NationStates Jolt Archive

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 you have repeatedly ignored responses by Jocabia, myself, and maybe a few others, pointing out that, since religion is a set of assertions about God, you cannot disprove religion without disproving those assertions, and you cannot disprove assertions without addressing the subject of the assertions, and science is not equipped to address the subject of God. Science cannot make any pronouncements, either positive or negative, about God, and therefore, science cannot show that religion's assertions about God are false. This applies also to all other supernatural assertions made by religions.

The only thing science can disprove is assertions made by religion about the natural world, which is subject to scientific testing. Thus, science can disprove claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old (or whatever), but it cannot disprove claims that belief in a certain god or set of moral precepts will improve the condition of one's soul.

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.
No, science can't tell us what God is or is not. We have to define God before science can test it. If we say, "God is X," science may be able to tell us whether or not X exists.

It's like how science can't tell us if we should call a painting "beautiful." If we provide a specific, concrete definition of "beauty," science can tell us whether or not the painting in question has the qualities that we have defined as "beauty," but science can't tell us if our definition of "beauty" was the right definition in the first place. If, for instance, we said "beauty is symmetry," then science could tell us the extent to which symmetry is present in the painting. But many people could provide examples of asymmetric things which they also find beautiful, and science can't tell us whether their concept of beauty is "right" or "wrong."

God, like beauty, is a completely subjective concept. Individuals define God in completely different ways, and science cannot tell us which definition we "should" be using.

Thus, science can disprove claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old (or whatever), but it cannot disprove claims that belief in a certain god or set of moral precepts will improve the condition of one's soul.
But, again, this is because of a failure on the part of believers to define their terms.

We've had entire threads asking people to define "the soul," and there are as many different answers as their are posters in the threads. Science can't evaluate completely undefined entities.

Science also cannot tell us whether ANYTHING "improves" anything else, unless we first define what "improvement" will look like. Again, "improving" the condition of one's soul is rarely defined in anything resembling specific terms.

But, again, this is because of a failure on the part of believers to define their terms.

We've had entire threads asking people to define "the soul," and there are as many different answers as their are posters in the threads. Science can't evaluate completely undefined entities.

Science also cannot tell us whether ANYTHING "improves" anything else, unless we first define what "improvement" will look like. Again, "improving" the condition of one's soul is rarely defined in anything resembling specific terms.

We'll skip the definitions of love, faith, and hope while we're at it.

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.

Religion has always been used to control the population in a country but it's merely a tool used by dictators, or people with pover in general, to make the population feel united. This can also be said about nationalism and many other isms for that matter but I never claimed that religion itself created hostility between cultures, I talked about the way it was beeing used. If I could rephrase myself I would say that religion is used as a tool by people in pover to unite the population against a common enemy in order to take focus of real problems striking a country.

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 already addressed this, pages and pages ago, by pointing out that knowing the reason why we think something does not prove that the belief is false. We know why we think Vitamin C is good for us, and lo and behold, it's because it is good for us. Knowing the reason why our bodies crave vitamin C does not lead us to conclude that a belief based in biological necessity is a false belief. Knowing why people tend towards religious belief does not lead us to conclude that religious beliefs are false.

And by the way, I'd like to see these scientific proofs as to why people believe in religions, since it's the core question of this entire debate.

No, science can't tell us what God is or is not. We have to define God before science can test it. If we say, "God is X," science may be able to tell us whether or not X exists.

It's like how science can't tell us if we should call a painting "beautiful." If we provide a specific, concrete definition of "beauty," science can tell us whether or not the painting in question has the qualities that we have defined as "beauty," but science can't tell us if our definition of "beauty" was the right definition in the first place. If, for instance, we said "beauty is symmetry," then science could tell us the extent to which symmetry is present in the painting. But many people could provide examples of asymmetric things which they also find beautiful, and science can't tell us whether their concept of beauty is "right" or "wrong."

God, like beauty, is a completely subjective concept. Individuals define God in completely different ways, and science cannot tell us which definition we "should" be using.

You reflected what Muravyets said precisely. If we define God, then science can tell us what is IS and what is IS NOT.

I believe Muravyets refers to God in the fundamental understanding as "unknowable" and therefore "undefinable". The word "God" then is a linguistic placeholder to represent this idea of deity.

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.

We've agreed on this position already.

By the by, understood about all points in terms of quoting and sourcing - I'll endeavour to do better. I was going to ask how to show the difference between quoting another poster and quoting a source but, of course, a link solves that problem - please note my post count, I am a 'much-denigrated on this board' N00B

The question is, given nothing can be proved about God according to the definition accepted (admittedly, as written by me and no one has explicitly accepted it), why posit he exists? Do we posit that unicorns exist because we can't prove they don't, or live our lives as if they do?

Can anyone show any evidence that a God does exist?

Religion has always been used to control the population in a country but it's merely a tool used by dictators, or people with pover in general, to make the population feel united. This can also be said about nationalism and many other isms for that matter but I never claimed that religion itself created hostility between cultures, I talked about the way it was beeing used. If I could rephrase myself I would say that religion is used as a tool by people in pover to unite the population against a common enemy in order to take focus of real problems striking a country.

And I would agian question the truth of that statement. Can you show me this is true? In fact canyou present evidanc to back up any of these claims:

1) Religon has always been used for control of the population.

2) Religon is used as a tool of dictators, or others is postions of power to make the population feel united.

3) Religion is used as a smokescreen by those in power to defoucus the attention on other problems.

I'll concede that historicly we have had some of this, in my country(UK) our history and the history of our monarchy is tied in with the history of the Catholic, and Anglican churches. Now though, can you show me proof, not hearsay, not media hype, not what others have said, but real proof that what you say is true. Other wise are you not guilty of irrational belife without proof?

We've agreed on this position already.

By the by, understood about all points in terms of quoting and sourcing - I'll endeavour to do better. I was going to ask how to show the difference between quoting another poster and quoting a source but, of course, a link solves that problem - please note my post count, I am a 'much-denigrated on this board' N00B

The question is, given nothing can be proved about God according to the definition accepted (admittedly, as written by me and no one has explicitly accepted it), why posit he exists? Do we posit that unicorns exist because we can't prove they don't, or live our lives as if they do?

Can anyone show any evidence that a God does exist?

Because the concept of God, or a creator, or creators has been around as long as man has. Because the concept of God may well have been the very first of mankinds groping for answers. Because for many the concept of God is still relevant and DOES answer certian questions.

There have been studies done that say that religion was a an evolutionary trait picked up a couple hundred thousand years ago in an attempt to band a group together, to make a tighter pack. And this may be true for the ancient religions but for the "modern" ones (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) I would have to disagree. Of course I am biased (I'm a Christian), but since these religions were created in the last 4000 years makes them a tiny fraction of history on the evolutionary time table, it would seem unlikely that they would be a product of evolution.

On the topic of inheriting the tendency to become more easily a religions person, I would also have to disagree. Assuming that ancient religion was a evolutionary survival trait, it could be assumed that religious tribes would have survived better than non-religious packs, therefore religious tribes would live, and would be our ancestors. This would make almost all mankind biased towards picking a religion, so the original question would become mute.

Assuming any religion to be true, it fundamental nature would also cancel out the original question. Since religion deals with the metaphysical, it is by nature above the standard physical world that is biochemistry, genetics, and even evolution. It can be further assumed that since every person contains a soul, that that soul is trying to know God, and is search for the "truth".

You reflected what Muravyets said precisely. If we define God, then science can tell us what is IS and what is IS NOT.

Again, no, that's not correct. Science cannot tell us what God is or is not. Science could only, in theory, tell us whether what we have defined as "God" exists or does not exist. And that is only assuming that what we define as "God" is accessible to scientific methods.

Science cannot tell us whether what we have defined as God actually is God, because God is completely subjective. So even if our definition of God were completely testable through natural methods, science STILL could not tell us if our definition is actually the right one to be using, and therefore could not tell us if "God" really does exist.

It is a very important distinction, and a crucial limitation of science.

I believe Muravyets refers to God in the fundamental understanding as "unknowable" and therefore "undefinable". The word "God" then is a linguistic placeholder to represent this idea of deity.
If God is, by definition, "undefinable" or "unknowable," then "God" is a meaningless term as far as science is concerned. This has nothing to do with the supernatural, and everything to do with the failure to define a term. A "undefinable" natural entity would be equally meaningless as far as science is concerned.

And by the way, I'd like to see these scientific proofs as to why people believe in religions, since it's the core question of this entire debate.

They've been linked to a few times throughout this thread - sourced links.

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.So the only reason to believe in god is subjective personal well-being that is completely disconnected from god as such?

Because the concept of God, or a creator, or creators has been around as long as man has. Because the concept of God may well have been the very first of mankinds groping for answers. Because for many the concept of God is still relevant and DOES answer certian questions.

So have unicorns

Because the concept of God, or a creator, or creators has been around as long as man has.

The concept of magical fairies and spirits has been around as long as human beings. So?


Because the concept of God may well have been the very first of mankinds groping for answers.

So?


Because for many the concept of God is still relevant and DOES answer certian questions.
Such as?

Seriously, none of what you have provided here is anything approaching evidence for the existence of God. It is ample evidence for the fact that some humans choose to believe in something they call God, but it doesn't say anything about whether that belief is a reflection of reality.

We've agreed on this position already.

By the by, understood about all points in terms of quoting and sourcing - I'll endeavour to do better. I was going to ask how to show the difference between quoting another poster and quoting a source but, of course, a link solves that problem - please note my post count, I am a 'much-denigrated on this board' N00B

The question is, given nothing can be proved about God according to the definition accepted (admittedly, as written by me and no one has explicitly accepted it), why posit he exists? Do we posit that unicorns exist because we can't prove they don't, or live our lives as if they do?

Can anyone show any evidence that a God does exist?

If you mean emperical evidence, of course not. No more than I can prove love exists beyond a chemical reaction, people's belief in it and how that belief affects people.

I think it's time for the tables to be turned, please show one reason to believe in God.
Or, show one reason to eat chocolate.

If you don't like chocolate, there is no reason to eat it.

If you don't feel an urge towards belief, then there is no reason to pretend otherwise (assuming that we are not discussing religious persecutions here).

So, for instance, I am not an animist because my parents were. They were not, and neither was anyone else I grew up with. I call myself an animist because that is the word that best describes my inherent way of thinking, which has been with me my entire life, regardless of all outside influences. And I only bothered to take up the label at all because I feel this inherent tendency strongly enough to want to externalize through it a few extremely minor ritual observances now and then, which occasionally creates the need to answer the questions of other people. I am by far not the most religious animist polytheist in the world - not by a long shot - but that does not change my way of thinking nor its source, which I maintain to be inherent in me, not a product of my upbringing. Within my family, such subjects were barely touched upon at all, and when they were, there was internal family disagreement about them - no set of beliefs went unchallenged around our dinner table, and we were very far from anything that could be called indoctrination. My immediate family contained atheists, Catholics and Protestants all at the same time. In the larger social context of my upbringing (in Queens, NYC), I was exposed daily to many conflicting influences of Protestantism (several sects), Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Catholocism (Russian and Greek), and Judaism. It was an ethnically mixed neighborhood. No polytheisms, though. Yet, look how I turned out. There is no explanation for it but an inherent tendency towards spiritual thinking in general and, in my case, towards this kind of spiritual thinking in particular.

Again, no, that's not correct. Science cannot tell us what God is or is not. Science could only, in theory, tell us whether what we have defined as "God" exists or does not exist. And that is only assuming that what we define as "God" is accessible to scientific methods.

Science cannot tell us whether what we have defined as God actually is God, because God is completely subjective. So even if our definition of God were completely testable through natural methods, science STILL could not tell us if our definition is actually the right one to be using, and therefore could not tell us if "God" really does exist.

It is a very important distinction, and a crucial limitation of science.

Science cannot even tell us if existence exists --we only accept that as a philosophical axiom. Science can only tell us if what we observe is repeatable or falsified.

The subjective perspective is not a barrier to science. Science only requires one observer to utilize its 'method' to bring it into being.

If God is, by definition, "undefinable" or "unknowable," then "God" is a meaningless term as far as science is concerned.

Exactly.

This has nothing to do with the supernatural, and everything to do with the failure to define a term. A "undefinable" natural entity would be equally meaningless as far as science is concerned.

This is the supernatural. If it was definable, it would be natural (i.e. have an observable nature).

So the only reason to believe in god is subjective personal well-being that is completely disconnected from god as such?

No, and again you fail to read the thing huh! That is a reason, one reason.
Incedently it is the same reason to take any drug, beer, dope, acid.

If you mean emperical evidence, of course not. No more than I can prove love exists beyond a chemical reaction, people's belief in it and how that belief affects people.
Well, there's a difference, here.

We can prove that there is an emotional reaction, identified as "love," which occurs in the human brain. We have identified specific structures, mechanisms, and chemicals which are involved in "love." We are learning more every day.

So, are you asserting that God is an emotion or cognitive process? Or do you believe that God is something which exists outside of the human brain? In other words, is there an external God in the first place?

So have unicorns

Thats not true though is. I'll let you go through and find some creation myths, and then do a search for the first recorded instance of unicorns. I think you'll find server thousand of years differance.

There have been studies done that say that religion was a an evolutionary trait picked up a couple hundred thousand years ago in an attempt to band a group together, to make a tighter pack. And this may be true for the ancient religions but for the "modern" ones (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) I would have to disagree. Of course I am biased (I'm a Christian), but since these religions were created in the last 4000 years makes them a tiny fraction of history on the evolutionary time table, it would seem unlikely that they would be a product of evolution.

On the topic of inheriting the tendency to become more easily a religions person, I would also have to disagree. Assuming that ancient religion was a evolutionary survival trait, it could be assumed that religious tribes would have survived better than non-religious packs, therefore religious tribes would live, and would be our ancestors. This would make almost all mankind biased towards picking a religion, so the original question would become mute.

Assuming any religion to be true, it fundamental nature would also cancel out the original question. Since religion deals with the metaphysical, it is by nature above the standard physical world that is biochemistry, genetics, and even evolution. It can be further assumed that since every person contains a soul, that that soul is trying to know God, and is search for the "truth".

Good first post. Welcome to the forums.

I don't understand the part about religious tribes surviving better provided religion was an evolutionary trait. What is that assumption based on?

Or, show one reason to eat chocolate.

If you don't like chocolate, there is no reason to eat it.

Huh? Of course there are reasons to eat it. Chocolate is a source of fuel for the body, for instance. Perhaps your mother in law just served up some chocolate, and she'd be insulted if you didn't have some.

You may have stronger reasons NOT to eat it, but that doesn't magically make the reasons for eating it disappear.


So, for instance, I am not an animist because my parents were. They were not, and neither was anyone else I grew up with. I call myself an animist because that is the word that best describes my inherent way of thinking, which has been with me my entire life, regardless of all outside influences. And I only bothered to take up the label at all because I feel this inherent tendency strongly enough to want to externalize through it a few extremely minor ritual observances now and then, which occasionally creates the need to answer the questions of other people. I am by far not the most religious animist polytheist in the world - not by a long shot - but that does not change my way of thinking nor its source, which I maintain to be inherent in me, not a product of my upbringing. Within my family, such subjects were barely touched upon at all, and when they were, there was internal family disagreement about them - no set of beliefs went unchallenged around our dinner table, and we were very far from anything that could be called indoctrination. My immediate family contained atheists, Catholics and Protestants all at the same time. In the larger social context of my upbringing (in Queens, NYC), I was exposed daily to many conflicting influences of Protestantism (several sects), Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Catholocism (Russian and Greek), and Judaism. It was an ethnically mixed neighborhood. No polytheisms, though. Yet, look how I turned out. There is no explanation for it but an inherent tendency towards spiritual thinking in general and, in my case, towards this kind of spiritual thinking in particular.
(Bold mine)

What about people who do not have this tendency?

And I would agian question the truth of that statement. Can you show me this is true? In fact canyou present evidanc to back up any of these claims:

1) Religon has always been used for control of the population.

2) Religon is used as a tool of dictators, or others is postions of power to make the population feel united.

3) Religion is used as a smokescreen by those in power to defoucus the attention on other problems.

I'll concede that historicly we have had some of this, in my country(UK) our history and the history of our monarchy is tied in with the history of the Catholic, and Anglican churches. Now though, can you show me proof, not hearsay, not media hype, not what others have said, but real proof that what you say is true. Other wise are you not guilty of irrational belife without proof?

Historicly we've seen a lot of scenarios were religion has been used as a tool to control the masses or to fight wars. The power of the catholic church was great before and people actually payed it to escape hell after they died. The crusades were based on religion. There have been many events in history were religion has been a cause for war.

Religious institutes have always delayed scientific progress too. They try to do that today too by fighting stem cell research and evolution, if you wanted an example.

Today we can see religion beeing used to control the masses in arabic countries were poverty is high. That's just one example, surely there are more but I gave you one.

And tell me, why am I guilty of irrational belief without proof? As I said, any ism can be used as a tool to controll the masses, why is any relgion different?

The concept of magical fairies and spirits has been around as long as human beings. So?


So?


Such as?

Seriously, none of what you have provided here is anything approaching evidence for the existence of God. It is ample evidence for the fact that some humans choose to believe in something they call God, but it doesn't say anything about whether that belief is a reflection of reality.


Annnd again that is not the question I was answering, it was in fact this one:


Barringtonia Said:

'why posit he exists?'

If you mean emperical evidence, of course not. No more than I can prove love exists beyond a chemical reaction, people's belief in it and how that belief affects people.

So would you be willing to accept that religious feelings are merely a chemical reaction.

Could that reaction actually stem from a 'fear of the unknown', the euphoria we might feel if we abate that with belief in God?

I'm not asking if you will accept it, could you?

No, and again you fail to read the thing huh! That is a reason, one reason.
Incedently it is the same reason to take any drug, beer, dope, acid.And now what? The reason for taking these substances is subjective personal well-being. And if one were to use that reason for believing in god, it would have nothing to do with any actually existing god at all.

No, science can't tell us what God is or is not. We have to define God before science can test it. If we say, "God is X," science may be able to tell us whether or not X exists.

It's like how science can't tell us if we should call a painting "beautiful." If we provide a specific, concrete definition of "beauty," science can tell us whether or not the painting in question has the qualities that we have defined as "beauty," but science can't tell us if our definition of "beauty" was the right definition in the first place. If, for instance, we said "beauty is symmetry," then science could tell us the extent to which symmetry is present in the painting. But many people could provide examples of asymmetric things which they also find beautiful, and science can't tell us whether their concept of beauty is "right" or "wrong."

God, like beauty, is a completely subjective concept. Individuals define God in completely different ways, and science cannot tell us which definition we "should" be using.
Very true. I accept this point. :)

Well, there's a difference, here.

We can prove that there is an emotional reaction, identified as "love," which occurs in the human brain. We have identified specific structures, mechanisms, and chemicals which are involved in "love." We are learning more every day.

So, are you asserting that God is an emotion or cognitive process? Or do you believe that God is something which exists outside of the human brain? In other words, is there an external God in the first place?

I'm asserting that while we can recognize those processes that are physically related to love or to our belief in God, that will NEVER be the full picture. It simply can't be.

Now calling all of human interaction just a series of neural connections and chemical reactions might be sufficient for you, but I suspect that even you put stock in more than that when thinking of your boyfriend or family or equality or any number of things where a scientific breakdown is just cold and insufficient.

But, again, this is because of a failure on the part of believers to define their terms.

We've had entire threads asking people to define "the soul," and there are as many different answers as their are posters in the threads. Science can't evaluate completely undefined entities.

Science also cannot tell us whether ANYTHING "improves" anything else, unless we first define what "improvement" will look like. Again, "improving" the condition of one's soul is rarely defined in anything resembling specific terms.
Yes, because, as you pointed out, both the subjects of religion and the processes (such as "improvement") involved in it are so highly personal as to be untestable/unmeasurable by any scientific method. It is the pervue of religion to try to give shared social structure or relevance to such personal experiences, to be a bridge, if you will, between the internal personal and external social. In some ways, it succeeds. In others, it fails.

But I grant that nothing in religion -- nothing at all -- is subject to scientific testing or proof of any kind. The aspects of reality that science deals with are not touched upon by religion at all.

When religious people do make claims about those aspects of reality, or when they cling to ancient, pre-scientific claims about that reality that are mere cultural preservations from times long gone, that is when science and religion run into trouble with each other. When either of these two practices, science and religion, try to meddle in each other's areas, the result is always like an elephant trying to drive a bus.

Historicly we've seen a lot of scenarios were religion has been used as a tool to control the masses or to fight wars. The power of the catholic church was great before and people actually payed it to escape hell after they died. The crusades were based on religion. There have been many events in history were religion has been a cause for war.

Religious institutes have always delayed scientific progress too. They try to do that today too by fighting stem cell research and evolution, if you wanted an example.

Today we can see religion beeing used to control the masses in arabic countries were poverty is high. That's just one example, surely there are more but I gave you one.

And tell me, why am I guilty of irrational belief without proof? As I said, any ism can be used as a tool to controll the masses, why is any relgion different?

All of what you have said here is not proof, it is mere words. Ii I was to type for example, religious institutes have never delayed scientific progress. That that in essance is what you have just done.

You have said, without providing proof that what you say is true.

This is what I asked for, I asked it specificly to highlight that what you belive is just that, belife. I'll say it again, unless you can show me evidance to back up your claims, then I can only see that you are engaging in belife without proof, which you have told all is irrational.

So again, don't tell me:

'Today we can see religion beeing used to control the masses in arabic countries were poverty is high'

Proove it to me, for without that it is opinion.

Annnd again that is not the question I was answering, it was in fact this one:


Barringtonia Said:

'why posit he exists?'
His post concluded with the question, "Can anyone show any evidence that a God does exist?"

If you were specifically referring only to the question of why POSIT God exists, you should have said so. And, at any rate, your answers STILL are lousy, they're just made slightly more vague and useless by the wiggle-room of "positing" God instead of asserting God.

We'll skip the definitions of love, faith, and hope while we're at it.
In the context of science, that's probably a good idea.

So would you be willing to accept that religious feelings are merely a chemical reaction.

Could that reaction actually stem from a 'fear of the unknown', the euphoria we might feel if we abate that with belief in God?

I'm not asking if you will accept it, could you?

No, I wouldn't accept that. I also don't accept that love is MERELY a chemical reaction. I don't hold that human beings are simply automatons controlled entire by chemicals and physical laws. It would mean that you've never made a choice, but instead just were subject to cause and effect.

I'm not claiming we're outside of those requirements, but I also don't accept that we're just flesh robots.

I'm asserting that while we can recognize those processes that are physically related to love or to our belief in God, that will NEVER be the full picture. It simply can't be.

Why not?


Now calling all of human interaction just a series of neural connections and chemical reactions might be sufficient for you, but I suspect that even you put stock in more than that when thinking of your boyfriend or family or equality or any number of things where a scientific breakdown is just cold and insufficient.
Why?

Why should it be "cold" or "insufficient" to understand the physiological processes that are the source of my feelings and thoughts? Why would knowing about these processes devalue my thoughts or feelings?

So would you be willing to accept that religious feelings are merely a chemical reaction.

Could that reaction actually stem from a 'fear of the unknown', the euphoria we might feel if we abate that with belief in God?

I'm not asking if you will accept it, could you?

It's a moot point though isn't it really?

I mean can you name me just one feeling that is not merely a chemical reaction?

You reflected what Muravyets said precisely. If we define God, then science can tell us what is IS and what is IS NOT.

I believe Muravyets refers to God in the fundamental understanding as "unknowable" and therefore "undefinable". The word "God" then is a linguistic placeholder to represent this idea of deity.
Well, she sort of reflected but brought up a new insight as well, taking the issue further.

We've agreed on this position already.

By the by, understood about all points in terms of quoting and sourcing - I'll endeavour to do better. I was going to ask how to show the difference between quoting another poster and quoting a source but, of course, a link solves that problem - please note my post count, I am a 'much-denigrated on this board' N00B

The question is, given nothing can be proved about God according to the definition accepted (admittedly, as written by me and no one has explicitly accepted it), why posit he exists? Do we posit that unicorns exist because we can't prove they don't, or live our lives as if they do?
If we have agreed, then why do you continue to assert that science can disprove religion?

Can anyone show any evidence that a God does exist?
Nobody has to. You are the one making postive assertions here, about what science can do. The burden of proof is on you.

However, I think that humanity has more value than simply being a reaction to inputs. Do you really just hold us to be flesh robots? Then why even discuss things like morality or ethics or equality or crime or anything else. We're just a bunch of automatons.

I think that Bottle falls into that category of person who thought that the philosophy majors were a bunch of bullshit artists who didn't deserve a degree.

Why not?


Why?

Why should it be "cold" or "insufficient" to understand the physiological processes that are the source of my feelings and thoughts? Why would knowing about these processes devalue my thoughts or feelings?

It's not cold to examine the physiological processes. It doesn't devalue it. Just as understanding the physiological underpinnings of religious belief or even fervor don't undermine it. Some religious folks find this concerning, but I don't. Understanding the physical has a value to the physical world. It's useful in allowing us to make predictions and solve problems in the physical world.

However, I think that humanity has more value than simply being a reaction to inputs. Do you really just hold us to be flesh robots? Then why even discuss things like morality or ethics or equality or crime or anything else. We're just a bunch of automatons.

His post concluded with the question, "Can anyone show any evidence that a God does exist?"

If you were specifically referring only to the question of why POSIT God exists, you should have said so. And, at any rate, your answers STILL are lousy, they're just made slightly more vague and useless by the wiggle-room of "positing" God instead of asserting God.

Hey Bottle,

Context darlin' I know that you are smart enough to view the context, and work back from there what the meaning of my post was. As to his last question, I didn't bother as it is clear that nobody can huh!

Heh lousy answers or not. You agree that God is subjective, then surly all talk, debate, and discusion on God can only be subjective, hence my lousy subjective amswers.

No, I wouldn't accept that. I also don't accept that love is MERELY a chemical reaction. I don't hold that human beings are simply automatons controlled entire by chemicals and physical laws. It would mean that you've never made a choice, but instead just were subject to cause and effect.

I'm not claiming we're outside of those requirements, but I also don't accept that we're just flesh robots.

Of course we can make choices, if not even more of a true choice because we are not bound to any higher being. We are influenced by genetics, by chemical structure, by upbringing, by levels of education, but, at the instant we make it, we do make a choice.

The world is still a beautiful, magnificent, compelling place, our experiences can be just as rich, meaningful and wonderful without the need for a God to make it so.

No, I wouldn't accept that. I also don't accept that love is MERELY a chemical reaction.

Well of course it isn't. It's a complex series of chemical and electrical reactions occurring within an amazingly complex structure, which is expressed through an even more complex series of physical and cognitive pathways.

No offense, Joc, but it really makes me laugh when somebody suggests that love (or any emotion) is "merely" a chemical/physical reaction. That's like saying that the space shuttle is "merely" a lump of metal.


I don't hold that human beings are simply automatons controlled entire by chemicals and physical laws.

Everything natural is controlled by natural laws. This includes humans. The fact that human beings, like all natural material, must follow certain natural laws does not mean we are "automatons," any more than we are automatons because we obey the law of gravity.


It would mean that you've never made a choice, but instead just were subject to cause and effect.

The two are not mutually exclusive. If you honestly think humans are not subject to cause and effect, then you are deeply insane.

Humans are both completely subject to cause and effect and also able to choose. What is hard to understand about that?


I'm not claiming we're outside of those requirements, but I also don't accept that we're just flesh robots.
You are creating a laughably false dichotomy. This is unusual for you. What gives?

Hey Bottle,

Context darlin' I know that you are smart enough to view the context, and work back from there what the meaning of my post was. As to his last question, I didn't bother as it is clear that nobody can huh!

So your answer is that I am expected to read your mind, because I'm so very smart?

Sorry, but you're being lazy.


Heh lousy answers or not. You agree that God is subjective, then surly all talk, debate, and discusion on God can only be subjective, hence my lousy subjective amswers.
Again, laziness. How disappointing.

There have been studies done that say that religion was a an evolutionary trait picked up a couple hundred thousand years ago in an attempt to band a group together, to make a tighter pack. And this may be true for the ancient religions but for the "modern" ones (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.) I would have to disagree. Of course I am biased (I'm a Christian), but since these religions were created in the last 4000 years makes them a tiny fraction of history on the evolutionary time table, it would seem unlikely that they would be a product of evolution.

On the topic of inheriting the tendency to become more easily a religions person, I would also have to disagree. Assuming that ancient religion was a evolutionary survival trait, it could be assumed that religious tribes would have survived better than non-religious packs, therefore religious tribes would live, and would be our ancestors. This would make almost all mankind biased towards picking a religion, so the original question would become mute.

Assuming any religion to be true, it fundamental nature would also cancel out the original question. Since religion deals with the metaphysical, it is by nature above the standard physical world that is biochemistry, genetics, and even evolution. It can be further assumed that since every person contains a soul, that that soul is trying to know God, and is search for the "truth".
This might apply to religion as a group activity.

What about religion as a personal experience? What about mysticism/ecstasy/transcendant experience? These are not social constructs. They do occur within small numbers of the human population, to varying degrees, individual to individual, ranging the full gamut from zero to WTF.

I suggest that these things are the product of inherent tendencies (likely having their source in brain/central nervous system functions). There is little evidence that such experiences themselves support survival, but might they be related to things that arguably do support survival of the species, such as the ability to imagine and visualize?

If we have agreed, then why do you continue to assert that science can disprove religion?


Nobody has to. You are the one making postive assertions here, about what science can do. The burden of proof is on you.

I don't continue - I've accepted that position given the definition

And now what? The reason for taking these substances is subjective personal well-being. And if one were to use that reason for believing in god, it would have nothing to do with any actually existing god at all.


Damnit man!

Go back and re-read a bit and you'll see. And I'll say it again, I was simply answering the questionput to me, name just one reason to belive in God. Which I read as what do you get out of your belife?

I named one, just one out of the myriad people may have. Just one of poositive things that I actualy get out of my belife. I named none of the reasons I have my faith, as that was not the question asked.

Does God exist or not is moot. To the beliver God does, to the non beliver it does not. Even if God doesnot exist, what harm does it do me to belive it does, if it brings peace to my life?

All of what you have said here is not proof, it is mere words. Ii I was to type for example, religious institutes have never delayed scientific progress. That that in essance is what you have just done.

You have said, without providing proof that what you say is true.

This is what I asked for, I asked it specificly to highlight that what you belive is just that, belife. I'll say it again, unless you can show me evidance to back up your claims, then I can only see that you are engaging in belife without proof, which you have told all is irrational.

So again, don't tell me:

'Today we can see religion beeing used to control the masses in arabic countries were poverty is high'

Proove it to me, for without that it is opinion.

What's your position in all this? All you've done is asking me of proof without saying anything yourself. No matter what I say you will always need more proof. You probably don't even know what you are asking for because I sure as hell don't. I gave you examples of were religion has been used to controll the masses or to put one side against another but you just dismissed it. Claiming that the catholic church made people pay so they could escape hell isn't a belief, it's fact. Claiming that the crusades were based on religion isn't a belief. And yes, religious institutes have fought against science in the past and still do. It took a while before the church admitted that the earth wasn't flat you know.

So if you want to continue this discussion come up with an argument or at least tell me what kind of proof you want. All I can conclude from debating with you at this point is that you are denying that religion is beeing used or has been used to controll the masses.

It's not cold to examine the physiological processes. It doesn't devalue it. Just as understanding the physiological underpinnings of religious belief or even fervor don't undermine it. Some religious folks find this concerning, but I don't. Understanding the physical has a value to the physical world. It's useful in allowing us to make predictions and solve problems in the physical world.

However, I think that humanity has more value than simply being a reaction to inputs.

That last sentence is a complete non sequitur.


Do you really just hold us to be flesh robots? Then why even discuss things like morality or ethics or equality or crime or anything else. We're just a bunch of automatons.
Again, the bizarre dichotomy. I'm just not getting this.

I believe that human thoughts, feelings, etc., are all completely explainable in terms of natural forces. We haven't yet figured it all out, and perhaps we never will, but that doesn't mean the answers aren't out there. I fail to see why any of this equates to humans being "flesh robots." I fail to see why the introduction of magical spirits or supernatural forces would be any more likely to result in non-automaton humans.

They've been linked to a few times throughout this thread - sourced links.

I've only seen you link to Wikipedia, which is a disputable source, to a google page, which is not a source, and to one other online source, which Jocabia has used to show that your quote was misleading.

And, again, proper form requires that you reference the source of a quote every time you quote from it, so we know which source you are pulling your information from.

Nobody has to.Why not? Those who believe in god and want others to believe as well, should surely have to put forward something to show that their beliefs are somehow substantial.

Wow. This thread deteriorated into ad hominem quickly.

So your answer is that I am expected to read your mind, because I'm so very smart?

Sorry, but you're being lazy.


Again, laziness. How disappointing.


Bah what are ya like woman.

You know my last post to you? That was taken from the Bottle's Guide to 'net debate.

What are you saying here? You can use them tatics but nobody else can?


Really though you are disapointed in me? Why, you don't know me, I'm just some faceless 'net head that you talk to once in a while.

I've only seen you link to Wikipedia, which is a disputable source, to a google page, which is not a source, and to one other online source, which Jocabia has used to show that your quote was misleading.

And, again, proper form requires that you reference the source of a quote every time you quote from it, so we know which source you are pulling your information from.

Clearly you have not read from the beginning - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12506795&postcount=44

There's a later post, possibly around page 38 by someone else, which is a more updated version

Damnit man!

Go back and re-read a bit and you'll see. And I'll say it again, I was simply answering the questionput to me, name just one reason to belive in God. Which I read as what do you get out of your belife?

I named one, just one out of the myriad people may have. Just one of poositive things that I actualy get out of my belife. I named none of the reasons I have my faith, as that was not the question asked.

Does God exist or not is moot. To the beliver God does, to the non beliver it does not. Even if God doesnot exist, what harm does it do me to belive it does, if it brings peace to my life?

I used a similar analogy a few weeks back in a related discussion with Ashmoria. Essentially:

What is the price of the peace it brings to your life. If we suggest, then, that opiates also bring peace to your life, and that the price isn't an issue, does this mean that religion and opiates are essentially equal in standing, perhaps differentiated only by the degree of effect? And if they are, therefore, equivalent, then why not use opiates in place of religion? Why is religion, then, at all necessary, if we have a totally physical and readily usable method of bringing peace into your life that does not require belief in something that may or may not even exist?

If, on the other hand, we are forced to look at the negative effects, religion as a societal experience can lead to immense and abhorrent acts of violence against non-believers. As a personal experience it is a form of self-deception that could potentially be addictive, in a way that opiates are addictive. Or perhaps, as a personal experience, they are harmful in the bigotry and hatred they can inspire in people, and the fact that individual experience can be used to justify an equal number of heinous acts as a societal experience, but on a more localized and easily contained scale. If so, is religion not just as harmful as the consumption of opiates? And therefore something that should be banned just as opiates are banned?

Huh? Of course there are reasons to eat it. Chocolate is a source of fuel for the body, for instance. Perhaps your mother in law just served up some chocolate, and she'd be insulted if you didn't have some.

You may have stronger reasons NOT to eat it, but that doesn't magically make the reasons for eating it disappear.
Nor does the fact that there are reasons to eat it magically cause a tendency to eat it in any given person. Chocolate is not oxygen or iron or vitamin C. It is not a necessary nutrient because it is not the only source of its ingredients.

However, it is a good source of some nutrients and some other chemicals that are not nutrients but have a beneficial effect on the human body.

Now, some people love chocolate above all other sweets. Others like other sweets as well. Other people report an active dislike of the taste of chocolate. And a few people have toxic reactions to the ingredients of chocolate and cannot eat it at all. Why is this? I suggest it is because of biological individual variation. Some people need what is in chocolate more than others, so they crave it more. Others don't need or react badly to it and so do not crave it or find it repugnant.

Now, my mother can bake chocolate cakes every day of the week for my entire life, but if my body does not react favorably to the chocolate, I will not develop a liking for it, never mind an addiction to it. If it does not actually make me sick, I might eat her cake to please her and maintain a good position in the family group, but I won't like it. I may even secretly sneak out to eat vanilla-flavored things behind her back, if that is what I prefer.

I suggest that, similarly, if a person does not have a predisposition to religion, then no amount of indoctrination is going to create one.


(Bold mine)

What about people who do not have this tendency?
Then they do not have that tendency. There is no "normal/abnormal" scale here. All of this falls within the scale of normal individual variation.

I used a similar analogy a few weeks back in a related discussion with Ashmoria. Essentially:

What is the price of the peace it brings to your life. If we suggest, then, that opiates also bring peace to your life, and that the price isn't an issue, does this mean that religion and opiates are essentially equal in standing, perhaps differentiated only by the degree of effect? And if they are, therefore, equivalent, then why not use opiates in place of religion? Why is religion, then, at all necessary, if we have a totally physical and readily usable method of bringing peace into your life that does not require belief in something that may or may not even exist?

If, on the other hand, we are forced to look at the negative effects, religion as a societal experience can lead to immense and abhorrent acts of violence against non-believers. As a personal experience it is a form of self-deception that could potentially be addictive, in a way that opiates are addictive. Or perhaps, as a personal experience, they are harmful in the bigotry and hatred they can inspire in people, and the fact that individual experience can be used to justify an equal number of heinous acts as a societal experience, but on a more localized and easily contained scale. If so, is religion not just as harmful as the consumption of opiates? And therefore something that should be banned just as opiates are banned?

Religion don't kill people, people kill people.

I don't mean this flippantly, I think it's a sad argument to point to religion as a cause of bigotry and hatred as an argument against it.

With that, off to sleep.

What's your position in all this? All you've done is asking me of proof without saying anything yourself. No matter what I say you will always need more proof. You probably don't even know what you are asking for because I sure as hell don't. I gave you examples of were religion has been used to controll the masses or to put one side against another but you just dismissed it. Claiming that the catholic church made people pay so they could escape hell isn't a belief, it's fact. Claiming that the crusades were based on religion isn't a belief. And yes, religious institutes have fought against science in the past and still do. It took a while before the church admitted that the earth wasn't flat you know.

So if you want to continue this discussion come up with an argument or at least tell me what kind of proof you want. All I can conclude from debating with you at this point is that you are denying that religion is beeing used or has been used to controll the masses.


My position is one of belife in God. I come from an Atheist family, I was not in any way 'brainwashed'(your word) as a child, and indeed searched long and hard until I found a conept of God that agrees with my personal subjective thoughts and feelings on the issue.

This all started with thee and me, in the post where you stated that all belife in God is nothing more than irrational. I took against this, as I always do when ever I encounter it, and asked you to provide for me proof of this.

You have not yet done so.

You then made other unsubstanciated claims, for which I again asked for proof, as of yet it has not arrived.

I pointed out that you example are not proof.

Saying things like:

'Today we can see religion beeing used to control the masses in arabic countries were poverty is high'

Is not proof of the claim, it is the claim.

I have constantly todl you why I want proof, as well as asking for proof, but I'll tell you again.

Your initial claim that religion is irrational, always gets my goat, as it inferhers that irrational though is both a mark of stupidity(i.e. anybody that engagse in it is stupid) and that it is somehow not the normal mode of thought for humanity.

I asked for proof of all of your claims to show you that we all hold irrational belifes(for if there is no proof, by what rational sense do you belive these things?), and that it is the default mode of thought for us.

Thus far nothing you have said has changed my mind.

Religion don't kill people, people kill people

And religion can cause people to kill people.

Wow. This thread deteriorated into ad hominem quickly.

Heheh isn't that true of all discussion on faith?

Religion don't kill people, people kill people.Religion lets people kill people.

And religion can cause people to kill people.

But that is not an argument against religion.

No really, must.sleep.

But that is not an argument against religion.

No really, must.sleep.

Yes. It is.

We censor violent speech despite our Freedom of Speech, because violence-advocating speech can cause people to do violent things. Religion can similarly cause people to do violent things. Therefore, ban religion.

Yes. It is.

We censor violent speech despite our Freedom of Speech, because violence-advocating speech can cause people to do violent things. Religion can similarly cause people to do violent things. Therefore, ban religion.

Ban life then

Religion lets people kill people.

As does every other belief system including ire toward particular religions *ahem*

Ban life then

No need to. We should just find a way to cure it. Life is, after all, a Sexually Transmitted Disease.

I don't continue - I've accepted that position given the definition
Three words - "continue," "accept," and "definition" -- that have no apparent relationship to each other in this post, and do not reflect the history of your posts in the thread.

Read back, dear, you have repeatedly asserted that science can disprove religion, including in the post on this sub-topic immediately preceding the one I responded to. At what point during the time you were making these assertions did you stop continuing to make them?

In addition, which definition of what word/term/phrase did you accept that caused you to stop continuing to make the assertions you were making up to just a couple of pages ago?

I used a similar analogy a few weeks back in a related discussion with Ashmoria. Essentially:

What is the price of the peace it brings to your life. If we suggest, then, that opiates also bring peace to your life, and that the price isn't an issue, does this mean that religion and opiates are essentially equal in standing, perhaps differentiated only by the degree of effect? And if they are, therefore, equivalent, then why not use opiates in place of religion? Why is religion, then, at all necessary, if we have a totally physical and readily usable method of bringing peace into your life that does not require belief in something that may or may not even exist?

If, on the other hand, we are forced to look at the negative effects, religion as a societal experience can lead to immense and abhorrent acts of violence against non-believers. As a personal experience it is a form of self-deception that could potentially be addictive, in a way that opiates are addictive. Or perhaps, as a personal experience, they are harmful in the bigotry and hatred they can inspire in people, and the fact that individual experience can be used to justify an equal number of heinous acts as a societal experience, but on a more localized and easily contained scale. If so, is religion not just as harmful as the consumption of opiates? And therefore something that should be banned just as opiates are banned?

Heh I can answer that one.

Lets ask instead what is the reason one eats chocolate icecream? Or what need does ginger beer satifiy?

Chocolate icream, and ginger beer fulfile for me two seperate needs. I can never take chocolate icecream if I need a ginger beer, it just does not do the job.

The other side of your question talking about the damage done, if we replace the word relgion with the word God, then I can saythat my persoanl search and relationship with God has caused nobody any damage, that I am aware of.

As to banning those things that cause harm, then we might have to ban both chocolate icecream, and ginger beer. Or we can instead use everything in moderation, be adult and freely accept the consequances of our own actions, and ban nowt.

That last sentence is a complete non sequitur.


Again, the bizarre dichotomy. I'm just not getting this.

I believe that human thoughts, feelings, etc., are all completely explainable in terms of natural forces. We haven't yet figured it all out, and perhaps we never will, but that doesn't mean the answers aren't out there. I fail to see why any of this equates to humans being "flesh robots." I fail to see why the introduction of magical spirits or supernatural forces would be any more likely to result in non-automaton humans.

Is our interaction and behavior just a series of chemical reactions and electrical pulses? If so, how are we different from robots?

Really though you are disapointed in me? Why, you don't know me, I'm just some faceless 'net head that you talk to once in a while.
I'm always disappointed when people choose to be sloppy or lazy and, in so doing, inhibit quality discussion.

And religion can cause people to kill people.

And so can politics, greed, land, oil, gold, power, money, madness and lots of other stuff. So the point is?

Nor does the fact that there are reasons to eat it magically cause a tendency to eat it in any given person. Chocolate is not oxygen or iron or vitamin C. It is not a necessary nutrient because it is not the only source of its ingredients.

However, it is a good source of some nutrients and some other chemicals that are not nutrients but have a beneficial effect on the human body.

Now, some people love chocolate above all other sweets. Others like other sweets as well. Other people report an active dislike of the taste of chocolate. And a few people have toxic reactions to the ingredients of chocolate and cannot eat it at all. Why is this? I suggest it is because of biological individual variation. Some people need what is in chocolate more than others, so they crave it more. Others don't need or react badly to it and so do not crave it or find it repugnant.

Now, my mother can bake chocolate cakes every day of the week for my entire life, but if my body does not react favorably to the chocolate, I will not develop a liking for it, never mind an addiction to it. If it does not actually make me sick, I might eat her cake to please her and maintain a good position in the family group, but I won't like it. I may even secretly sneak out to eat vanilla-flavored things behind her back, if that is what I prefer.

I suggest that, similarly, if a person does not have a predisposition to religion, then no amount of indoctrination is going to create one.



Then they do not have that tendency. There is no "normal/abnormal" scale here. All of this falls within the scale of normal individual variation.

Gotcha. I was just trying to clarify what you were getting at.

I think it's a very interesting stance, particularly the bit about how "if a person does not have a predisposition to religion, then no amount of indoctrination is going to create one."

I'm not trying to be insulting, here, but when I first read that sentence I immediately thought of cult groups and how they systematically break down their victims. Now, perhaps their victims are already susceptible to begin with, but it interests me how a cult can create levels of fanaticism in individuals who previously had never showed such behavior. Was it a latent tendency that the cult brings to the surface? Or are they able to use a person's innate qualities to build fanaticism where none existed before?

Heh I can answer that one.

Lets ask instead what is the reason one eats chocolate icecream? Or what need does ginger beer satifiy?

Chocolate icream, and ginger beer fulfile for me two seperate needs. I can never take chocolate icecream if I need a ginger beer, it just does not do the job.

That's an acceptable response.

The other side of your question talking about the damage done, if we replace the word relgion with the word God, then I can saythat my persoanl search and relationship with God has caused nobody any damage, that I am aware of.

As to banning those things that cause harm, then we might have to ban both chocolate icecream, and ginger beer. Or we can instead use everything in moderation, be adult and freely accept the consequances of our own actions, and ban nowt.

Agreed. Provided people can be convinced to use religion in moderation.

And so can politics, greed, land, oil, gold, power, money, madness and lots of other stuff. So the point is?

The point is, ban everything.

Is our interaction and behavior just a series of chemical reactions and electrical pulses?

Of course not. There are also many other physical and mechanical forces involved.


If so, how are we different from robots?
That's like saying, "Electrical activity in the brain is required for me to move my arm. My television set also requires electricity to function. Therefore, my arm is no different from my television set."

Yes, both humans and robots are subject to cause and effect. Yes, both human and robot functions are explainable in terms of natural forces and natural laws. Of course, the same is true of both humans and volcanoes, yet I don't hear you asking me how humans are different from volcanoes.

Why not? Those who believe in god and want others to believe as well, should surely have to put forward something to show that their beliefs are somehow substantial.
Nobody in this thread is asking anyone else to believe in any god. Anyone who might do so would be hijacking the thread because that is not the subject of it.

You will notice that I do not ask Barringtonia to prove anything about the non-existence of God. I ask only for him to present data he claims already exists. He claims that science can disprove religion. For him to make that claim about science, it must already have been done, because science only knows what it can do by doing it. So there must be data available for him to post links to. All he has to do is present the data showing how science disproves religion to carry his point. Or let's say the insight is original to him -- let's say he knows science can do it because he, personally and alone, has used science to do it. Then he should be able to give us his methodology so that we can see how it was done. Or let's say he just has a theory about how science could do it; he should present that theory so we can examine it. He has not done any of these things, and I assert that he cannot because his claim is bogus.

Remember, we are not discussing whether religion is true or not. We are discussing whether there is a predisposition towards such beliefs or not. This issue with Barringtonia is a side argument.

My position is one of belife in God. I come from an Atheist family, I was not in any way 'brainwashed'(your word) as a child, and indeed searched long and hard until I found a conept of God that agrees with my personal subjective thoughts and feelings on the issue.

This all started with thee and me, in the post where you stated that all belife in God is nothing more than irrational. I took against this, as I always do when ever I encounter it, and asked you to provide for me proof of this.

You have not yet done so.

You then made other unsubstanciated claims, for which I again asked for proof, as of yet it has not arrived.

I pointed out that you example are not proof.

Saying things like:

'Today we can see religion beeing used to control the masses in arabic countries were poverty is high'

Is not proof of the claim, it is the claim.

I have constantly todl you why I want proof, as well as asking for proof, but I'll tell you again.

Your initial claim that religion is irrational, always gets my goat, as it inferhers that irrational though is both a mark of stupidity(i.e. anybody that engagse in it is stupid) and that it is somehow not the normal mode of thought for humanity.

I asked for proof of all of your claims to show you that we all hold irrational belifes(for if there is no proof, by what rational sense do you belive these things?), and that it is the default mode of thought for us.

Thus far nothing you have said has changed my mind.

I wrote that religion itself isn't a bad thing but the way it has been used during history to controll and manipulate is. I gave you examples of were it has been used to do this and were it is beeing used today to do it. I think it was sufficient to motivate my claim. I also said that many isms have been used to controll the masses and to put people against eachother so in no way is this the fault of the religion itself, but it is a powerful tool when uniting a people.

It was perhaps to bold of me to say that religion is irrational since there are so many religions and it's impossible to to say that all parts of all religions are irrational. But certain parts that are essentiall to christianity are irrational and impossible. For example, returning from the dead and giving birth while beeing a virgin(this is possible however with modern technology that they hadn't at that time).

I haven't tried to change your mind and I don't care if you're religious or not. If it works for you it's great. I told you early on in this discussion that it's impossible to disprove God and I haven't attempted to do it either.

I'm always disappointed when people choose to be sloppy or lazy and, in so doing, inhibit quality discussion.

Mwahahahaha, so even though you do agree that God is subjective, my subjective answers are lazy?(Do you mean you disagree with them? Why not be truth about that?)

How does that go? Can you please explain to me why you consider themn to be so, so that we can carry on with the quality that is inherent within this thread?

No need to. We should just find a way to cure it. Life is, after all, a Sexually Transmitted Disease.

Bwhahahahah I like that!:D

Mwahahahaha, so even though you do agree that God is subjective, my subjective answers are lazy?

Yes. Do you actually think there is some conflict between those two?


How does that go? Can you please explain to me why you consider themn to be so, so that we can carry on with the quality that is inherent within this thread?
I have already explained why your "answers" did not actually answer the questions posed. I have already pointed out the cop-outs and sloppy thinking. Given that you have been responding to me this whole time, I assume you already read what I posted. Otherwise you'd be a bit silly to be responding to something you hadn't even read. Right?

Well of course it isn't. It's a complex series of chemical and electrical reactions occurring within an amazingly complex structure, which is expressed through an even more complex series of physical and cognitive pathways.

No offense, Joc, but it really makes me laugh when somebody suggests that love (or any emotion) is "merely" a chemical/physical reaction. That's like saying that the space shuttle is "merely" a lump of metal.

Are you avoiding adding context to these posts so you attribute comments to me? I didn't add the term MERELY, I reflected it because someone suggested that in comparing religion to love I was talking about MERELY a chemical reaction. If you take issue with that, take issue with the person who suggested it. It was not me.

No more than I can prove love exists beyond a chemical reaction, people's belief in it and how that belief affects people.


So would you be willing to accept that religious feelings are merely a chemical reaction.
No, I wouldn't accept that. I also don't accept that love is MERELY a chemical reaction.
What Barr said when I compared belief in God and love.


Everything natural is controlled by natural laws. This includes humans. The fact that human beings, like all natural material, must follow certain natural laws does not mean we are "automatons," any more than we are automatons because we obey the law of gravity.

If we are simply obeying natural laws then intent doesn't actually exist. We're just performing predetermined reactions to situations. Automatons. I'm saying we are more than that. We have choice. Choice is not simply obeying laws unless you consider it a choice to obey gravity.


The two are not mutually exclusive. If you honestly think humans are not subject to cause and effect, then you are deeply insane.

No, I didn't say that. I said we are. I said, however, that we are more than that. We are not automatons forced to react instead of decide.


Humans are both completely subject to cause and effect and also able to choose. What is hard to understand about that?

Same thing I said. Glad we agree.


You are creating a laughably false dichotomy. This is unusual for you. What gives?

No. You are. I actually said it almost word for word the same whay you did.

I'm not claiming we're outside of those requirements, but I also don't accept that we're just flesh robots.

If you notice I said we are not outside of the requirements of cause and effect AND we are not flesh robots. That pretty much precludes the idea that the choice is one or the other.

I think the reason you think I am behaving out of character is because you are mischaracterizing my posts. I've added the context you need here so that problem will disappear.

Clearly you have not read from the beginning - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12506795&postcount=44

There's a later post, possibly around page 38 by someone else, which is a more updated version
So, you're saying that you've been basing all these days of argument on a source and an assertion that was debunked the first day you posted it?

First, as I recall, you posted that link only to illustrate your argument that religiosity is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. However, that source is hardly authoritative and merely outlines one theory/attitude among many others. In addition, it makes broad claims that are dependent upon other sources of data which you have failed to provide us links to. This is especially necessary because you were trying to use the article to prove something the article itself was not primarily focused on.

Second, Jocabia has effectively shown that your use of the concept of "meme" is meaningless at best and so you have barely made your argument let alone proven it. You cannot persuade anyone of anything if your sentences don't make sense.

Third, I suggest that your usage of "meme" is not the same as the usage of the author of the article.

Finally, all the points you asserted based on this article have been addressed and refuted several times over by me, Jocabia and others over the past several days.

Yes, I have read from the beginning. I wonder, though, if you stopped reading past the point of that earlier post. Apparently all you've been doing these past few days is holding your hands over your ears and shouting "LALALALA."

Of course not. There are also many other physical and mechanical forces involved.


That's like saying, "Electrical activity in the brain is required for me to move my arm. My television set also requires electricity to function. Therefore, my arm is no different from my television set."

Yes, both humans and robots are subject to cause and effect. Yes, both human and robot functions are explainable in terms of natural forces and natural laws. Of course, the same is true of both humans and volcanoes, yet I don't hear you asking me how humans are different from volcanoes.

How are they? Presumably, humans are just a more complicated form of an object REQUIRED to behave a certain way. We have no choice. Unless you consider it a choice to obey gravity.

You're not making an argument. The universe is doing it for you, through you, and all you are is the little flesh computer diligantly reacting as it is forced to do. Your reply is inevitable because you cannot choose. The inputs are already set and although complex, if I understood the mechanism well enough I could predict your entire life. There is no you, just a combination of events that we summarize as being Bottle.

I wrote that religion itself isn't a bad thing but the way it has been used during history to controll and manipulate is. I gave you examples of were it has been used to do this and were it is beeing used today to do it. I think it was sufficient to motivate my claim. I also said that many isms have been used to controll the masses and to put people against eachother so in no way is this the fault of the religion itself, but it is a powerful tool when uniting a people.

It was perhaps to bold of me to say that religion is irrational since there are so many religions and it's impossible to to say that all parts of all religions are irrational. But certain parts that are essentiall to christianity are irrational and impossible. For example, returning from the dead and giving birth while beeing a virgin(this is possible however with modern technology that they hadn't at that time).

I haven't tried to change your mind and I don't care if you're religious or not. If it works for you it's great. I told you early on in this discussion that it's impossible to disprove God and I haven't attempted to do it either.


Okay lets try it one more time huh!

An example is not proof. I can say for example it is well known that withoutthe religion of Isam we would have no maths.

If you where to ask me to proove that, merely saying it again is not proof.

So lets start with just one of the claims you have made.

'religion itself isn't a bad thing but the way it has been used during history to controll and manipulate is'

Proove to me, and by which I mean show me evidance, or point me to a link tha shows me evidance if it is easyer for you, that relgion has beenused to controll and manipulate.

I want documentation, not some blogg that repeatds the same message, not some hate page designed to stir up ill will. You say historicly then, shoe me historical evidance for even one example of your statement.

In short what makes you belive this, what evidance have you seen to make you belive this? I'll tell you what I'll make it real easy, don't link anything, don't cut an paste from any referance, just name me the evidance which cemented your belife in the statement you have made.

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.

Indeed. But the things you can quantitatively measure don't do anything to tell you how religious a person is. For instance, if you have a priori decided that "more church attendance" equates to "more religious," then a measurement of church attendance might convince you that certain people are more religious. But that first assumption is a poor one and all it will really do is reveal your own views on religion, rather than anything truly objective.

We can certainly measure how many people attend religious services and how often they do so. But that information gives us nothing deeper. It simply tells us how many people attend religious services. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you avoiding adding context to these posts so you attribute comments to me? I didn't add the term MERELY, I reflected it because someone suggested that in comparing religion to love I was talking about MERELY a chemical reaction. If you take issue with that, take issue with the person who suggested it. It was not me.

If I misunderstood you then I am sorry, but I was taking your posts at face value. I guess I didn't interpret the context the way you do.


What Barr said when I compared belief in God and love.

I see what you are getting at, but it boils down to the same. You are saying that God, like love, isn't purely a natural phenomenon, because you think that would be insufficient or somehow too "cold" an explanation.


If we are simply obeying natural laws then intent doesn't actually exist.

Why not?


We're just performing predetermined reactions to situations. Automatons.

How so? This is a bizarre assumption, to me.

Yes, natural laws are in place. For instance, gravity. The existence of gravity limits my options when it comes to choosing how I will travel to the corner store. It does not eliminate choice, however. I still have a wide variety of options from which to choose.


I'm saying we are more than that. We have choice. Choice is not simply obeying laws unless you consider it a choice to obey gravity.

Yes, choice is not simply obeying laws. How do you get from this to the assumption that choice REQUIRES something other than natural forces?

In any given situation, I am faced with a reality that is governed by natural laws. I perceive that situation via processes and structures that obey natural laws. I process the input using pathways and structures that are subject entirely to natural laws. And I choose between whichever options I perceive as existing, and then proceed to act on my choice using physical, natural processes, structures, and forces.

My choice is based partly on the natural limitations of the situation itself (for instance, gravity), and partly on my own individual characteristics (for instance, whether or not I like to ride my bike to the store or walk to the store). My individual characteristics include "innate" traits that are unique to my body and brain, as well as characteristics which have been formed or shaped by all the experiences I have had throughout my lifetime. My perception of a situation and my options, as well as my choice in response to that situation, will be as unique as I am.


No, I didn't say that. I said we are. I said, however, that we are more than that. We are not automatons forced to react instead of decide.

Same thing I said. Glad we agree.

No. You are. I actually said it almost word for word the same whay you did.

Ok, now I'm just lost.


If you notice I said we are not outside of the requirements of cause and effect AND we are not flesh robots. That pretty much precludes the idea that the choice is one or the other.

But (I thought) you are asserting that something other than natural laws is required for choice. In other words, pure cause-and-effect cannot result in choice. That is false.


I think the reason you think I am behaving out of character is because you are mischaracterizing my posts. I've added the context you need here so that problem will disappear.
I dunno, I'm still seeing the weird dichotomy. So far I have not seen you provide any reason why anything beyond natural forces is required for choice, nor why that "something else" would necessarily create choice.

And religion can cause people to kill people.
Actually, I would dispute this on the basis of the billions of people who have practiced religions throughout history but have never killed anyone because of them. If we focus on, say, violence/persecution/social exclusion and not on religion, I think we will see pretty clearly that religion fits into the violence/persecution/social exclusion matrix, not the other way around. In fact, the exact same contributive effect of religion on violence/persecution/social exclusion can be served by any number of other things, such as politics, skin color, and territorial claims.

I suggest that the urge towards violence/persecution/social exclusion comes first, and religion is picked up as a tool to excuse and direct such urges. I suggest that those who kill in the name of a god would kill in the name of anything if it were presented as a powerful enough justifier for their desired actions.

Therefore, religion does not cause people to kill. A desire to kill may sometimes cause people to use the powerful social presence of religion to justify acting on that desire.

No need to. We should just find a way to cure it. Life is, after all, a Sexually Transmitted Disease.
Feh. A trollish answer.

How are they? Presumably, humans are just a more complicated form of an object REQUIRED to behave a certain way.

How so?


We have no choice. Unless you consider it a choice to obey gravity.

Again, gravity may limit my options, but it does not eliminate them.


You're not making an argument. The universe is doing it for you, through you, and all you are is the little flesh computer diligantly reacting as it is forced to do.

That's like saying, "That volcano is not erupting, the universe is erupting through the volcano."

Yes, I am making an argument. An amazingly complex and varied set of natural forces underlie my existence itself, my individual consciousness, my current state and current function, and all the environments involved in this discussion.

Let me try it another way. When you first start studying principles of natural selection and animal behavior, you encounter the concept of "stable solutions." The fun thing is that for any given species there are usually MULTIPLE stable solutions to a given environmental stimulus. The more complex the organism, the more options tend to arise, and the more differences you tend to see between individuals of that species.

Or yet another way. Try things like ice cream flavor. I am capable of choosing to eat a particular flavor of ice cream for any number of reasons. My choices are limited by natural forces, of course, and I can't very well choose to eat an ice cream that does not exist (unless I become a Zen Master), but I still can choose. There's no particular force that will make me choose one over the other, even though every single step in my process of making that choice IS GOVERNED entirely by natural forces.


Your reply is inevitable because you cannot choose. The inputs are already set and although complex, if I understood the mechanism well enough I could predict your entire life. There is no you, just a combination of events that we summarize as being Bottle.
That bolded bit is the problem, I think.

The combination of events, structures, processes, reactions, etc etc etc which have resulted in Bottle IS BOTTLE. And none of that precludes Bottle from making choices. :D

But (I thought) you are asserting that something other than natural laws is required for choice. In other words, pure cause-and-effect cannot result in choice. That is false.

It really depends on how you look at choice. If everything is simply a matter of inputs, outputs, and natural laws, then there is no "choice" as most people would define it. Every choice you will ever make has already been determined by the initial conditions of your life and the natural laws that govern it. The firing in your brain will determine what you will do. In this sense, "choice" and "free will" are essentially illusions of interpretation in our brains. Most people want to see "choice" and "free will" as "I am controlled by nothing more than my own mind." They see the laws of nature as constraining the possible actions they will take, but not as constraining the thoughts within their own mind.

Sort of like a ball at the top of a hill. If it were self-aware, one might say it has a "choice" in which side of the hill to roll down. But, in actuality, the natural law and the initial conditions - the situations that led to the ball being on top of the hill - are what determines which way it will roll. Likewise, while you may sit down and think, "Will I have a bagel or a muffin for breakfast?" and make a choice - if those choices are completely and entirely controlled by natural processes, it is simply a matter of the initial conditions and physical processes in your brain. It is no more "choice" than which way a ball rolls down a hill. We sense it as "choice" because we are self-aware.

Not sure if that completely made sense, but I think it may be the issue here.

Yes. Do you actually think there is some conflict between those two?

Yes I do. You have called my subjective answers to what you freely agree is a subjective question lazy. Let us remind ourselves of the questions asked and the answers given then.

The original question was:

Why posit the existance of God.

To which I replied:

Because the concept of God may well have been the very first of mankinds groping for answers. Because for many the concept of God is still relevant and DOES answer certian questions.

Please explain to me what is lazy about these answers?




I have already explained why your "answers" did not actually answer the questions posed. I have already pointed out the cop-outs and sloppy thinking. Given that you have been responding to me this whole time, I assume you already read what I posted. Otherwise you'd be a bit silly to be responding to something you hadn't even read. Right?

Nope you have not. Please re-post them here if you feel that I am mistaken.

I have though already pointed out to you that I have seen this methoed of yours used by you before though. Which methoed? Calling somebody silly, questioning their 'thinking skills', and I have seen it used most when you have wanted to deflect from a question or serious of questions that you do not wish to answer, or when presented with a statment that shows a previous starment of yours to be false. In short, you like to win, and when not doing so you can't even be truthfull to your slef and say yeah goodun, you got me there.

Heh and I am lazy, and guilty of sloppy thinking?

Gotcha. I was just trying to clarify what you were getting at.

I think it's a very interesting stance, particularly the bit about how "if a person does not have a predisposition to religion, then no amount of indoctrination is going to create one."

I'm not trying to be insulting, here, but when I first read that sentence I immediately thought of cult groups and how they systematically break down their victims. Now, perhaps their victims are already susceptible to begin with, but it interests me how a cult can create levels of fanaticism in individuals who previously had never showed such behavior. Was it a latent tendency that the cult brings to the surface? Or are they able to use a person's innate qualities to build fanaticism where none existed before?
Two points:

1) I do believe that those who get indoctrinated/brainwashed into cults were more susceptible to such influence to begin with. Further, I believe that those with less inherent susceptibility are less likely to become "true believers" who "drink the Koolaid" or even to join, or even listen to the recruiters' pitch, at all.

2) What evidence do we have that they never showed signs of fanaticism before? Often it is only the testimony of their friends and family, but is it not possible that they did not recognize it as fanaticism because it was more in keeping with the belief sets they themselves hold? It's easier to think a person is unreasonable when they are espousing something you don't believe in. When it is something you believe in, it is often easier to see fanaticism as mere enthusiasm - especially when the person you're talking about is a loved one.

From what I have read, though, people who have left cults (arguably not the most susceptible to begin with) have personally reported that they were looking for something through which to express a feeling they had with extreme intensity but had no outlet for. In other words, they were fanatics looking for a cause. I have also read reports about cults and indoctrination that suggest that some people go from cult to cult during their lives, the way some addicts will get themselves off alcohol only to take up prescription meds.

That bolded bit is the problem, I think.

The combination of events, structures, processes, reactions, etc etc etc which have resulted in Bottle IS BOTTLE. And none of that precludes Bottle from making choices. :D

I favor the view of life and self as an ever-changing process as well. The idea that identity requires one to have a fixed or eternal core of existence seems odd to me.

Even for those who believe in a soul, the soul should grow and develop and become new just as the body does.

Okay lets try it one more time huh!

An example is not proof. I can say for example it is well known that withoutthe religion of Isam we would have no maths.

If you where to ask me to proove that, merely saying it again is not proof.

So lets start with just one of the claims you have made.

'religion itself isn't a bad thing but the way it has been used during history to controll and manipulate is'

Proove to me, and by which I mean show me evidance, or point me to a link tha shows me evidance if it is easyer for you, that relgion has beenused to controll and manipulate.

I want documentation, not some blogg that repeatds the same message, not some hate page designed to stir up ill will. You say historicly then, shoe me historical evidance for even one example of your statement.

In short what makes you belive this, what evidance have you seen to make you belive this? I'll tell you what I'll make it real easy, don't link anything, don't cut an paste from any referance, just name me the evidance which cemented your belife in the statement you have made.

Search for the crusades on google and you will get a bunch of answers clearly not related to religion since religion has never been used as a mean of power.

It really depends on how you look at choice. If everything is simply a matter of inputs, outputs, and natural laws, then there is no "choice" as most people would define it. Every choice you will ever make has already been determined by the initial conditions of your life and the natural laws that govern it. The firing in your brain will determine what you will do. In this sense, "choice" and "free will" are essentially illusions of interpretation in our brains. Most people want to see "choice" and "free will" as "I am controlled by nothing more than my own mind." They see the laws of nature as constraining the possible actions they will take, but not as constraining the thoughts within their own mind.

Sort of like a ball at the top of a hill. If it were self-aware, one might say it has a "choice" in which side of the hill to roll down. But, in actuality, the natural law and the initial conditions - the situations that led to the ball being on top of the hill - are what determines which way it will roll. Likewise, while you may sit down and think, "Will I have a bagel or a muffin for breakfast?" and make a choice - if those choices are completely and entirely controlled by natural processes, it is simply a matter of the initial conditions and physical processes in your brain. It is no more "choice" than which way a ball rolls down a hill. We sense it as "choice" because we are self-aware.

Not sure if that completely made sense, but I think it may be the issue here.
Hmm. I thiiiiiink I get what you are saying. (my head hurts...:))

If I'm right, then the disagreement here is kind of about our fundamental perception of what choice really is. I think there are situations where, in terms of the forces involved, there are multiple possible solutions that are all equally valid, and choice occurs when we select one of the possible solutions instead of the others. I also think there are some situations where we do not have any choice, of course, but we all can agree on that much.

The thing is, I don't see how adding something beyond natural law will fix this. I mean, what, you just magically add in an amorphous "mind" or "soul" and say that now you have free will? How? Does the mind or soul or whatever allow you to somehow violate natural law?

I favor the view of life and self as an ever-changing process as well. The idea that identity requires one to have a fixed or eternal core of existence seems odd to me.

Absolutely. The person called Bottle is the result of all experiences, inputs, forces, process, etc...and this includes those occurring right now!

Two points:

1) I do believe that those who get indoctrinated/brainwashed into cults were more susceptible to such influence to begin with. Further, I believe that those with less inherent susceptibility are less likely to become "true believers" who "drink the Koolaid" or even to join, or even listen to the recruiters' pitch, at all.

2) What evidence do we have that they never showed signs of fanaticism before? Often it is only the testimony of their friends and family, but is it not possible that they did not recognize it as fanaticism because it was more in keeping with the belief sets they themselves hold? It's easier to think a person is unreasonable when they are espousing something you don't believe in. When it is something you believe in, it is often easier to see fanaticism as mere enthusiasm - especially when the person you're talking about is a loved one.

From what I have read, though, people who have left cults (arguably not the most susceptible to begin with) have personally reported that they were looking for something through which to express a feeling they had with extreme intensity but had no outlet for. In other words, they were fanatics looking for a cause. I have also read reports about cults and indoctrination that suggest that some people go from cult to cult during their lives, the way some addicts will get themselves off alcohol only to take up prescription meds.
Very cool points. I think these are reasonable conclusions. I don't have much personal experience with cults, so it's an area I'm very curious about.

Search for the crusades on google and you will get a bunch of answers clearly not related to religion since religion has never been used as a mean of power.

So based on what you know about the crusades, then you have inferhed that all relgion is used as a tool to manipulate the masses?

Very cool points. I think these are reasonable conclusions. I don't have much personal experience with cults, so it's an area I'm very curious about.
Cults are very difficult to research because there is such intense feeling about the subject in society these days. For instance, reference sites such as religioustolerance and religiousmovements avoid using the word at all because its connotations are so negative, it can close people's minds to any other information about the group in question. They have a reason to do that. I, personally, do not think that there is no such thing as a cult in the negative sense, nor do I think that all religions, even the kooky ones, qualify for that negative label.

That said, what little we know about cults that is reliable usually comes from the few instances when they go totally to hell, people die, and others survive and can tell their stories. Such instances are extreme and rare, and data about them are sporadic, and one has to struggle to sort facts out from the biases of the people collecting the data and writing the reports. Yet the negative label "cult" is thrown about rather freely. This is why I hesitate to call even Scientology a cult, even though it seems to act like one. I don't know enough about it to use a word that is, essentially, an accusation.

I became interested in the topic for several reasons: First because I was interested in the processes of political fanaticism and thus fanaticism in general. Second because, as a person with a minority religious view, I've been accused of being a "cultist" - so have several friends who are Buddhists or Wiccans - and I've wanted to know why. Third because such accusations pop up again and again in religious history, so it is an interesting side topic in my reading on comparative religions.

So based on what you know about the crusades, then you have inferhed that all relgion is used as a tool to manipulate the masses?

I never claimed that all religions did that, did I? I never claimed that religions did that at all, I said that people in power use religion as a tool to do that. And am I wrong? Let's twist it. Give me proof that powerful people never use religion to controll and manipulate the masses?

Hmm. I thiiiiiink I get what you are saying. (my head hurts...:))

If I'm right, then the disagreement here is kind of about our fundamental perception of what choice really is. I think there are situations where, in terms of the forces involved, there are multiple possible solutions that are all equally valid, and choice occurs when we select one of the possible solutions instead of the others. I also think there are some situations where we do not have any choice, of course, but we all can agree on that much.

The thing is, I don't see how adding something beyond natural law will fix this. I mean, what, you just magically add in an amorphous "mind" or "soul" and say that now you have free will? How? Does the mind or soul or whatever allow you to somehow violate natural law?

Let me preface this. I'm too busy to keep up with how fast you guys are going. I can't read all of this. So I'll just throw this out there.

You're both right in trying to determine what I'm trying to say. We're all struggling, because the terms are kind of nebulous and even our ideas are to an extent.

Forces don't end up with two equally viable outcomes. If we have enough information, the outcome would be completely predictable. Some would argue that Heisenberg's Uncertainty shows this to be false, but that appears to me to be just like when people declared the atom the smallest partical and then subatomic particals came along, and so on.

We have to make our theories based on what we know, but we can be mostly assured of is that in regards to nature, phyisical forces would be entirely predictable if we understood them well enough, and thus far this has always proven true, eventually. The only unpredictable natural things were at the end of our understanding of nature.

Because of this, I don't hold that we will ever have a series of equally likely outcomes to natural events. Absent something more to us, our lives are not only entirely mapped out from birth, but were from the beginning of time and we're just little complicated robots helplessly following our predestined path, not because the universe already "knows" what choices we made, because they aren't choices at all, but simply reactions.

Of course I am biased (I'm a Christian), but since these religions were created in the last 4000 years makes them a tiny fraction of history on the evolutionary time table, it would seem unlikely that they would be a product of evolution.


Why?

If evolution is an ongoing thing, a series of changes... some changes will be much more recent than others, no?

Also... while 'these religions' are 4000 years old-ish... we don't know how long there were religion sbefore that. If the Venus of Willendorf is a religious artifact, we could be looking at 25,000 years or more. It could be 100,000, and we just lack evidence... no?

Hmm. I thiiiiiink I get what you are saying. (my head hurts...:))

If I'm right, then the disagreement here is kind of about our fundamental perception of what choice really is. I think there are situations where, in terms of the forces involved, there are multiple possible solutions that are all equally valid, and choice occurs when we select one of the possible solutions instead of the others.

But how do we "choose" one of the possible solutions? If that is completely controlled by natural law, the "choice" we will make is completely a product of the mechanisms involved and the initial conditions involved. We may see it as making a choice, but the ultimate control comes from the mechanisms of the universe.

In other words, the exact firings that will occur in our brains are controlled, not by us per se, but by the same natural laws and initial conditions that caused our neural nets to develop in the way they did in the first place. We perceive it as choice, but we do not truly control it.

The thing is, I don't see how adding something beyond natural law will fix this. I mean, what, you just magically add in an amorphous "mind" or "soul" and say that now you have free will? How? Does the mind or soul or whatever allow you to somehow violate natural law?

If the mind or soul is not completely controlled by natural law - if it allows for a "true" choice not controlled completely by physical processes, that would meet the definition of the word as most people use it. If, on the other hand, it is simply a matter of deterministic natural processes, then every decision we have ever made (or will ever make) was actually determined at the instant the universe was created, because the initial conditions at that point (and the mechanisms that run the universe) determine every effect thereafter - including each of our decisions.


Forces don't end up with two equally viable outcomes. If we have enough information, the outcome would be completely predictable. Some would argue that Heisenberg's Uncertainty shows this to be false, but that appears to me to be just like when people declared the atom the smallest partical and then subatomic particals came along, and so on.

I've always thought that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is more a statement of our ability to measure than one of an absolute rule. By the very act of measuring, we change aspects of what we measure. Because of that, we cannot possibly have all the information about it. This does not, of course, mean that we could not accurately predict it if we somehow did know all the relevant information. It simply means that there is (at least currently) a limit to how much information we can gather.

We have to make our theories based on what we know, but we can be mostly assured of is that in regards to nature, phyisical forces would be entirely predictable if we understood them well enough, and thus far this has always proven true, eventually. The only unpredictable natural things were at the end of our understanding of nature.

Because of this, I don't hold that we will ever have a series of equally likely outcomes to natural events. Absent something more to us, our lives are not only entirely mapped out from birth, but were from the beginning of time and we're just little complicated robots helplessly following our predestined path, not because the universe already "knows" what choices we made, because they aren't choices at all, but simply reactions.

Ah, you said it much better than I did. =)

If we are simply obeying natural laws then intent doesn't actually exist. We're just performing predetermined reactions to situations. Automatons. I'm saying we are more than that. We have choice. Choice is not simply obeying laws unless you consider it a choice to obey gravity.


I don't see a problem with this premise.

If we assume we are geared towards reflecting stimuli (but - collective stimuli, compounded from processing ALL the stimuli we historically receive), if we assume that evolution (or god, it doesn't matter) has imbued us with the programming to 'sort' both the stimuli and the specific engines of processing... is there actually anything wrong with that model?

If the automaton is sufficiently functional... should we (logically) object to the comparison?

I mean - I can see the argument from emotion... some people might not be happy with the image that we could just be advanced bump-n-go robots - but that really isn't a flaw in the model.

I'm not sure I can ever prove I have had a 'choice' that I made. I don't know how I could ever disclude the argument that - while it felt like 'choice', it was actually just really, really good reaction.

Even for those who believe in a soul, the soul should grow and develop and become new just as the body does.

Whatever a 'soul' is. You might need to define your terms, and be prepared to support your definition...

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?This poll misses the distinction between a 'choice' and a conditioned behavior/ way of thinking.

Whatever a 'soul' is. You might need to define your terms, and be prepared to support your definition...

If you'd like to start a thread about different conceptions of soul and how they either can or cannot be substantiated, then I'd be happy to weigh in on the matter.

If you'd like to start a thread about different conceptions of soul and how they either can or cannot be substantiated, then I'd be happy to weigh in on the matter.

I'm just saying, your response to the 'fixed core' idea was: "Even for those who believe in a soul, the soul should grow and develop and become new just as the body does..."

I'm just pointing out... there are a lot of people who 'believe in a soul'... and many of their interpretations are different, not only to the premise you suggest, but to each other.

I don't see a problem with this premise.

If we assume we are geared towards reflecting stimuli (but - collective stimuli, compounded from processing ALL the stimuli we historically receive), if we assume that evolution (or god, it doesn't matter) has imbued us with the programming to 'sort' both the stimuli and the specific engines of processing... is there actually anything wrong with that model?

If the automaton is sufficiently functional... should we (logically) object to the comparison?

I mean - I can see the argument from emotion... some people might not be happy with the image that we could just be advanced bump-n-go robots - but that really isn't a flaw in the model.

I'm not sure I can ever prove I have had a 'choice' that I made. I don't know how I could ever disclude the argument that - while it felt like 'choice', it was actually just really, really good reaction.

Yes, and scientifically, I don't see why it would ever be more than that. Emperically, we are just the sum of the parts.

Philosophically, I don't know many who would argue that all we are is that. Even Bottle references choice as if a selection between multiple outcomes, an actual choice, occurs, that the outcome is not predetermined.

NOTE: I keep saying even Bottle, because Bottle is pretty comfortable with the this is all there is mentality, moreso than most humans, I'd say.

Personally, I think it is a conditioned behavior as overall, those whose parents are wildly religious either are EXTREMELY religious or EXTREMELY anti-religious, this would be because of a hate for their parents or a rebelious phase. Those whose parents are more moderately religious are probably more likely to be like their parents. People pick up more than genes from their environment at a young age. All animals pick up on behaviors at an early age too.

Yes, and scientifically, I don't see why it would ever be more than that. Emperically, we are just the sum of the parts.

I disagree with the notion that I am just a sum of my parts, because I, while similar to an 8086, seem to be aware of my existence and can act accordingly, while the 8086 does not seem to be aware of anything except commands and actions.

I disagree with the notion that I am just a sum of my parts, because I, while similar to an 8086, seem to be aware of my existence and can act accordingly, while the 8086 does not seem to be aware of anything except commands and actions.

That really doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that your parts are slightly more sophisticated than the parts of an 8086.

May I ask why you chose, specifically, an 8086?

That really doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that your parts are slightly more sophisticated than the parts of an 8086.

May I ask why you chose, specifically, an 8086?

I know a lot more about it's architecture than I do about the newer processors, meaning I feel I can safely assume that it is not aware of it's existence, while it is entirely possible that newer processors are, and are trying to foil my attempts at domination.

I know a lot more about it's architecture than I do about the newer processors, meaning I feel I can safely assume that it is not aware of it's existence, while it is entirely possible that newer processors are, and are trying to foil my attempts at domination.

Ah, I see. Yeah I would've gone with the Pentium 2. Largely because it's the one I'm most familiar with.

Anyway, so what about the fact that you are still the sum of your parts, but your parts are just more sophisticated than the 8086 or the Pentium 2?

Ah, I see. Yeah I would've gone with the Pentium 2. Largely because it's the one I'm most familiar with.

Anyway, so what about the fact that you are still the sum of your parts, but your parts are just more sophisticated than the 8086 or the Pentium 2?

After some thought, I guess I do subscribe to the notion that I am the sum of my parts. I don't really have an argument against it, and mostly for it.

I'm just saying, your response to the 'fixed core' idea was: "Even for those who believe in a soul, the soul should grow and develop and become new just as the body does..."

I'm just pointing out... there are a lot of people who 'believe in a soul'... and many of their interpretations are different, not only to the premise you suggest, but to each other.

Aye. That variety is precisely why I suggested a new thread to discuss it.

After some thought, I guess I do subscribe to the notion that I am the sum of my parts. I don't really have an argument against it, and mostly for it.

It isn't a comfortable position. We all want to feel like we are 'god's special children' or something. But, when it comes down to it - how can one really show that were are more than elegant artifacts? How can we ever show that we 'choose' anything... how can we show that our 'choice' is anything more than stimulus processed through a pragmatic filter...?

But that is not an argument against religion.

No really, must.sleep.

Haha! :D

No need to. We should just find a way to cure it. Life is, after all, a Sexually Transmitted Disease.

...if you believe it is biological. :) I prefer to believe it is the sum of parts.

It isn't a comfortable position. We all want to feel like we are 'god's special children' or something. But, when it comes down to it - how can one really show that were are more than elegant artifacts? How can we ever show that we 'choose' anything... how can we show that our 'choice' is anything more than stimulus processed through a pragmatic filter...?

I don't really think the lack of comfort with the position is necessarily related to a need to feel special. I think it just comes with being self-aware. We can never be sure if that "self" is any more than the same old cause and effect, but it feels different - precisely because it is us. Self-awareness suggests to us, whether it is true or not, that there is something "more" to us than there is to an unthinking object.

I've added the context you need here so that problem will disappear.

Haha! You give humans more credit than I do.

In any given situation, I am faced with a reality that is governed by natural laws. I perceive that situation via processes and structures that obey natural laws. I process the input using pathways and structures that are subject entirely to natural laws. And I choose between whichever options I perceive as existing, and then proceed to act on my choice using physical, natural processes, structures, and forces.

My choice is based partly on the natural limitations of the situation itself (for instance, gravity), and partly on my own individual characteristics (for instance, whether or not I like to ride my bike to the store or walk to the store). My individual characteristics include "innate" traits that are unique to my body and brain, as well as characteristics which have been formed or shaped by all the experiences I have had throughout my lifetime. My perception of a situation and my options, as well as my choice in response to that situation, will be as unique as I am.

None of this describes the choice, it merely describes the circumstances surrounding the choice.

I think there are situations where, in terms of the forces involved, there are multiple possible solutions that are all equally valid, and choice occurs when we select one of the possible solutions instead of the others.

Then the question is: what is "we"?

What is this thing that makes decisions?

It really depends on how you look at choice. If everything is simply a matter of inputs, outputs, and natural laws, then there is no "choice" as most people would define it. Every choice you will ever make has already been determined by the initial conditions of your life and the natural laws that govern it. The firing in your brain will determine what you will do. In this sense, "choice" and "free will" are essentially illusions of interpretation in our brains. Most people want to see "choice" and "free will" as "I am controlled by nothing more than my own mind." They see the laws of nature as constraining the possible actions they will take, but not as constraining the thoughts within their own mind.

Sort of like a ball at the top of a hill. If it were self-aware, one might say it has a "choice" in which side of the hill to roll down. But, in actuality, the natural law and the initial conditions - the situations that led to the ball being on top of the hill - are what determines which way it will roll. Likewise, while you may sit down and think, "Will I have a bagel or a muffin for breakfast?" and make a choice - if those choices are completely and entirely controlled by natural processes, it is simply a matter of the initial conditions and physical processes in your brain. It is no more "choice" than which way a ball rolls down a hill. We sense it as "choice" because we are self-aware.

Not sure if that completely made sense, but I think it may be the issue here.

Marvelous conjecture. But we have something the ball does not --awareness our our surroundings.

Well done.

Why?

If evolution is an ongoing thing, a series of changes... some changes will be much more recent than others, no?

Also... while 'these religions' are 4000 years old-ish... we don't know how long there were religion sbefore that. If the Venus of Willendorf is a religious artifact, we could be looking at 25,000 years or more. It could be 100,000, and we just lack evidence... no?

The Venus of Willendorf has been dismissed --pooh, pooh! --as evidence, dispite there being a zillion copies of her to bespeak her popularity and obvious non-literal significance as a statuette simply because archaeology has said so.

Blame science. Pooh, pooh!

I don't see a problem with this premise.

If we assume we are geared towards reflecting stimuli (but - collective stimuli, compounded from processing ALL the stimuli we historically receive), if we assume that evolution (or god, it doesn't matter) has imbued us with the programming to 'sort' both the stimuli and the specific engines of processing... is there actually anything wrong with that model?

If the automaton is sufficiently functional... should we (logically) object to the comparison?

The comparison isn't valid. All the inputs in a computer result in outputs. Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it? To claim so would deny the subconscous. And if we are responding to stimuli, what is the "we" that is responding to this stimuli?

The comparison isn't valid. All the inputs in a computer result in outputs. Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it? To claim so would deny the subconscous. And if we are responding to stimuli, what is the "we" that is responding to this stimuli?

It depends on your definition of output. If you define output as some sort of external act, then you're right. But output can be purely mental.

It depends on your definition of output. If you define output as some sort of external act, then you're right. But output can be purely mental.

So output that is "mental" is a result of known inputs?

Three words - "continue," "accept," and "definition" -- that have no apparent relationship to each other in this post, and do not reflect the history of your posts in the thread.

Read back, dear, you have repeatedly asserted that science can disprove religion, including in the post on this sub-topic immediately preceding the one I responded to. At what point during the time you were making these assertions did you stop continuing to make them?

In addition, which definition of what word/term/phrase did you accept that caused you to stop continuing to make the assertions you were making up to just a couple of pages ago?

Just to clear up, I stopped continuing and provided definition here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12529487&postcount=722 - I have admitted that no one has agreed to these but that is where I stopped. I then asked for any evidence that a God, any God, existed. The debate moved on...

Then...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12530182&postcount=833 - from which
In addition, it makes broad claims that are dependent upon other sources of data which you have failed to provide us links to

I'm supposed to source my sources now??!!

I'm not sure I've seen a single source from you to back up any of your claims - I understand and have looked to source given advice kindly provided to me by yourself, Jocabia and others, which I gladly accept but really, sourcing my sources are a little too much.

In the meantime, have we any evidence provided yet for any God, personal or not?

In terms of the current debate, I would also like to clarify that it was not that love/religion is merely a chemical reaction - if the full context of my post was given (something I've been chastised for by the very person who then pull my quote out of context), the chemical reaction comes from emotions, the emotion of being afraid of 'not knowing'.

It's ok to be afraid of the unknown, it's a genetic advantage - humans want to know and if we can't, we'll place a reason down that we can live with until we do know the answer.

Still allows us choice.

Just to clear up, I stopped continuing and provided definition here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12529487&postcount=722 - I have admitted that no one has agreed to these but that is where I stopped. I then asked for any evidence that a God, any God, existed. The debate moved on...

Then...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12530182&postcount=833 - from which
You have got to be kidding me.

1) You claim that your position was settled based on your acceptance of a definition that you yourself selected and supplied for your own argument. In other words, you presented an argument, were challenged on it, responded with "if religion means X then I'm right," and you consider your point carried. Give me a break.

2) The "definition" you claim settled the matter for you was challenged by others after you made that post. So that hardly indicates a settled matter.

3) I responded to your requests for proof about God by pointing out that they were irrelevant both to the thread in general and to our challenges to your assertions. We were still following the original line of argument. Your attempt to change the topic obviously failed.

I'm supposed to source my sources now??!!
Since your "source" was little more than a theoretical opinion piece that did not even back up your assertions precisely the way you claimed it did, then yes, you have to give us more. If your first source cites sources of its own, you should have vetted and presented them. Possibly it would be difficult to find your source's sources. They were mentioned in the footnotes but were not linked to. It looked to me as if that article had been posted from a de-formatted orginal hard document, possibly by copying and pasting out of a pdf. Since there was no way for you to easily find the author's sources to get real facts to shore up your argument, then you should not have used that source. You should have looked for a better one.

I'm not sure I've seen a single source from you to back up any of your claims - I understand and have looked to source given advice given to me by yourself, Jocabia and others, which I gladly accept but really, sourcing my sources are a little too much.
Liar. I posted six sources in something like the second or third post I put up in response to you. All of those sources were the sites from which I gathered the information that formed the statements I was making. Their information, descriptions and statistics back up my assertions concerning modern polytheism and Shinto in particular. Those, by the way, are the only assertions I have made that require backing up.

Have we any evidence provided yet for any God, personal or not?
Again, we need none in the context of this debate. We are not discussing whether there is a god or not. We are only discussing whether there is a genetic predisposition towards religious thinking and/or behavior in people. Your attempts to force people to take up this change of topic of yours is little more than a thread hijack. No wonder no one is rising to your bait. If you want to debate the existence of god and issue a challenge for believers to provide proof, then start another thread.

This thread is about genetic predispositions regarding religion. The only argument you have presented on that topic is some confused nonsense implying a progression from many to one to zero gods, but all your points have been challenged and refuted. You have failed support your argument and it has been debunked.

You have got to be kidding me.

[QUOTE]1) You claim that your position was settled based on your acceptance of a definition that you yourself selected and supplied for your own argument. In other words, you presented an argument, were challenged on it, responded with "if religion means X then I'm right," and you consider your point carried. Give me a break.

2) The "definition" you claim settled the matter for you was challenged by others after you made that post. So that hardly indicates a settled matter.

3) I responded to your requests for proof about God by pointing out that they were irrelevant both to the thread in general and to our challenges to your assertions. We were still following the original line of argument. Your attempt to change the topic obviously failed.

Sources to your claims please.

I admitted in the post you quoted that my definition was not accepted. Please source the challenges.


Since your "source" was little more than a theoretical opinion piece that did not even back up your assertions precisely the way you claimed it did, then yes, you have to give us more. If your first source cites sources of its own, you should have vetted and presented them. Possibly it would be difficult to find your source's sources. They were mentioned in the footnotes but were not linked to. It looked to me as if that article had been posted from a de-formatted orginal hard document, possibly by copying and pasting out of a pdf. Since there was no way for you to easily find the author's sources to get real facts to shore up your argument, then you should not have used that source. You should have looked for a better one.

Should have? Provide an sourced article to your response please.

Liar. I posted six sources in something like the second or third post I put up in response to you. All of those sources were the sites from which I gathered the information that formed the statements I was making. Their information, descriptions and statistics back up my assertions concerning modern polytheism and Shinto in particular. Those, by the way, are the only assertions I have made that require backing up.

I said 'I'm not sure', why liar?

Again, we need none in the context of this debate. We are not discussing whether there is a god or not. We are only discussing whether there is a genetic predisposition towards religious thinking and/or behavior in people. Your attempts to force people to take up this change of topic of yours is little more than a thread hijack. No wonder no one is rising to your bait. If you want to debate the existence of god and issue a challenge for believers to provide proof, then start another thread.

Understood on this, but it's a central point to the argument - are we predisposed to religiosity, no not religiosity per se in the same way that we're not prredisposed to nicotine per se. The brain did not form to specifically be addicted to nicotine.

This thread is about genetic predispositions regarding religion. The only argument you have presented on that topic is some confused nonsense implying a progression from many to one to zero gods, but all your points have been challenged and refuted. You have failed support your argument and it has been debunked.
The one to zero Gods is a tangent to many other arguments put forth here.

I still hold by it.

I'm not asking for sources because I don't think they're there, I'm asking because these are the standards to which you're holding me.

3) I responded to your requests for proof about God by pointing out that they were irrelevant both to the thread in general and to our challenges to your assertions. We were still following the original line of argument. Your attempt to change the topic obviously failed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12530182&postcount=833

It's unfair of me to quote Jocabia as I don't think he's online, but the debate had changed to one of 'show any evidence that God exists', hence why we're on the topic of 'can love/religiosity/the human condition be merely (my word) chemical reactions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12530182&postcount=833

It's unfair of me to quote Jocabia as I don't think he's online, but the debate had changed to one of 'show any evidence that God exists', hence why we're on the topic of 'can love/religiosity/the human condition be merely (my word) chemical reactions.

Quote away. I'm around and I don't mind even if I'm not.

Should have? Provide an sourced article to your response please.

Are you serious? First you complain when people point out your source has no value and that sources should be more meaningful and shoul have footnotes or references and then ask for a source for claims that source must actaully source where their data is from?

Honestly, she's making fair requests of you. Please, please, recognize that this is an absurd request of her.

[QUOTE=Muravyets;12532286] You have got to be kidding me.



Sources to your claims please.

I admitted in the post you quoted that my definition was not accepted. Please source the challenges.
No. You want me to "source" -- by which I assume you mean link to -- over 10 pages of posts, or more, in this thread? I decline to do so. I have been able to keep up with the conversation without having to read it back to myself over and over, and I see no reason why I should read it to you now, figuratively speaking.

My source is already linked to. We are in it right now. It is this thread.

Should have? Provide an sourced article to your response please.
A sourced article? I don't need to find an article saying that your article was a bad support for your argument. I can use your article. So I refer you back to your own source. It uses data from the sources listed in its references/footnotes to support its theoretical argument. You are asserting its theories as if they are facts. If you want to do that, you have to show the supports for the theory, i.e. their sources. You have not done so. That is a simple observation of what you have failed to do. I don't need an outside source to support it.

I said 'I'm not sure', why liar?
Sorry, I had assumed that you were capable of following the discussion and that you would have remembered an argument that came with six site links in support of it. I guess I was wrong in that assumption.

Since I cannot be bothered to search through more than 30 pages (yes, I'm sure of that because I did start to look for it) to find my original post, I will just repost the links here. Do not lose them again. I am not your secretary to go reminding you of things every 10 minutes.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/
http://www.adherents.com/

http://www.shinto.org/
http://www.shinto.org/isf/eng/top-e.htm
http://jinja.jp/english/s-0.html

The one to zero Gods is a tangent to many other arguments put forth here.
No, it isn't. Not one other poster has put up an argument even remotely connected or related to it. The only person who has argued that line is you and you have failed to show its relationship to anything else.

I still hold by it.
If you enjoy being wrong, by all means, continue.

Meanwhile our natural taste for simplicity creates a general tendency for a decline in the number of gods we believe in, and hence the gradual replacement of polytheism with monotheism. Hume assured his readers that he considered the rational foundations of Christianity to be unassailable, but there was little he could do to prevent them from wondering if the historical trend that had left them with only one god in their pantheon would not continue until there were none.
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume121issue2_comments.php?id=1957_0_41_0_C

For example, Takeshi Umehara, who is well known as a pioneer in the fi eld of Japanese culture, makes the following comments: “I believe that just as the former trends in civilization moved from polytheism to monotheism, in the future, civilization should move in a direction from monotheism to polytheism. Polytheism is by far preferable to monotheism if many races are to share this small world” (Mori no Shisou ga Jinrui wo Sukuu [Th e Idea of the Forest will Save Mankind], Shogakukan, 1995, p. 158).
http://www.cismor.jp/en/research/report/documents/JISMOR1SPen_kohara.pdf

Note, the idea that polytheism will grow in the future is his theory, that the trend has been the other way is accepted.

DAWKINS: I think that there's been a historical trend from animism where every tree and every river and every mountain had a spirit, to polytheistic religions where you have Thor, and Wotan, and Apollo and Zeus and things, then a trend towards monotheism (and finally zerotheism or atheism). Interestingly enough I was looking into the law of charity the other day, and found that one of the things that defines a charity for tax purposes is the furtherance of religion. But in British law it's got to be monotheistic religion. Now, there's a large Hindu population in this country. I imagine they might have something to say about that.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p10.html

Fair enough, 'think' but still...

c. The Origins of Polytheism and Monotheism in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Israel. The civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia gave rise to complex forms of religious belief and cult practices that were tightly connected to views concerning the social order, moral behavior, and the afterlife. Development of the concept of a moral death—that judgment of good and evil in life determines fate—in early Egypt, and the emergence there and in Mesopotamia of “sin” as a violation of cosmic order. The emergence of monotheism, which was born and shaped within this polytheistic matrix.
http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/courses/listing/hum.html

Enough?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12530182&postcount=833

It's unfair of me to quote Jocabia as I don't think he's online, but the debate had changed to one of 'show any evidence that God exists', hence why we're on the topic of 'can love/religiosity/the human condition be merely (my word) chemical reactions.
Your little side argument did not change the topic of the debate. It is still off-topic.

Are you serious? First you complain when people point out your source has no value and that sources should be more meaningful and shoul have footnotes or references and then ask for a source for claims that source must actaully source where their data is from?

Honestly, she's making fair requests of you. Please, please, recognize that this is an absurd request of her.

Asking me to source my sources is an absurd request to me, which was asked first - I'm asking for equality.

I've been told Wikipedia is not a source, Google is not a source, theory papers are not a source?

My question is: what is a source?

Asking me to source my sources is an absurd request to me, which was asked first - I'm asking for equality.

No, it isn't. If you source presents information without telling us how they got it, then it's either A) useless or B) using references or C) explaining methodology. If your source does not do B or C then it's A.

No, it isn't. If you source presents information without telling us how they got it, then it's either A) useless or B) using references or C) explaining methodology. If your source does not do B or C then it's A.

At some point a source is trusted, not as fact but as viable and tested opinion, due to where it's from - I'm not sourcing Noddy books here.

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume121issue2_comments.php?id=1957_0_41_0_C


http://www.cismor.jp/en/research/report/documents/JISMOR1SPen_kohara.pdf

Note, the idea that polytheism will grow in the future is his theory, that the trend has been the other way is accepted.


http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p10.html

Fair enough, 'think' but still...


http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/courses/listing/hum.html

Enough?
Better, but no.

You are still asserting theories as if they are facts. All of these sources are discussing theoretical interpretations of some trends. But that is all they are - theoretical interpretations.

Now, you, on the other hand, have been using these theories to assert the death of polytheism as if it is a fact already accomplished. You have failed to account for the fact that hundreds of millions of people world wide still practice polytheistic religions. Presented with that fact (see my links above), you merely tried to weasel out of it by implying that they are not really religious at all and so don't count -- a logical fallacy I believe is called "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Your refusal to qualify your statements by admitting that they are nothing more than your opinion formed by your acceptance of these unproven theories is what is keeping this argument going.

EDIT: AND I ALMOST FORGOT!!

The way your very first source in the list refutes your argument but you still try to claim it as support even as you try to debunk at the same time adds to the ridiculousness of your position. But do keep it up. It's very amusing.

Your little side argument did not change the topic of the debate. It is still off-topic.

Ah, agreed, off the topic of the original OP - but we need to explore a multitude of side issues to clarify the OP itself.

There are clear assertions that I have been challenged on and have therefore sidetracked to defend those assertions - not topic of OP yes, but related to certainly.

At some point a source is trusted, not as fact but as viable and tested opinion, due to where it's from - I'm not sourcing Noddy books here.

If it uses information without telling where it comes from I wouldn't trust. Nor would she. She's asking where the information is coming from. It's a reasonable request. Many reputable sources make mistakes on occasion. Unless we can follow the trail of information, how do you propose we determine what is reliable? Crossed fingers?

Barringtonia
Asking me to source my sources is an absurd request to me, which was asked first - I'm asking for equality.

I've been told Wikipedia is not a source, Google is not a source, theory papers are not a source?

My question is: what is a source?

No, it isn't. If you source presents information without telling us how they got it, then it's either A) useless or B) using references or C) explaining methodology. If your source does not do B or C then it's A.
1) Wikipedia is too easily edited and not stringently enough vetted, therefore it's sources are suspect.

2) A list of sources is not itself a source, so a link to a Google page tells us nothing in support of your argument. It is a source of nothing.

3) The article did B. It used references. You should have directed us to those references, which presumably contained the facts upon which the writer based his opinions. His opinions are not facts that support your argument, but his sources might have given you some.

At some point a source is trusted, not as fact but as viable and tested opinion, due to where it's from - I'm not sourcing Noddy books here.
No. An opinion is just an opinion, the resume of its author notwithstanding. It proves nothing. You made an assertion of fact. You must present facts to back it up, not other people's opinions.

Ah, agreed, off the topic of the original OP - but we need to explore a multitude of side issues to clarify the OP itself.

There are clear assertions that I have been challenged on and have therefore sidetracked to defend those assertions - not topic of OP yes, but related to certainly.
Asking for proof of the existence of God is not one of them.

Better, but no.

You are still asserting theories as if they are facts. All of these sources are discussing theoretical interpretations of some trends. But that is all they are - theoretical interpretations.

Now, you, on the other hand, have been using these theories to assert the death of polytheism as if it is a fact already accomplished. You have failed to account for the fact that hundreds of millions of people world wide still practice polytheistic religions. Presented with that fact (see my links above), you merely tried to weasel out of it by implying that they are not really religious at all and so don't count -- a logical fallacy I believe is called "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Your refusal to qualify your statements by admitting that they are nothing more than your opinion formed by your acceptance of these unproven theories is what is keeping this argument going.

EDIT: AND I ALMOST FORGOT!!

The way your very first source in the list refutes your argument but you still try to claim it as support even as you try to debunk at the same time adds to the ridiculousness of your position. But do keep it up. It's very amusing.

To the bold....what??!!

I accept many people believe in polytheism, I contend many, many more believe in monotheism. Are Islam and Christianity not the fastest growing religions?

To your edit: please explain how?

Still no evidence whatsoever on God by the way

I think you've misinterpreted the consistency of my argument.

Is religiosity a choice?

Yes it is.

We can choose to discard it or not.

We can better explain, through science, that the tendency for belief, in whatever definition of God you choose to put forward, is based on answering the emotion of 'fear of the unknown'. It does not mean God (and therefore religion) need exist at all.

To the bold....what??!!
You asserted that polytheism was an okay initial thought on religion but as mankind got used to thinking about god, we naturally simplified our thinking to only one god, and implied that the next inevitable step was zero god.

You were challenged to account for the existence of ancient monotheism and modern polytheism, in the face of your asserted progression. You were offered the modern examples of Hindu India and Shinto Japan.

You attempted to claim that there was no modern polytheism by simply dismissing Hinduism as if it was not worth talking about and then claiming that Shinto isn't a real religion.

Your attempts failed.

I accept many people believe in polytheism, I contend many many more believe in montheism.
And I have stated several times that that is a non-point that has no relevance to the matter. As I said before, evidence of current minority is not evidence of inevitable extinction. One of your own sources, listed most recently, agrees with me, not you.

To your edit: please explain how?
Sorry, it was your second source in the list, not the first one. I quote your own words about it:

"'Note, the idea that polytheism will grow in the future is his theory, that the trend has been the other way is accepted."
emphasis added.

Interestingly, it is a Japanese source. That's the country you insist has no polytheism anymore.

Still no evidence whatsoever on God by the way
Still none needed.

If you insist that this boondoggle of yours is related to the OP, then show us how the question of whether there is a predisposition towards religious thinking in the human brain is answered by the existence or non-existence of god.

Depending on who your family are and what beliefs they besto on you pushes you at a young age on whether or not you are religious. You can choose later in life if you still believe in those morals but basically it all revolves around who you are where you are in the world and in that life.

I accept many people believe in polytheism, I contend many, many more believe in monotheism. Are Islam and Christianity not the fastest growing religions?

Um, no. Most figures have Christianity as growing more slowly than Hinduism as well as several other religious belief systems. The two you listed are not generally held to hold the top two spots.

I think you've misinterpreted the consistency of my argument.

Is religiosity a choice?

Yes it is.

We can choose to discard it or not.

We can better explain, through science, that the tendency for belief, in whatever definition of God you choose to put forward, is based on answering the emotion of 'fear of the unknown'. It does not mean God (and therefore religion) need exist at all.
You started by expressing your opinion that religiosity is a choice.

Nothing in this post is any way related to anything else you have said. All this does, it seems, is attempt to erase all these pages of argument. Why? Beause you cannot win it? The challenge to your assertions stands. If you cannot answer it, I will take the points as conceded -- that you are wrong about polytheism as a matter of fact, that your "progression" is nonsense out of keeping with facts, and that the existence/non-existence of god is irrelevant to the matter of why some people are religious.

EDIT: Actually, it occurs to me that you are contradicting yourself here. If we have the choice to discard religion, what does that do to your evolutionary progression? If it is inevitable that humans will evolve beyond the need for gods, neurologically, then surely religiosity must be inherent -- a tendency that will be selected out of the gene pool. You can't select out something that is merely an individual's conscious choice. So, either, we have no choice in the matter of religiosity but must by biological necessity eventually discard it, or your progression model is bunk.

implied that the next inevitable step was zero god.

No, you made that implication, throughout you have been putting words into my...ammm....writing

Um, no. Most figures have Christianity as growing more slowly than Hinduism as well as several other religious belief systems. The two you listed are not generally held to hold the top two spots.

Speaking with regards to growth of the religion, correct?

I didn't think they even held the spot of top two for most subscribers.

Um, no. Most figures have Christianity as growing more slowly than Hinduism as well as several other religious belief systems. The two you listed are not generally held to hold the top two spots.

Sources please

Sources please

Amusing. I agree that you should source your claims. It's your assertion. Did you forget you made it? I simply disagreed.

But I'll agree to you show you mine if you show me yours. In case you forgot your assertion -

Are Islam and Christianity not the fastest growing religions?

Now you can pretend like this question is not an assertion, but I challenge you to go to the mod forum and ask "are the mods not a <some flame>?"

You'll find that no one is going to buy that. What you're doing is called the fallacy of shifting the burden.

Speaking with regards to growth of the religion, correct?

Yes. And to your edit, I do think they have the most subscribers, but since they don't have the fastest growth, one must wonder how long that will last. Hinduism is outpacing Christianity and it's got nearly a billion followers.

Amusing. It's your assertion. Did you forget you made it? I simply disagreed.

But I'll agree to you show you mine if you show me yours. In case you forgot your assertion -



Now you can pretend like this question is not an assertion, but I challenge you to go to the mod forum and ask "are the mods not a <some flame>?"

You'll find that no one is going to buy that. What you're doing is called the fallacy of shifting the burden.

Ok - in terms of fastest growing by number alone, actually it's Atheism!!

The American Religious Identification Survey gave Non-Religious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers - 14,300,000 (8.4% of the population) to 29,400,000 (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990 to 2001 in the USA.[1][12]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

Of course, Wikipedia has been discounted as a source :rolleyes:

Yes. And to your edit, I do think they have the most subscribers, but since they don't have the fastest growth, one must wonder how long that will last. Hinduism is outpacing Christianity and it's got nearly a billion followers.

Also, de-conversion and re-conversion rates must be taken into account, although I am quite curious as to what those rates would be. I doubt there'd be any literature on the matter...

Yes. And to your edit, I do think they have the most subscribers, but since they don't have the fastest growth, one must wonder how long that will last. Hinduism is outpacing Christianity and it's got nearly a billion followers.

No coincidence that India has over a billion people in which Hindu is a majority religion.

Growing in terms of absolute conversions I can accept to some degree, not by population growth.

Ok - in terms of fastest growing by number alone, actually it's Atheism!!

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

Of course, Wikipedia has been discounted as a source :rolleyes:

Well, you could always try the links cited below the article as sources, although that would require you to read them . . .

Ok - in terms of fastest growing by number alone, actually it's Atheism!!

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

Of course, Wikipedia has been discounted as a source :rolleyes:

Um, I see you don't like to read even what you quote. That was a claim about the US not the world. I know this is complicated stuff what with needing to read two whole letters and all.

Meanwhile, let's use Wikipedia for a moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Trends_in_adherence

1990-2000

2.65% - Zoroastrianism
2.28% - Bahá'í Faith
2.13% - Islam
1.87% - Sikhism
1.69% - Hinduism
1.36% - Christianity
1.09% - Buddhism

Hmmmm... that puts Christianity as growing slower than the population of the world, so declining in overall percentage and pretty much proves your point as, well, dumb.

No coincidence that India has over a billion people in which Hindu is a majority religion.

Growing in terms of absolute conversions I can accept to some degree, not by population growth.

Um, again, not really interested in actually reading what you cite, huh? The source you presented cited my source, the one that gives estimates of growth of religions. The sources of the numbers I used were Christian sources that STILL don't claim Christianity is in the top few religions in terms of growth of population.

Interesting side note...

Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.3 billion
Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese folk religion 394 million
Buddhism 376 million*
Primal indigenous 300 million
African traditional and diasporic 100 million
Sikhism 23 million
Juche 19 million
Spiritism 15 million
Judaism 14 million
Bahai faith 7 million
Jainism 4.2 million
Shinto 4 million
Cao Dai 4 million
Zoroastrianism 2.6 million
Tenrikyo 2 million
Neo-paganism 1 million
Unitarian Universalism 800,000
Rastafari movement 600,000
Scientology 500,000

In ranking religious denominations, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest single
denomination within Christianity, Sunni Islam within Islam, and Vaishnavism within Hinduism.
It is difficult to say whether there are more Roman Catholics or Sunnis, as the numbers are
roughly equal, and exact counts are impossible.

Source (http://www.rad.bham.ac.uk/files/resourcesmodule/@random44e5ca0f65727/1162216949_DemographicsAndTrendsInReligiousAdherence.pdf)

Hmmm, look at that juicy number.....1.1 Billion. Reminds me of a great movie line.

"We're coming out, guns blazing!"

Um, I see you don't like to read even what you quote. That was a claim about the US not the world. I know this is complicated stuff what with needing to read two whole letters and all.

Meanwhile, let's use Wikipedia for a moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Trends_in_adherence

1990-2000

2.65% - Zoroastrianism
2.28% - Bahá'í Faith
2.13% - Islam
1.87% - Sikhism
1.69% - Hinduism
1.36% - Christianity
1.09% - Buddhism

Hmmmm... that puts Christianity as growing slower than the population of the world, so declining in overall percentage and pretty much proves your point as, well, dumb.

Oh come on,

% growth from a very low base number is irrelevant. Growth simply because a population growth is relevant but not very.

Are you really suggesting that given a curve from 1000 years ago, to 500, to 200, to 100 years ago as a % of world population, that atheism would not be the fastest, with extraordinary growth since the enlightenment?

Or even that monotheistic religions are also faster rising than polytheism?

Interesting side note...



Source (http://www.rad.bham.ac.uk/files/resourcesmodule/@random44e5ca0f65727/1162216949_DemographicsAndTrendsInReligiousAdherence.pdf)

Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.3 billion
Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist 1.1 billion

Monotheism/Atheism dominant.

Oh come on,

% growth from a very low base number is irrelevant. Growth simply because a population growth is relevant but not very.

Are you really suggesting that given a curve from 1000 years ago, to 500, to 200, to 100 years ago as a % of world population, that atheism would not be the fastest, with extraordinary growth since the enlightenment?

Or even that monotheistic religions are also faster rising than polytheism?

You're changing your argument. A minute ago you were claiming the fastest growth is Islam and Christianity. Now, it's atheism. I wonder what it'll be in ten minutes.

Also, you've changed the time frame. No, I don't think atheism is the fastest growing since the enlightenment. At all.

And Christianity is being outstripped by population growth. Hinduism is not. Keep up. Or if you can't, then don't. Do or do not do. There is no try.

You're changing your argument. A minute ago you were claiming the fastest growth is Islam and Christianity. Now, it's atheism. I wonder what it'll be in ten minutes.

Also, you've changed the time frame. No, I don't think atheism is the fastest growing since the enlightenment. At all.

And Christianity is being outstripped by population growth. Hinduism is not. Keep up. Or if you can't, then don't. Do or do not do. There is no try.

My argument is consistent from the beginning, monotheism/atheism is dominant.

I asked whether Christianity or Islam were the fastest growing, even given your point about statement put forward as fact - my point is correct.

Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.3 billion
Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist 1.1 billion

Monotheism/Atheism dominant.

In current numbers, not growth. Again, you're changing your claims. I love this squirming. It's amusing.

Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.3 billion
Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist 1.1 billion

Monotheism/Atheism dominant.

Number of adherents, not a relative growth number.

And percent growth is important, regardless of actual reason for the growth. Growth by reproduction is *very* important due mostly to the fact that that's how most people are inducted into the religion that they (choose?) are in for life.

My argument is consistent from the beginning, monotheism/atheism is dominant.

I asked whether Christianity or Islam were the fastest growing, even given your point about statement put forward as fact - my point is correct.

Ha. You said "are Islam and Christianity not the fastest growing?" That's a turn of phrase. It challenges the person listening to agree or prove you wrong Like me saying "Is Barringtonia not making stupid arguments?"

And let's see consistent -

First science could disprove religion. Then it couldn't. Granted, that only changed when your argument got KILLED.

Then people need to prove God in a thread that has nothing to do with such a thing.

Then polytheism is chaning to monotheism which is a trend toward less gods. Obviously implying that it's going to zero.

Then when called out, you say you're just saying it's going from many to one.

Then you talk about growth and moving from the growth of monotheism to the growth of atheism as if both support your claim, the claim you just said had nothing to do with atheism.

Seriously, I want to feel sorry for you, but I really don't have the patience.

Number of adherents, not a relative growth number.

And percent growth is important, regardless of actual reason for the growth. Growth by reproduction is *very* important due mostly to the fact that that's how most people are inducted into the religion that they (choose?) are in for life.

Zoroastrianism, with 2.6 million can grow to 3 million and claim greater & growth than Christianity, for which any significant growth figure requires far larger numbers.

I would propose, not state as fact mind, that the slower growth of Christianity is not due to conversion to polytheism but to atheism.

Ha. You said "are Islam and Christianity not the fastest growing?" That's a turn of phrase. It challenges the person listening to agree or prove you wrong Like me saying "Is Barringtonia not making stupid arguments?"

I still say you can argue that they are.

If you discount growth by population (I really understand your point Ex Libre but no one is 'changing their mind'), or % growth from a very small base, more people are 'choosing' Christianity or Islam over any other religion.

Regardless of the utterly disputable nature of assessing, the fact is that atheism/monotheism are dominant in this world, a point that Muryavets has called me a liar on numerous occasions previously.

Zoroastrianism, with 2.6 million can grow to 3 million and claim greater & growth than Christianity, for which any significant growth figure requires far larger numbers.

I would propose, not state as fact mind, that the slower growth of Christianity is not due to conversion to polytheism but to atheism.

And I would propose that the slower growth rate of Christianity is due to less conversions overall. By that I mean that the growth is due mostly to parents inducting their children into the faith, as opposed to missionaries proselytizing.

Zoroastrianism, with 2.6 million can grow to 3 million and claim greater & growth than Christianity, for which any significant growth figure requires far larger numbers.

I would propose, not state as fact mind, that the slower growth of Christianity is not due to conversion to polytheism but to atheism.

Hinduism has nearly a billion adherents and according to Christian sources is growing faster. Kind of kills your claim that Christianity is only getting beat out because small religions have the advantage of not needing as many people to show a high percentage growth.

Meanwhile, how does this change your claim that Christianity and Islam are the fastest growing? Every single post you change your claims rather than simply admitting you were just plain wrong.

I still say you can argue that they are.

If you discount growth by population (I really understand your point Ex Libre but no one is 'changing their mind'), or % growth from a very small base, more people are 'choosing' Christianity or Islam over any other religion.

Regardless of the utterly disputable nature of assessing, the fact is that atheism/monotheism are dominant in this world, a point that Muryavets has called me a liar on numerous occasions previously.

Always amusing. I hope you never stop with these claims. They are things of beauty.

So what is your evidence that Hindus are just born into it and Christians and Muslims are not?

This is just another No True Scotsman fallacy. "I'm right because the stuff that makes me wrong isn't 'true' growth."

EDIT: Night. Have fun with this, ELM. The fallacies and squirming are so apparent, I almost feel guilty.

And I would propose that the slower growth rate of Christianity is due to less conversions overall. By that I mean that the growth is due mostly to parents inducting their children into the faith, as opposed to missionaries proselytizing.

Understood. Would you say that those children are therefore taking up other religions instead?

I truly accept if what's being said is that these children are choosing other religions. I'd guess, however, that they're simply agnostic/atheist.

Always amusing. I hope you never stop with these claims. They are things of beauty.

So what is your evidence that Hindus are just born into it and Christians and Muslims are not?

This is just another No True Scotsman fallacy. "I'm right because the stuff that makes me wrong isn't 'true' growth."

EDIT: Night. Have fun with this, ELM. The fallacies and squirming are so apparent, I almost feel guilty.

Hindus have remained, for the majority in India, or at least remained Indian (covering those that have migrated to the UK for example), not coverted other nations as Islam has Indonesia, Christianity has all over.

I still say you can argue that they are.

If you discount growth by population (I really understand your point Ex Libre but no one is 'changing their mind'), or % growth from a very small base, more people are 'choosing' Christianity or Islam over any other religion.

Regardless of the utterly disputable nature of assessing, the fact is that atheism/monotheism are dominant in this world, a point that Muryavets has called me a liar on numerous occasions previously.

If you discount growth by population and overall percentage growths (including religions with less adherents), I think the growth statistics would be very small indeed, perhaps even showing negative adherent growth. My argument is that we don't have any studies showing the reason for the growth in adherents, merely the number of (new?) adherents. Conversions are simply not catalogued.

And as for the philosophical dominance of monotheism/atheism, I can only say phooey. I'm still counted as a member of my church because I've never gotten around to getting excommunicated (admittedly it's because doing so requires me to have a "meeting" with certain key members of the local faith, and essentially have a huge philosophical debate which I am neither emotionally, nor physically prepared for). But my point in saying this is that some percentage of these adherents are adherents in name only, without any actual philosophical attachment to the faith other than survival.

Understood. Would you say that those children are therefore taking up other religions instead?

I truly accept if what's being said is that these children are choosing other religions. I'd guess, however, that they're simply agnostic/atheist.

So now you're lumping monotheism and atheism together again and claiming that polytheists move to monotheism and monotheists move to atheism AGAIN. Hmmmmm... who said you claimed that? Muryavets. And who did you say was wrong to claim you were making that claim? Same poster. Looks like you're just completely full of it to me.

So much for that consitency claim you made, huh?

Hinduism has nearly a billion adherents and according to Christian sources is growing faster. Kind of kills your claim that Christianity is only getting beat out because small religions have the advantage of not needing as many people to show a high percentage growth.

Meanwhile, how does this change your claim that Christianity and Islam are the fastest growing? Every single post you change your claims rather than simply admitting you were just plain wrong.

Come on, what % of those adherents are not Indian?

Hindus have remained, for the majority in India, or at least remained Indian (covering those that have migrated to the UK for example), not coverted other nations as Islam has Indonesia, Christianity has all over.

Ha. You mean captured other nations. Imperialized them. That's not the same as simply converting. We conquered them.

Meanwhile, how is that an argument? What does that have to do with current growth trends? Is Christianity currently conquering *ahem* I mean converting countries?

So now you're lumping monotheism and atheism together again and claiming that polytheists move to monotheism and monotheists move to atheism AGAIN. Hmmmmm... who said you claimed that? Muryavets. And who did you say was wrong to claim you were making that claim? Same poster. Looks like you're just completely full of it to me.

So much for that consitency claim you made, huh?

Come on, I said 'the trend' is to monotheism/atheism, never that polytheism was dead.

I've kept them together throughout.

Ha. You mean captured other nations. Imperialized them. That's not the same as simply converting. We conquered them.

Meanwhile, how is that an argument? What does that have to do with current growth trends? Is Christianity currently conquering *ahem* I mean converting countries?

India was captured and imperialised - what is your point?

Come on, what % of those adherents are not Indian?

Again, what difference does that make? You don't realize you're arguing a fallacy, but, trust me, you're embarrassing yourself.

Growth is growth. You made a claim. It was wrong. Nothing you've been able to support it's right and much of what you've presented disproves your claim.

This is where a rational person says, "Hmmm... good point. I was wrong." This is where a less rational person would continue to alter their claims and squirm in an effort to salvage anything rather than simply admit that their claim is wrong.

Your claim is wrong. Admit it. Anything less is simply silly.

India was captured and imperialised - what is your point?

My point is that your claim about converting doesn't apply. The countries you mentioned were conquered and the religions spread through force. Since India was imperialized the fact that its religion prospered is more evidence for people choosing it, not less. It has never conquered another country. So it's growth cannot be attributed to the kind of assualt other religions have practiced.

Conquering is not choosing.

Come on, I said 'the trend' is to monotheism/atheism, never that polytheism was dead.

I've kept them together throughout.

She said exactly that. That you claimed that trend and you nonsensically argued that she mischaracterized your argument. It was funny to watch, and it's been funny trapping you into admitting she was right.

Meanwhile, I've continued to show that with multiple posters you keep altering your claims around what they are showing so that you appear to not be wrong. Unfortunately, most people see through that garbage. You can't win by turning your claims into Jell-o just so they are hard to nail to the wall.

Growth is growth. You made a claim. It was wrong. Nothing you've been able to support it's right and much of what you've presented disproves your claim.

I agree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532622&postcount=930)

Come on, I said 'the trend' is to monotheism/atheism, never that polytheism was dead.

I've kept them together throughout.

And I still disagree with said trend.

And I still disagree with said trend.

I've provided one post with 5 sourced quotes concerning that trend.

Ultimately your arguments are simply to say that any source I put down is not a true source.

Not sure what constitutes evidence, oh yes, I must source my sources ad finitum

So what is your evidence that Hindus are just born into it and Christians and Muslims are not?

That's your quote - yet you've just shown one evidence, that conquering a country is where Christians and Muslims are not - talk about not following your own arguments

I've provided one post with 5 sourced quotes concerning that trend.

Ultimately your arguments are simply to say that any source I put down is not a true source.

Not sure what constitutes evidence, oh yes, I must source my sources ad finitum

Haven't said anything about your sources, just that I disagree with their and incidentally your conclusions concerning experimental data.

And really, ultimately, my argument about the so-called trend from polytheism to atheism is that there is none. Numbers of adherents compared with numbers of growth have been all I've argued with, and that given these numbers, they don't constitute a valid trend at all.

That's your quote - yet you've just shown one evidence, that conquering a country is where Christians and Muslims are not - talk about not following your own arguments

Don't make it sound like that's my quote . . .

Haven't said anything about your sources, just that I disagree with their and incidentally your conclusions concerning experimental data.

And really, ultimately, my argument about the so-called trend from polytheism to atheism is that there is none. Numbers of adherents compared with numbers of growth have been all I've argued with, and that given these numbers, they don't constitute a valid trend at all.



Don't make it sound like that's my quote . . .

Apologies - it was Jocabia's quote

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5075/77/3/38002/epl_77_3_38002.html

Can someone with a better mathematical mind than mine say whether this is showing that, like the number of languages in the world, the number of religions are also disappearing - that we're amalgamating into the 4 main religions as well as Atheism?

Of course, accepted that this doesn't constitute proof but we're getting pretty high on the probability scale.

I love how everybody hops onto one poster (Barringtonia in this case) and it goes on for pages of (often brilliant) logical mauling. It was even funnier when a guy claimed Halocaust conspiracies were true using mangled English. That poster got ripped at least fifty new ones!

No offense, Joc, but it really makes me laugh when somebody suggests that love (or any emotion) is "merely" a chemical/physical reaction. That's like saying that the space shuttle is "merely" a lump of metal.

Gotta say, I love this analogy. I propose that my previous statements regarding my body being analogous to a computer be amended to include this.

I love how everybody hops onto one poster (Barringtonia in this case) and it goes on for pages of (often brilliant) logical mauling. It was even funnier when a guy claimed Halocaust conspiracies were true using mangled English. That poster got ripped at least fifty new ones!

If by logical mauling you mean disputing every link and source provided while providing none in reply, then yes, I am mauled.

Just disagreeing with sources, poking holes semantically, while providing no evidence the other way is easy.

I'd stand for the little guy against a crowd before joining the crowd against the little guy.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5075/77/3/38002/epl_77_3_38002.html

Can someone with a better mathematical mind than mine say whether this is showing that, like the number of languages in the world, the number of religions are also disappearing - that we're amalgamating into the 4 main religions as well as Atheism?

Of course, accepted that this doesn't constitute proof but we're getting pretty high on the probability scale.

It doesn't show that religions are disappearing, and even if it did, that wouldn't constitute amalgamation of beliefs except on a personal level, and there's no real way to show that.

Also, not sure if you're proposing this, but I thought it would be a good time to try to clarify this, Christianity doesn't count as a religion, for several reasons. A) A person can be considered Christian without going to a church or holding any of the same beliefs as other Christians. B)A person of a certain denomination of Christianity, i.e. Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, may not be considered a Christian by another denomination. So in my estimation, using Christianity as a group at all seems rather shady simply due to these varying sects. It would seem that the appropriate way would be to classify in terms of the actual sects as far as number of adherents and growth is concerned. I'd include an argument to separate Islam as well, but I don't know it as well, sadly. :(

I love how everybody hops onto one poster (Barringtonia in this case) and it goes on for pages of (often brilliant) logical mauling. It was even funnier when a guy claimed Halocaust conspiracies were true using mangled English. That poster got ripped at least fifty new ones!

It has nothing to do with disliking the poster, more to do with disagreeing with the argument he put forth. If it seems like a gangbang, well . . . it does help to clarify the assertions from the beginning.

Oh, and Kudos, Ex Libre, for your level-headed rhetoric, which is nicely free of the correct yet inflammatory declarations (Jacobia) we see so often in the forums. Keep it up. As a sidenote to Jacobia: DAMN! That's a lot of posts, buddy! 15000! I am impressed/horrified at the commitment.

On the religion issue, I think it is definitely a combination of your life experiences and your upbringing, with just a small dash of genetics. But, despite being a secular (but curious) agnostic, I am not anti-religion. Why would you deny people a comfort. It even says in the Bible: "And I will praise the father, and he will give you another comfortor." That's not a blanket. No, it is one of the greatest and most profound truths I have yet encountered in religion. Besides, horribly violent exploitations of faith (crusades, jihads, cults) aside, religion helps to mantain order and a virtuous citizenry. Thus, from the standpoint of a secular moralist and/or a proponent of real politic, religion is a boon in any society, a community hub that keeps people closely knit and able to unite under common causes. Fundamentalism is simply an addiction to the faith like a drug, and this particular suseptibility may be one of the only religious components with deep roots in genetics. Crack addict or dogma addict, eh?

I know that was a tangent, but I thought there was too much faith-bashing occuring. I personally envy the faithful, because I know I will never feel that warmth of being protected. And yet I am grateful that I am not coddled from the world by a potentially false crutch. Either way, that is my upbringing talking. After all, there was a point in my life where I almost converted to Christianity after discussing it with some devout relatives. All of my immediate family are agnostics or aggressive atheists. I think religion is more social than genetic.

If by logical mauling you mean disputing every link and source provided while providing none in reply, then yes, I am mauled.

Just disagreeing with sources, poking holes semantically, while providing no evidence the other way is easy.

I'd stand for the little guy against a crowd before joining the crowd against the little guy.

I have nothing against you personally, and I apologize if it seems that way, I'm just disagreeing with your (and your sources') assertions that there is a trend when I see none. I'm pretty sure I did a decent job of providing evidence to the contrary of your suggestion, anyways.

It doesn't show that religions are disappearing, and even if it did, that wouldn't constitute amalgamation of beliefs except on a personal level, and there's no real way to show that.

Also, not sure if you're proposing this, but I thought it would be a good time to try to clarify this, Christianity doesn't count as a religion, for several reasons. A) A person can be considered Christian without going to a church or holding any of the same beliefs as other Christians. B)A person of a certain denomination of Christianity, i.e. Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, may not be considered a Christian by another denomination. So in my estimation, using Christianity as a group at all seems rather shady simply due to these varying sects. It would seem that the appropriate way would be to classify in terms of the actual sects as far as number of adherents and growth is concerned. I'd include an argument to separate Islam as well, but I don't know it as well, sadly. :(

Honestly...!

As I said, semantic blah!

well, I HAD constructed a post on the religion topic, but it said something about a modder and "carefully reviewed", so tell me true: will my baby ever see the light of day?

Honestly...!

As I said, semantic blah!

Hey now, they themselves provide the distinction, I just questioned it. Honestly? If they consider it a distinction, then I'm inclined to agree just to lower their growth statistic and their number of total adherents.

But that's me, and I'm okay with statistics being manipulated. That's what they're for.

well, I HAD constructed a post on the religion topic, but it said something about a modder and "carefully reviewed", so tell me true: will my baby ever see the light of day?

Yes. And those messages will disappear once you have over 10 posts or so; it is just intended to stop the nice spambots from posting naughty links here.

well, I HAD constructed a post on the religion topic, but it said something about a modder and "carefully reviewed", so tell me true: will my baby ever see the light of day?

That happens when you have less than 10 posts. The answer is, "Dunno, but prolly not."

Hey now, they themselves provide the distinction, I just questioned it. Honestly? If they consider it a distinction, then I'm inclined to agree just to lower their growth statistic and their number of total adherents.

But that's me, and I'm okay with statistics being manipulated. That's what they're for.

Dude, I believed you just semanticked his blah. Excellent.

I know this is completely off topic, but I am NOT retyping my argument, so until it comes in: how do I give myself a title (the text under your name)?

I have nothing against you personally, and I apologize if it seems that way, I'm just disagreeing with your (and your sources') assertions that there is a trend when I see none. I'm pretty sure I did a decent job of providing evidence to the contrary of your suggestion, anyways.

I fully understand and am in no way taking this personally :)

I've fully enjoyed the range of this debate and I feel it's gone on so long because of the intrinsic interest we all have in this subject. If I had truly been without any basis, I doubt debators of the quality of Jocabia - who I think has also experienced being the sole person fighting a position - Muryavets - who has made many interesting points and pointed to inconsistencies - and Bottle, who I certainly won't claim to support my positions but I feel comes from a similar point - would have bothered, nor would many other notable postings by notable posters.

If anything it's been pretty impersonal - no 'you idiot!', no swearing.

I know this is completely off topic, but I am NOT retyping my argument, so until it comes in: how do I give myself a title (the text under your name)?

I'm not sure you can : (

Interesting side note...
Source (http://www.rad.bham.ac.uk/files/resourcesmodule/@random44e5ca0f65727/1162216949_DemographicsAndTrendsInReligiousAdherence.pdf)
Taken from http://www.adherents.com/

Thanks, UB, didn't look farther than the *.pdf.

Thanks, UB, didn't look farther than the *.pdf.You were talking about growth rates, right?
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families
the data is from 2001, but I guess that RC is still the denomination with the largest growth in total numbers

An article pertaining to the question at hand. (http://www.americanatheist.org/smr99/T2/zindler.html)

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, only the parts relevant to the topic, but thought it might add to the discussion. Now, don't take this to be my personal opinion, just an interesting read.

You were talking about growth rates, right?
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families
the data is from 2001, but I guess that RC is still the denomination with the largest growth in total numbers

Mostly the rates posted were in regards to Barringtonia's supposition that there is a trend tending from polytheism to monotheism to atheism, which I thought were refuted quite well.

Mostly the rates posted were in regards to Barringtonia's supposition that there is a trend tending from polytheism to monotheism to atheism, which I thought were refuted quite well.

Amm...because the top 3 were monotheist, counting up to over 3 billion?

...because I posted 5 reputable sources stating the trend from polytheist to monotheist?

...because no evidence was presented against?

2, 000 years ago we can point to many polytheist religions that were believed and ritually followed out from Indo-Asian to Roman/Greco.

Now?

An article pertaining to the question at hand. (http://www.americanatheist.org/smr99/T2/zindler.html)

Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing, only the parts relevant to the topic, but thought it might add to the discussion. Now, don't take this to be my personal opinion, just an interesting read.

It is interesting :)

Jocabia - Ha. You said "are Islam and Christianity not the fastest growing?" That's a turn of phrase. It challenges the person listening to agree or prove you wrong Like me saying "Is Barringtonia not making stupid arguments? And let's see consistent -

First science could disprove religion. Then it couldn't. Granted, that only changed when your argument got KILLED.

Only according to your strict definition of religion - that religion is only 'I believe in God'. - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12518628&postcount=640

Then people need to prove God in a thread that has nothing to do with such a thing

If you can't prove Him, then religion is irrelevant, we're not innately religious, we're innately orientated to propose God exists because we don't yet have a proven answer. Science is changing that.

Then polytheism is chaning to monotheism which is a trend toward less gods. Obviously implying that it's going to zero.

Polytheism has clearly trended to monotheism, I can't predict the future.

Then when called out, you say you're just saying it's going from many to one.

Yes, as I did previously

Then you talk about growth and moving from the growth of monotheism to the growth of atheism as if both support your claim, the claim you just said had nothing to do with atheism.

I pointed out the growth in Atheism, I can't predict the future, I can see past trends

Seriously, I want to feel sorry for you, but I really don't have the patience.

:rolleyes:

Amm...because the top 3 were monotheist, counting up to over 3 billion?

...because I posted 5 reputable sources stating the trend from polytheist to monotheist?

...because no evidence was presented against?

2, 000 years ago we can point to many polytheist religions that were believed and ritually followed out from Indo-Asian to Roman/Greco.

Now?

You posted 5 reputable sources theorizing a trend. I posted several times repudiating said trend.
Current demographics, while they may indicate that the largest "groups", if they can be called that, are monotheistic/atheistic, that has nothing to do with actual growth. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532579&postcount=914)

Following that,
Also, not sure if you're proposing this, but I thought it would be a good time to try to clarify this, Christianity doesn't count as a religion, for several reasons. A) A person can be considered Christian without going to a church or holding any of the same beliefs as other Christians. B)A person of a certain denomination of Christianity, i.e. Presbyterian, Catholic, Anglican, may not be considered a Christian by another denomination. So in my estimation, using Christianity as a group at all seems rather shady simply due to these varying sects. It would seem that the appropriate way would be to classify in terms of the actual sects as far as number of adherents and growth is concerned. I'd include an argument to separate Islam as well, but I don't know it as well, sadly.

I'm quoting myself on this, mainly to emphasize that many Christians do not consider members of other sects to be Christians, and I'm fairly certain that Sunnis feel the same way about Shiites. Given this, I'm more than willing to split up their demographic, giving them a significantly smaller piece of the pie in both adherents and growth rates. Now, I'm not willing to actually do the math, but Roman Catholic is the largest of the Christian Sects, and Sunni Islam within Islam, and Vaishnavism within Hinduism, and if we split their demographics, while they might be large, would not necessarily mean a growing or shrinking trend in either monotheism or polytheism. In fact, in the tradition of all census reports, these statistics are speculative at best.

In addition to this, on quoting growth statistics . . .I remember saying this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532622&postcount=930) in response to this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532587&postcount=916)

Also, from a purely philosophical standpoint, it could be argued that neither Christianity nor Islam is truly monotheistic, and that indeed, all religions are polytheistic in nature. Considering, of course, the Devil as being a force opposite God, indeed, seeming to rival God. That suggests a Duality, which while not necessarily precluding a trend, does not suggest one either.

Also, from a purely philosophical standpoint, it could be argued that neither Christianity nor Islam is truly monotheistic, and that indeed, all religions are polytheistic in nature. Considering, of course, the Devil as being a force opposite God, indeed, seeming to rival God. That suggests a Duality, which while not necessarily precluding a trend, does not suggest one either.

Actually, I'd see the opposite is true, that polytheistic beliefs still count each representation as only an aspect of the ultimate divine.

Actually, I'd see the opposite is true, that polytheistic beliefs still count each representation as only an aspect of the ultimate divine.

Ah, but the concept of duality is one that I have little trouble with, and it also jives with most English, Greco-Roman, and European literature. It's got that special something.

Ex Libris Morte - You posted 5 reputable sources theorizing a trend. I posted several times repudiating said trend.
Current demographics, while they may indicate that the largest "groups", if they can be called that, are monotheistic/atheistic, that has nothing to do with actual growth. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532579&postcount=914)

2, 000 years ago, polytheism would be dominant - the trend has been to monotheism.

The trend has been to monotheism - I say nothing of the future as none of us can predict it.

The most recent period - since the Enlightenment - has drawn away adherents from monotheism to atheism, not to polytheism.

The top 3 in your list are Christian, Islam and Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist

Following that,


I'm quoting myself on this, mainly to emphasize that many Christians do not consider members of other sects to be Christians, and I'm fairly certain that Sunnis feel the same way about Shiites. Given this, I'm more than willing to split up their demographic, giving them a significantly smaller piece of the pie in both adherents and growth rates. Now, I'm not willing to actually do the math, but Roman Catholic is the largest of the Christian Sects, and Sunni Islam within Islam, and Vaishnavism within Hinduism, and if we split their demographics, while they might be large, would not necessarily mean a growing or shrinking trend in either monotheism or polytheism. In fact, in the tradition of all census reports, these statistics are speculative at best.

It doesn't matter whether one sect of Christian says another sect of Christian isn't Christian - they are all considered Christian.

In addition to this, on quoting growth statistics . . .I remember saying this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532622&postcount=930) in response to this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532587&postcount=916)

I see that point

My point, and here I admit it's up for debate, is that monotheism is a more powerful meme.

Whether the world is trending to monotheism really shouldn't be up for debate.

Ah, but the concept of duality is one that I have little trouble with, and it also jives with most English, Greco-Roman, and European literature. It's got that special something.

Fair enough, for me I need to leave it here for the moment - things to do.

2, 000 years ago, polytheism would be dominant - the trend has been to monotheism.

The trend has been to monotheism - I say nothing of the future as none of us can predict it.

The most recent period - since the Enlightenment - has drawn away adherents from monotheism to atheism, not to polytheism.

The top 3 in your list are Christian, Islam and Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist



It doesn't matter whether one sect of Christian says another sect of Christian isn't Christian - they are all considered Christian.



I see that point

My point, and here I admit it's up for debate, is that monotheism is a more powerful meme.

Whether the world is trending to monotheism really shouldn't be up for debate.

I would argue that the monotheism meme had more powerful adherents than the polytheism meme did judging by the history of the past 2 millenia.

I'm going to try to sum up our difference in viewpoints in as few words as possible.

You see the same demographics studies as I do and see trends. I see nothing but the possible fallibilities of the studies.

I'm going to try to sum up our difference in viewpoints in as few words as possible.

You see the same demographics studies as I do and see trends. I see nothing but the possible fallibilities of the studies.

Haha, I hate NSG - must.respond

Yes, hence my previous post - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532690&postcount=947

must.leave.

:)

Haha, I hate NSG - must.respond

Yes, hence my previous post - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12532690&postcount=947

must.leave.

:)

You cannot escape it's grasp! Mwahahaha!

That would be a hell of a thing wouldn't it? If it turned out that predisposition to religion and addiction to drugs come from the same place. It would sure as hell explain a lot of the stranger chapters of human history. Like James Dobson.

I think religion is something people find for a specific reason, whether its to cope with scary unanswerable questions about death and the meaning of life, or because its a family tradition and you have to do it cause your parents make you, or maybe because you want to be President of the United States and you need to make people forget about doing blow and DUI's and beating your wife for twenty years. You know, whatever.

If its true that some people are genetically predisposed to need drugs or religion more than others, that would make an awful lot of people victims of their own genetic design. I don't know if thats a bad thing, or can even be a bad thing.

Can you blame DNA for things? Can it be culpable? Where do we draw that line? Were the crusades fought because some people were genetically predisposed to liking one god or the other? Could genetics be the reason Hitler hated Jews? Was the spanish inquisition DNA progamming gone crazy, where some people were SO predisposed to liking religion that they felt the need to kill people who weren't? If the 9/11 killers were just acting on genetic pre-programming, do we even have the right to prosecute them? And if we do, is it ok to look God straight in the face and tell him he screwed up? Could it then be proven in court that they were victims of a cruel genetic deformity and thus not culpable for any religious crime whatsoever? Are we ready to accept all this?

Its an interesting idea that some people could be more predisposed towards finding religion than others. Thing is though, it would be used by religious organizations as a political weapon and behavioral excuse for God knows what (pun not intended). Then again, if thats really the way it is, then the truth is the truth.

On the other hand, some people have a genetic predisposition to being attracted to members of their own sex. People may also be predisposed to liking food no one else does, or the inability to smell, or being autistic, or not being able to move their legs, or liking the Lakers.

Anyway, people become religious for lots of reasons, not all of them stemming from a strange inborne desire to love and worship a god. And people with this genetic condition are capable of liking all kinds of different gods and having all kinds of different perspectives on faith. I would argue that what this brain-scan activity suggests is a realm of consciousness that you can access, like all the other concious parts of your brain are, and that it serves as a place from which you can retreat from the trauma that is existance on this planet. Not proof that God did or did not make it easier for you to worship Him. Or Her, whatever.

I really didn't mean to come in here and shoot any ideas down, I just thought that maybe the more practical implications should be noted.

nerd fight...:rolleyes: :D

The Venus of Willendorf has been dismissed --pooh, pooh! --as evidence, dispite there being a zillion copies of her to bespeak her popularity and obvious non-literal significance as a statuette simply because archaeology has said so.

Blame science. Pooh, pooh!

I guess it depends on what you think the Venus of Willendorf means. Does the Venus represent female fertility? Oh, almost certainly. Does it represent a specific goddess? That rather depends on your understanding of goddess... and a 'merre' fertility symbol might not measure up to some people's rigourous definitions.

On the other hand, a symbol of fertility has some 'sympathetic' resonance to the concept of fertility... and, while I can't be assured that anyone prayed or made offerings to her, for me that 'sympathetic resonance' measures up with the requirement for godhood.

Archeology may not see Venus of Willendorf as a 'god' figure - but I think they are wrong, because I think they misunderstand what 'godhood' means.

The comparison isn't valid. All the inputs in a computer result in outputs. Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it? To claim so would deny the subconscous. And if we are responding to stimuli, what is the "we" that is responding to this stimuli?

I don't see how you think it invalid.

What is the subconscious? Could it not be argued that the subconscious is part of the machinery? Part of the data processing software. We don't need to 'deny' it, at all.

Can we state that all our outputs are results of inputs? Yes... I think we can. We can't be sure, of course. Perhaps the process isn't a purely GIGO one - like I said, I suspect the program sorts for pragmatism, it is evolutionary - but that doesn't mean our outputs are generated in some 'other' way.

My argument is consistent from the beginning, monotheism/atheism is dominant.

I asked whether Christianity or Islam were the fastest growing, even given your point about statement put forward as fact - my point is correct.

I just have to point out - Christianity, at least, is only nominally monotheistic. Actually, it is closer in specific theology to a polytheism... what does that do to your assertion...?

Just disagreeing with sources,


There is no sin in showing that a source is not valid.

Would you take medical advice from the back of a serial packet?


poking holes semantically,


Again, there is nothing wrong with showing that your words do not say what you think they say.


while providing no evidence the other way is easy.


I've seen other evidences... of course, I would need no evidence to merely question yours...


I'd stand for the little guy against a crowd before joining the crowd against the little guy.

Even if the little guy was wrong, and the crowd was right?

The most recent period - since the Enlightenment - has drawn away adherents from monotheism to atheism, not to polytheism.


Err... are we claiming that Atheism is monotheistic, here...?

I've provided one post with 5 sourced quotes concerning that trend.

Ultimately your arguments are simply to say that any source I put down is not a true source.

Not sure what constitutes evidence, oh yes, I must source my sources ad finitum

You've doing anything you can to avoid actually supporting the statements you start with. This horsecrap about how we asked for a legitimate source is just another red herring.

The reason we have a problem with your sources is because your sources have proven to be one of these things:

A)editorials
B)unsourced
C)misrepresented by you
D)An attempt to change the subject.

Or some combination of the above, like when asked to show that Christianity and Islam were the fastest growing in the world you provided a source that shows Atheism is the fastest growing in the US, as if it related to the world. That's BOTH C & D.

[QUOTE=Barringtonia;12532649]That's your quote - yet you've just shown one evidence, that conquering a country is where Christians and Muslims are not - talk about not following your own arguments

Huh? Seriously, I think you have trouble with English. That sentence is so tortured it's screaming.

Here's the point. You, with your No True Scotsman fallacy, have been attempting to claim that Hinduism doesn't count because it hasn't taken over any other countries. I just pointed out that's not choice, it's conquering. You misunderstood the point and pointed out that some countries didn't get religiously conquered like that addresses the point in any way. It actually supports the strength of Hinduism, and really makes you look like you'll say anything that isn't "Oh, yeah, I was wrong".

Err... are we claiming that Atheism is monotheistic, here...??? how do you read that out of what Barringtonia wrote?

?? how do you read that out of what Barringtonia wrote?

His core argument was that polytheism evolves into monotheism. This, he has represented as some kind of universal truth.

If Atheism is growing so rapidly... and we aren't willing to assume the illogical premise that only Christianity and Islam are losing believers... then atheism must be monotheistic, for Barringtonia's 'argument' to hold any semblance of being made of less than 100% pure fail fibres.

If by logical mauling you mean disputing every link and source provided while providing none in reply, then yes, I am mauled.

Just disagreeing with sources, poking holes semantically, while providing no evidence the other way is easy.

I'd stand for the little guy against a crowd before joining the crowd against the little guy.

You'll stand against the crowd of evidence as well as has been shown repeatedly.

And these aren't semantic holes. They're mistakes that you make and then squirm to try and cover.

Let's just examine ONE of your arguments.

First you claim Islam and Christianity are the fastest growing religions to evidence that monotheism is growing (nevermind that many Christians aren't strictly monotheists).

Then when called on that claim you try to shift the burden of proof on me.

THEN when you're asked for a source you provide a source that says something completely different. That Atheism is the fastest growing religion... in only the US.

So I use your same source and show that Christianity is not the fastest growing or even in the top five.

You change it to the fastest growing major religion. Swapping back and forth between arguing for that and then for atheism being the fastest growing.

Then when you get called on that, with the example of Hinduism, you say what you REALLY meant was the fastest growing by choice and to prove it you show examples of Imperialism for some odd and nonsensical reason.

And then, finally, when called on that you try once again to push the burden of proof on me.

If you don't recognize that this isn't just a semantic issue or your inability to provide a proper source, then really, I think you should just pack your things.

I fully understand and am in no way taking this personally :)

I've fully enjoyed the range of this debate and I feel it's gone on so long because of the intrinsic interest we all have in this subject. If I had truly been without any basis, I doubt debators of the quality of Jocabia - who I think has also experienced being the sole person fighting a position - Muryavets - who has made many interesting points and pointed to inconsistencies - and Bottle, who I certainly won't claim to support my positions but I feel comes from a similar point - would have bothered, nor would many other notable postings by notable posters.

If anything it's been pretty impersonal - no 'you idiot!', no swearing.

I agree with this. I think you have promise and many of us yearn for people rounding out the views here and better able to support them. I would love to see someone make a good argument for ID.

One honest criticism. Sources -

The source thing is not just people wrapping you around the axle. A good source has specific references to where the information is from. Wikipedia does this so it makes for a pretty good source so long as you don't take what it claims more seriously than where it gets the information from.

You need to ensure your sources actually provide a good support for your claim. When you provide a source that is weak (not referenced, editorial, etc.), it makes an argument, any argument, appear desperate. And, worse, if the source doesn't actually support the claim you made then it makes as if you don't care about your argument as much as not being wrong.

Taken from http://www.adherents.com/

Yeah, I noticed that too. A lot of the sources in this argument have traced back to there. They are a bit wishy-washy, which I don't like. For example they wouldn't give much information on growth trends because they weren't sure what people were looking for in terms of growth. I say that in that case, present the information and let people sort it out.

Jocabia -

Only according to your strict definition of religion - that religion is only 'I believe in God'. - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12518628&postcount=640


That's not a strict definition. That's the definition of religion. Many religious beliefs do not claim to sway the natural world. You made an erroneous blanket statement and you'll find that around here and in any debate that making universally statements are usually going to leave you feel a bit raped.


If you can't prove Him, then religion is irrelevant, we're not innately religious, we're innately orientated to propose God exists because we don't yet have a proven answer. Science is changing that.


See, now, this is just a dumb statement. Seriously, why would it be necessary to emperically prove God? And then right after saying we have to prove it, which really has nothing to do with the price of tea, you go on to say we're not innately religious and then give an example of how we are innately religions. If we innately posit God then that's innately religious. I really don't know why we need to keep explaining what religion is to you.

Again, you make a mistaken claim about science. Science isn't changing anything about our ability to posit a supreme being. You keep conceding this claim and then remaking it. It's provably wrong.


Polytheism has clearly trended to monotheism, I can't predict the future.

Yes. That happens when the major monotheist religions in the world spend a few thousand years killing everyone who disagrees. That'll do that. That's not a trend. It's a massacre. Unless your claim is that monotheists are somehow better suited to survive, then the trend simply happens to match the idea of manifest destiny.

And of course, you're only looking at a fairly long snapshot in a rather HUGE history. But, hey, I could say the US naturally trends toward war with Muslims based on this decade. Would that be an accurate statement about the US, seeing as it looks at only about 10% of its history? Nope. It would be nonsensical. You're stating things like they're givens and them supporting them with a part of history that is really a tiny percentage and hardly a natural trend. It is a result of violent imperialism.

Yes, as I did previously

I pointed out the growth in Atheism, I can't predict the future, I can see past trends[/QUOTE]


I know you don't see how you just contradicted yourself, but you did. You claimed you were only talking about poly to mono when challenged on the atheist aspect. Then later you're right back to claiming it's poly to mono to atheist. You can't just abandon arguments to prevent having to support them only to pick them up later. We aren't going to let you get away with it.

That's not a strict definition. That's the definition of religion. Many religious beliefs do not claim to sway the natural world. You made an erroneous blanket statement and you'll find that around here and in any debate that making universally statements are usually going to leave you feel a bit raped.





See, now, this is just a dumb statement. Seriously, why would it be necessary to emperically prove God? And then right after saying we have to prove it, which really has nothing to do with the price of tea, you go on to say we're not innately religious and then give an example of how we are innately religions. If we innately posit God then that's innately religious. I really don't know why we need to keep explaining what religion is to you.

Again, you make a mistaken claim about science. Science isn't changing anything about our ability to posit a supreme being. You keep conceding this claim and then remaking it. It's provably wrong.




Yes. That happens when the major monotheist religions in the world spend a few thousand years killing everyone who disagrees. That'll do that. That's not a trend. It's a massacre. Unless your claim is that monotheists are somehow better suited to survive, then the trend simply happens to match the idea of manifest destiny.

And of course, you're only looking at a fairly long snapshot in a rather HUGE history. But, hey, I could say the US naturally trends toward war with Muslims based on this decade. Would that be an accurate statement about the US, seeing as it looks at only about 10% of its history? Nope. It would be nonsensical. You're stating things like they're givens and them supporting them with a part of history that is really a tiny percentage and hardly a natural trend. It is a result of violent imperialism.

Yes, as I did previously

I pointed out the growth in Atheism, I can't predict the future, I can see past trends


I know you don't see how you just contradicted yourself, but you did. You claimed you were only talking about poly to mono when challenged on the atheist aspect. Then later you're right back to claiming it's poly to mono to atheist. You can't just abandon arguments to prevent having to support them only to pick them up later. We aren't going to let you get away with it.

Aiya - I'm about to answer these and I have a low battery warning again - I'll bring my cord home tomorrow and ensure I can answer these - suffice to say, monotheism is a trend, you can call it a massacre - it's a trend.

Ah, but the concept of duality is one that I have little trouble with, and it also jives with most English, Greco-Roman, and European literature. It's got that special something.

ANd if you go way back, there was truely duality with implied monotheism in Zorastrianism. Sure there was a God of negation, but, so far as I know, there are maybe a couple worshippers, far fewer than Satanists, simply because the God of Creation's worship was so stongly encouraged. It is a good concept, making the worshipper feel as if they are constantly choosing the right side, comforting them (which was the focal point of my previous post, too bad the mods thought I was a naugty spambot :rolleyes:). Duality is almost always heavily biased. In Islam, Allah whups Shi'tan, and well, you know God is the one to pick when it comes to him versus the Devil. Duality has, besides the philisophical symbols of Yin and Yang, never truely been accepted, especially not in religion. When it comes to Gods, there are either many Gods, or one TRUE God, never a diumverate, right?

Ok - in terms of fastest growing by number alone, actually it's Atheism!!

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

Of course, Wikipedia has been discounted as a source :rolleyes:

Actually, your source doesn't say that atheism is the fastest growing. It lists "non-religious", which it defines as "an umbrella term which, depending on context, may be understood as referring to atheism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism, general secularism, or heresy."

All this talk of sourcing, and you can't even be bothered to properly read your own source?

I don't see how you think it invalid.

What is the subconscious? Could it not be argued that the subconscious is part of the machinery? Part of the data processing software. We don't need to 'deny' it, at all.

Can we state that all our outputs are results of inputs? Yes... I think we can. We can't be sure, of course. Perhaps the process isn't a purely GIGO one - like I said, I suspect the program sorts for pragmatism, it is evolutionary - but that doesn't mean our outputs are generated in some 'other' way.

Please clarify. I sort of follow, but cryptic reference and fragmented thoughts prevent me. I think you may be onto something, just follow up, k?

I could be wrong, but is this a post for religion or an ethos battle? Don't get me wrong, I am all for authentic sources, but can we please either move on or wrap the source wars (all 15+ pages of them) up and get back to religion, if not religiosity? It's been fun, though.

Aiya - I'm about to answer these and I have a low battery warning again - I'll bring my cord home tomorrow and ensure I can answer these - suffice to say, monotheism is a trend, you can call it a massacre - it's a trend.

Oh, well, since you've said it is, then I'll take your word for it. You can't just ignore all the factors that hurt your argument. You have to deal with them. Monotheism or even polytheism where the only choices are one benevolent god and one malevolent god give governments greater control because they can claim they are appointed by the benevolent deity. With polytheism one must compete with other leaders who are appointed by other deities.

It's not really shocking that such a change would be forced by government and it evidences none of what you claim it evidences. It can only support your claim if the change was willful on the part of worshippers and there is little to no evidence this is the case and much suggesting it wasn't.

Out of curiosity, do you claim that around the time white people arrived in the Americas that Native Americans experienced a trend toward shorter lifespans and ignore the causes? Of course, doing so would be ludicrous, but it's no different than what you're doing now.

Actually, your source doesn't say that atheism is the fastest growing. It lists "non-religious", which it defines as "an umbrella term which, depending on context, may be understood as referring to atheism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism, general secularism, or heresy."

All this talk of sourcing, and you can't even be bothered to properly read your own source?

Worse. It says IN THE US. It's not even pertaining to an overall growth.

I cannot find my original post on religiosity, so I will assume it got (somehow) mistaken for pornobotting. :headbang: However, here is my condensed philosophy (apologies for lack of sources. I do not know how to cite Biblical quotations, and there is no fact to the rest of it, just speculation. I hope that this is acceptable, given the nature of the topic):

Religion is (almost) purely social. It makes people not only feel as if they belong, but also that they are protected, or at least observed by a higher being. This feeling is comforting, an elusive and wonderful (if slightly forced in many cases) thing to have. After all, in the New Testament: "And I will pray the father, and he will give you another comforter." It is not an ignoble emotion to pursue, yet comfort is a social alleviator as well. How else could so many people from so many walks of life organize with similar motivations? Whether from a social, or, unfortunately, military point of veiw, religion provides secular and spiritual security, which brings me to fundamentalism.

Is it not odd that converts are often the most zealous practitioners? Why? Honestly, why are they so much more outspoken and (often) more active? Is it the same "something to prove" phenomena which makes people who started liking Green Day after the release of American Idiot buy all merchandise, all albums, and flaunt said products for no apparent reason, other than to show the world (and themselves) that they are REAL fans? And please, don't turn this into music thread.

My personal philosophy on fundamentalism: Whether you were raised as one or recently converted, there may be some genetic component, but there are just so many variables involved in genetics and in upbringing that they are impossible to isolate. For instance, a child born into fundamentalism may embrace it, or they may find themselves dissatisfied with the logic (or lack thereof) and loosen up. Who is truely in a position to say why? If you can definitively find what makes some people become drug addicts when others don't, or feel the compulsive social need to belong, or express pronounced conscious or subconscious guilt or fear of death or dying alone, I imagine you would find either a seperate "faith gene" or that there is a correlation between the expressions of these alleles and the degree of faith. Can we isolate these genes? That was probably incorrect speculation, but just stirring the old brain up, yes? I personally believe the answer lies in a realm whose surface has barely been scratched, much less its depths probed: the brain. As such, no conclusions, no matter the sources, can be even close to validated. Thoughts? I would love to think that it is all our choice, or at least that we are products of our environment. To be hard-wired to worship is unsettling in the extreme.

Yeah, Grave what are you on about? You are either jumping to an unintended conclusion, or are throwing jargon about and watching where it splatters. I hope it is the former, suspect the latter, and am equipping a (+4) Umbrella of Skepticism regardless.