[UncleAl]

Science is empirical. Religion is faith. The two are orthogonal. You do not "test" for god. You believe or you do not. Go ahead, pray on a lightbulb. We'll wait.

1) Everything that supports religion supports religion.
2) Everything that ignores religion supports religion.
3) Everything that contradicts religion (e.g., Christian Scientist with appendicitis) supports religion - test of faith!
4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unfit to judge, or a heretic, or an agent of the Devil.

Uncle Al says, "Human life is sacred. Sacrifice it to your god(s).

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by adnaan

people say that the bible and the Quran had scientific miracles.. and that they can be proven correct.. then they say "how could someone have known this 1000s of years ago when its just been currently discovered."

anywayz thats exactly what people tell me.. and i just stare at them..

Keep staring. A) there is no such thing as scientific miracles and b) it is amazing what people can dig out a religious text given a few half-millennia or so.

[Boerseun]

McDonalds have done some testing to this effect, and they have come up with the following results:

Sacred Cows make the best hamburger.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

...The reason that we still haven't given up on religion, in my opinion, is that religion resonates very well with ignorance....

Probably true. But it is also true that atheism resonates well with the arrogant.

Neither statement establishes a fact basis for a Creator.

[TeleMad]

There have already been a number of books written about "man inventing God" psychologically and how the concept of God is adaptive.

I can't find the exact one I was thinking of (saw it at my local bookstore, but can't remember it's title), but here's one that's close.

“[Why Would Anyone Believe in God?]

Because of the design of our minds. That is Justin Barrett's simple answer to the question of his title. With rich evidence from cognitive science but without technical language, psychologist Barrett shows that belief in God is an almost inevitable consequence of the kind of minds we have. Most of what we believe comes from mental tools working below our conscious awareness. And what we believe consciously is in large part driven by these unconscious beliefs. Barrett demonstrates that beliefs in gods match up well with these automatic assumptions; beliefs in an all-knowing, all-powerful God match up even better. Barrett goes on to explain why beliefs like religious beliefs are so widespread and why it is very difficult for our minds to think without them. Anyone who wants a concise, clear, and scientific explanation of why anyone would believe in God should pick up Barrett's book.” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...361556-1866554)

[Boerseun]

I still say the only way to prove this empirically is to raise a whole bunch o' babies from scratch and see if they come up with the whole God hypothesis by themselves.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I still say the only way to prove this empirically is to raise a whole bunch o' babies from scratch and see if they come up with the whole God hypothesis by themselves.

Man creating God is (probably) the result of an extended, evolutionary process related to human psychology. [Once it arose, the idea of God persisted because of its "adaptive" nature (makes people feel loved, makes them feel like there's a purpose to life, makes them not give up hope, makes people feel they belong to a group, etc. - all positive emotions), and is persisted by means of cultural dissemination (a "meme").] A one-generation 'lab' experiment is not likely to be a valid empirical test of this.

[prattymcpratt]

sweet! I am excited to hear that there actually is (apparently) an abudance of information regarding this topic, especially from a psychological or philosophical basis.

[DarkColoredLight]

Originally Posted by prattymcpratt

What changed us from ordinary animals into human beings that created the society we now live in?

First off, wow. It's like you read my mind, but 3 chapters ahead of what I've wrote. So I'm thankful that you posted this, and that I read it.


The answer to that question possibly lies in the book I'm about to crack open. I bought it for personal reasons, and to better understand the author. I guess one in the same, but very different in my mind. More info in my pm box, just ask. I'm tired of posting in.


Now, could I mistake your thoughts of pure thoughts as instinct? See-go-do, instead of, see-think-go-do, or see-think-go-think-do. With every think you add, the greater the possibility of not continuing. Whether it be the going, doing, or seeing.

I used to see this kind of thought process all the time back in my high school days. This group of kids usually arrived on a shorter bus, and given the opportunity would see-go-do. Regardless of their own safty, their personna, or their mental capiblity. Unless told otherwise by someone to think for them.

[DarkColoredLight]

Hold up, I see life how ever it hay come, as being god or the devil.

If god and the devil is always around you, and life is always around you. Isn't it safe to say god and the devil IS life.

Also, if the love of god is mutual, shouldn't it be the same with all life.
Opposite being if the hate of the devil is mutual, shouldn't it be the same with all life. Do unto life?