falsifiable and we have the ability to make predictions that are testable. So test them. Is there a lower incidence? Is it equal? Or is it higher?

I think it's time for the tables to be turned, please show one reason to believe in God.

Why?

Why?

Why not? If you can show one piece of evidence that any God exists, whether yours or anyone else's, then you have logical reason to believe.

I understand it's about faith, I genuinely ask, is that to say no reason is needed?

If so, then could it be considered illogical?

EDIT: jolt is not showing I'm editing - last sentence turned from 'it could' to 'could it'

Why not? If you can show one piece of evidence that any God exists, whether yours or anyone else's, then you have logical reason to believe.

I understand it's about faith, I genuinely ask, is that to say no reason is needed?

If so, then could it be considered illogical?

Bah that's all besides the point. The same goes for the other side, either side is guilty of beliving something where there is no evidance. The only logical choice to make is Agnostic. Atheism is as irrational as Theism. But wait theres more ;¬)

For those that are over worried about the irratinality of choices they may make, you do realise that logical. critical thought is not the norm? That by defulat people do not apply this methoed of thought, that emotional response is the norm, that belife and not knowldge is the way that the majority opf the world think.

Ask youself, why is there intolerance of percived differances, ask your self what rational proof you have that you are loved?

It's all hate talk really, words we use to hurt thoses who don't belive as we do, each side is guilty of it, and each side trys to wrap it all up as intelectula debate.

Dribble people, stop talking dribble, and at least be truthfull to your selves huh?

Bah that's all besides the point. The same goes for the other side, either side is guilty of beliving something where there is no evidance. The only logical choice to make is Agnostic. Atheism is as irrational as Theism. But wait theres more ;¬)

For those that are over worried about the irratinality of choices they may make, you do realise that logical. critical thought is not the norm? That by defulat people do not apply this methoed of thought, that emotional response is the norm, that belife and not knowldge is the way that the majority opf the world think.

Ask youself, why is there intolerance of percived differances, ask your self what rational proof you have that you are loved?

It's all hate talk really, words we use to hurt thoses who don't belive as we do, each side is guilty of it, and each side trys to wrap it all up as intelectula debate.

Dribble people, stop talking dribble, and at least be truthfull to your selves huh?

At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole, people don't believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their parents. - http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml

I for one welcome our fairy overlords : )

*shrug* Because it make me feel better, because it helps me make sense of the why questions, because it fills a niche in my life.

Does that help?
I knew a guy who said exactly the same thing about heroine. And I suppose heroine does exist. Hmm.

It isn't a matter of if it is 'accessible' or not... it's a matter of whether there is something implicit in the brain, flesh or whatever, that makes some people intrinsically more likely to be disposed towards religion.

Maybe a 'spiritual' gene, or something to do with hormone levels and brain-chemistry in utero...?

Ah, okay. I don't believe in that. I think it's 'accessible' to everyone.

At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole, people don't believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God, together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their parents. - http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml

Heh it's funny what you choose to answer.

Why did I get no response to my post answering your question? I mean I answered and then you cheery pick what you feel comfatable responding to and what you don't.

It is also funny how we can talk about rationality, and yet to 'proove' your point you cut and paste somebody else words. Which is fine I guess, although it does show that you yourself have placed faith in the words of others, unless you have verified this 'truth' for your own self? Still to answer you.

The answer you provided says a lot, but fails to show why it is to be considered correct? Yes logicaly the default position is to be agnostic about faireis, unicorns, dragons etc... Some people also do belive in faires, unicorns ,dragons etc....

The fact that Dawkins says:
'The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove'

Does not show how and why such an Agnostic stance is not logicaly true, and remeber it is rational thought vs irrational though that we are talking about here.

I knew a guy who said exactly the same thing about heroine. And I suppose heroine does exist. Hmm.

Irrelevent, dismisive and languae designed to harm.

The question asked was:

Barringtonia Asked:
'I think it's time for the tables to be turned, please show one reason to believe in God.'

I gave three.

Heh it's funny what you choose to answer.

Why did I get no response to my post answering your question? I mean I answered and then you cheery pick what you feel comfatable responding to and what you don't.

It is also funny how we can talk about rationality, and yet to 'proove' your point you cut and paste somebody else words. Which is fine I guess, although it does show that you yourself have placed faith in the words of others, unless you have verified this 'truth' for your own self? Still to answer you.

The answer you provided says a lot, but fails to show why it is to be considered correct? Yes logicaly the default position is to be agnostic about faireis, unicorns, dragons etc... Some people also do belive in faires, unicorns ,dragons etc....

The fact that Dawkins says:
'The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove'

Does not show how and why such an Agnostic stance is not logicaly true, and remeber it is rational thought vs irrational though that we are talking about here.(Bold mine)

Sure it does. We simply would not be able to function if we assumed that anything we can't disprove must exist. It is far more logical and reasonable to not assume the existence of all unprovable things.

Arbitrarily choosing to believe in some unprovable things, simply because they make us feel good, is reasonable from the point of view that we seek pleasure and do things that feel good to us. However, this tells us absolutely nothing about the actual state of reality. IF (and this is a big if) we are interested in having our beliefs about the world actually match up with the reality of the world, then choosing to arbitrarily believe in unprovables which feel good is not a reasonable or logical stance to take, since much of reality feels quite rotten.

(Bold mine)

Sure it does. We simply would not be able to function if we assumed that anything we can't disprove must exist. It is far more logical and reasonable to not assume the existence of all unprovable things.

Arbitrarily choosing to believe in some unprovable things, simply because they make us feel good, is reasonable from the point of view that we seek pleasure and do things that feel good to us. However, this tells us absolutely nothing about the actual state of reality. IF (and this is a big if) we are interested in having our beliefs about the world actually match up with the reality of the world, then choosing to arbitrarily believe in unprovables which feel good is not a reasonable or logical stance to take, since much of reality feels quite rotten.

Nope it doesn't and you got ahold of the wrong end of the stick entirly.


Me:
'The answer you provided says a lot, but fails to show why it is to be considered correct? Yes logicaly the default position is to be agnostic about faireis, unicorns, dragons etc... Some people also do belive in faires, unicorns ,dragons etc....'

Me again:
'Does not show how and why such an Agnostic stance is not logicaly true, and remeber it is rational thought vs irrational though that we are talking about here.'

The answer provided;
'The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could hold which we can't positively disprove'

The original post:(at least the bit that is being discused here)
'The only logical choice to make is Agnostic. Atheism is as irrational as Theism'

We are not talking about beliving that anything we can't disprove must exist. As I'm sure you know the Agnostic stance is we do not have proof one way or the other so I choose to say I don't know.

Unless of course now you are going to disagree with that definition of Agnostic, and hit me with one that prooves otherwise?

As to feeling good etc.. Again you take my words out of context. I was asked simply to name one reason to belive in God. Not to expounde on what makes me belive, or the resoans for me having my faith, just one reason to belive.

Why not? If you can show one piece of evidence that any God exists, whether yours or anyone else's, then you have logical reason to believe.

I understand it's about faith, I genuinely ask, is that to say no reason is needed?

If so, then it could be considered illogical?

It's clear from your "illogic" remark that you are not actually asking for evidence, but for proof of some sort. Evidence itself need not be logical --it is simply the interpretation of observation.

Many reasons have been enumerated over the millennia of recorded history.

But is it in OED?
Don't know and don't care. Some people think the OED is the final word on what's English and what's not, but it is hardly the ONLY word, and Merriam-Webster has been in the dictionary racket long enough to count as authoritative, especially on American usages.

And it's off-topic, but that 10 commandments thing? Isn't a large marble carving of the 10 commandments a graven image, and therefore in violation of the first commandment?
Don't know and don't care about this either.

The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to anything.

Actually, no, that's only one agnostic argument that can be applied to everything, and to someone who understands agnosticism, it's not their argument.

The true agnostic argument is actually applicable to nothing.

Agnostisicm isn't based on "I don't know"; it is a philosophical stance: it follows a line of reasoning to the logical conclusion that we cannot know if deity exists, and from that firm stand a person can honestly and humbly say, "I don't know."

I should clarify:

When I use italics in a posting - if it's a single word it's for emphasis, if it's a paragraph it's a c+p job. They're not my lies (not that they're lies anyway) but sources - you can c+p into Google to check the source (although I accept if your reply is that you should not need to make the effort).
A better way to clarify would be to learn the proper way to distinguish quotes, such as using the quote function in this forum, or just simple quotation marks ('' ''). Also, if you are going to quote, you should also name the source of your quote so that it can be checked.

So now that we've cleared that up, repeating lies doesn't make them true, no matter whose lies they are.

So, given this section quoted above is about the dominance of monotheism and is specifically in relation to Japan.
It can be about whatever it likes. Doesn't make it true.

First, 70% do not identify themselves as religious at all.
Of the 30% that do, I grant you sincretism but I hold that Buddhism is the dominant, which has subsumed the cultural practices of Shintoism.
You're not granting me anything, as I already made clear that syncretism HAS NOT led to the subsuming of Shinto by Buddhism. Shinto is still practiced as a recognizable, independent religion, by those self-same Buddhists.

In regard to China, the translation of my sentence is: I speak Chinese (I've used Zhongwen as opposed to Putonghua, which would technically be more correct - Zhongwen is 'the language of China', Putonghua is 'the common speak' but refers only to Mandarin) -I worked in Beijing for 7 years.
As what? An expert on Chinese religions and religious experience? Like I said before, you can be just as wrong in Chinese as you can in English.

I have spoken extensively with Chinese people about their beliefs, in fact it's a major topic of debate in Chinese newspapers - China is irreligious.

To ignore what the Chinese themselves say is...well I'm not sure what it is.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Your personal experiences do not prove anything about a culture as a whole.

And China is officially irreligious and due to the active oppression of religion in China, there is little presence of what I assume you meant by the phrase "coded religion." It also means that a lower number of Chinese people will have any personal experience of organized religious practice. But to say that the Chinese have no "coded religion" is patently false. The communist government has begun to tolerate certain organized religions, and their followings, though small, are steady. They will likely continue to be tolerated as long as they remain small; we shall see what will happen if they grow.

I remind you that, until the 1980s, Russia was also officially irreligious, yet today the Orthodox Church has regained prominence and did so very quickly after restrictions against it were lifted. Why? Because it was the preferred religion of the culture before the Revolution and it remained so despite official and ideological denials for 70 years. Who are you to say that the Chinese have no religion, when they clearly did prior to their communist revolution? And who are you to judge what the Chinese are and what they will do, based solely on what they say under an official system that will punish them for saying anything other than what is approved?

To base broad cultural assumptions based solely on anecdotal reports of statements made by a restrained people is...well, I think I do know what that is.

To say I do not have a better judgement of what Chinese people believe in is to say that a doctor is no better qualified to judge your health than anyone else.
Oh, so now you're the Soul Doctor to the Chinese nation? Please. You have shown us nothing to make us think you are qualified to make any pronoucements about China at all, let alone remarks that defy published statistics as listed in the sites I offered.

I would like to see where you proved to me that there are more polytheists than monotheists.
I would like you to show me where I made any such claim.

Just because polytheists are the minority today does not mean that they are already extinct as you claimed.

I remind you that you originally declared polytheism to be dead. I pointed out current examples of nations in which millions of people still practice polytheist religions to prove that this is not the case. You have spent the next several days trying and failing to show that (A) they are not polytheist, and/or (B) even if they are polytheist, they someday won't be, so we may as well count them in the monotheist column right now, and/or (C) that evidence of minority is evidence of inevitable extinction, which even you must see is just plain silly. All this in support of a ridiculous initial assertion that there is some kind of reductionist progressive evolution to the human brain from many gods to one god to zero gods, at which point mankind will be perfect, I suppose. What nonsense you spout!

I still stand by counting China and Japan into my monotheist/atheist point.
You can stand by it till the sun explodes. You're stilll wrong.

I strongly disagree. There are many people who have picked up faith in latter life, there are people that have choosen freely with out any form of 'brainwashing' as to scinetific evidance which, evidance are we talking about, do you claim to have such that disprooves the existance of God?

I voted partly because I know many people choose without beeing brainwashed from a young age. But when you are taking a child to church every day from a young age and saying that there is a god, it works like brainwashing even if you don't mean any harm by it. Religion itself isn't even a bad thing but in the way that it has been used during history by authorities to controll the masses, I have to agree with Marx famous statement of religion beeing the opiate of the masses.

And no, I don't claim that I have evidence disproving the existance of God because I can't disprove something that has not been prooven and never will be. It will also be a silly discussion if I make an attempt to try because in order to disprove the existance of a God we have to know everything that is possible to know otherwise we can not say that God doesn't do what we don't know about, get it? I can however disprove certain episodes in the bible or in any other religious book for that matter but I can never disprove the existance of God. It's not even possible to do that without having a clear definition of what God actually is. I don't even have a personal interest in disproving God any longer and I want everyone to be free to choose their religion but I don't like the way religion is beeing used to controll the masses and to create hostility between different cultures.

No, because religious beliefs cannot be coded into your DNA. Thus, they are not "biological."

Here, look. I'll give you a linky (www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html)... if it's legal. (I'm pulling it off of my Philosophy Profs. website... Dr. Tom Keith)

Be forewarned... This guy is ruthless when it comes to attacking the idea of Religion.
Adherence towards particular sets of beliefs may not be encoded in DNA (in fact, I'll go so far as to say they are obviously not), but that is not the question.

The question is, is there a genetic predisposition towards spirituality which would lead people to adhere to sets of religious beliefs, no matter which set it may be?

I believe there is, but it is a combination of several genetically encoded urges and brain functions. Not everyone has these genetic predisposition to the same degree, which is why not everyone is religious to the same degree.

Irrelevent, dismisive and languae designed to harm.

The question asked was:

Barringtonia Asked:
'I think it's time for the tables to be turned, please show one reason to believe in God.'

I gave three.Highly dubious three. Only egomaniac alibis, basically.

Before or after birth?

Because I'm not basing my arguments on any particular belief, I'm saying beliefs are transferred from parent to child. Ergo, if the parents are atheist, the child is predisposed to be atheist as well.
In the context of this conversation, I think "predisposition" means before birth, i.e. genetic. Habits instilled by nurture (upbringing by parents/society) are not a predisposition of the individual.

I do appreciate your efforts Jocabia and hereby seek to answer them: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/38101.htm

Religion in China

Buddhists 8%,
Taoists, unknown as a percentage (although Taoism is essentially a philosophy,much like Confucianism, there is a religious aspect in terms of having a 'divine being'.
Muslims, 1.4%,
Protestant Christians, 0.8 to 1.2%
Catholic Christians, 0.4% with official churches, with another 0.4 to 0.8% estimated to be attending unofficial Catholic services.

So, just over 10% - China's population is 1.3 billion.

Oddly enough, China has had its own Son of God, a man who claimed to be the brother of Jesus, his name was Hong Xuiqian, he started the Taiping Rebellion in 1851, which laid waste to China for 14 years and left millions dead in its wake.

It's very hard to admire the Taipings, and I won't make the effort. They were fanatics and they were absurd, their redeeming features more than outweighed by such charming practices as branding Taiping Tienguo on the faces of conscripts to prevent their desertion (as happened to the maternal grandfather of the philosopher Hu Shih, who was much more successful in helping modernize China; he had, after all, gone to Columbia University for a doctorate.) Yet stories like theirs --- of the amazing actions performed by desperate people in the grip of bizarre ideas --- form a large part of the story of our times. To ignore such convulsions is to falsify our own view of the world, to say nothing of showing disrespect to immense tragedies.
Again, failure to name your sources makes these quotes useless to proving your argument. Provide links so we can judge for ourselves. And again, italics are not the proper way to offset quotations.

I voted partly because I know many people choose without beeing brainwashed from a young age. But when you are taking a child to church every day from a young age and saying that there is a god, it works like brainwashing even if you don't mean any harm by it. Religion itself isn't even a bad thing but in the way that it has been used during history by authorities to controll the masses, I have to agree with Marx famous statement of religion beeing the opiate of the masses.

And no, I don't claim that I have evidence disproving the existance of God because I can't disprove something that has not been prooven and never will be. It will also be a silly discussion if I make an attempt to try because in order to disprove the existance of a God we have to know everything that is possible to know otherwise we can not say that God doesn't do what we don't know about, get it? I can however disprove certain episodes in the bible or in any other religious book for that matter but I can never disprove the existance of God. It's not even possible to do that without having a clear definition of what God actually is. I don't even have a personal interest in disproving God any longer and I want everyone to be free to choose their religion but I don't like the way religion is beeing used to controll the masses and to create hostility between different cultures.


I agree with a lot of what you say, and only ever ask people to disprove to me the existance of God to highlight the stupidness inherent in the 'but it's irrational' camp, I mean both sides choose to belive in the face of no evidance, so both are guilty of irrationality.

I will ask though, who is using religion to control the masses and create hostility between differant cultures? I can see no evidance for this at all.

Differant cultures will always clash because they are, well culturaly differant.
The fact that in Indian culture it is considered polite to cover the head at a passing funeral, whilst in British culture this would indeed be insulting, and one should instead remove any head covering, is bound to cause friction as both sides can concive insult in such actions. But I fail to see any showdowy figure or group that is doing this, all I can see is human cultural differances.

Yes, hence the italizication as explained before - you can c+p into Google.
I know I don't have to but I'm going to say it again because three times is the charm: Italics are not the proper way to offset quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestor_veneration
Wiki is a highly suspect source for anything but the most superficial references. You have the entire internet to choose from. You can do better, even for defining terms.

Therefore, for people unfamiliar with how "ancestor worship" is actually practiced and thought of, the use of the translation "worship" can be a cause of misunderstanding and is a misnomer in many ways. In English, the word "worship" usually refers to the reverent love and devotion accorded a deity or divine being. However, in other cultures, this act of "worship" does not confer any belief that the departed ancestors have become some kind of deity. Rather the act is a way to respect, honor and look after ancestors in their afterlives as well as possibly seek their guidance for their living descendants. In this regard, many cultures and religions have similar practices. Some may visit the grave of his parents or other ancestors, leave flowers and pray to them in order to honor and remember them while also asking their deceased ancestors to continue to look after them. However he would not consider himself as "worshipping" them.
And what does this semantic technicality have to do with the question at hand? Is it just another attempt to claim that religious beliefs that don't fit your mold are not real religions? The subtleties of meaning in the word "worship" will not achieve that trick for you.

To be fair, science can't say anything about the existence of "God" until you define what you mean by God. Science certainly can disprove a whole host of things that people have claimed are "God," because people frequently make claims about God that ARE accessible to science. It is possible that science could disprove specific hypotheses about your God, if you provide any, but as long as you leave your concept of "God" totally vague then nobody (scientific or otherwise) can say much of anything about it.
And even if specific claims are made about what God is -- and only if the claims point to scientifically testable things -- then science can only disprove those claims. In other words, science may be able to say what God IS NOT, but it cannot say what it IS.

Highly dubious three. Only egomaniac alibis, basically.

Annnnnd again taken out of context, having not bothred to read the rest of the post?

I was asked to give one reason to belive in God. I was not asked what are my reasons for belving in God, nor please expalin the thought process you have gone through to have your faith.

I read the OP as, name one positive you get out of your belife. In this context you'll find my answers are not doubious at all, nor show any egocentric nature not inherent in all humanity.

In essence the question was as useful as asking why do you eat carrots, the only valid reason being, coz I like them. I tried to show this, in my teresly worded answer, as indicitive of my distain for both the question, the way it was worded, and my percived reason for it being asked.