Jump to content

People who believe in god are broken


Recommended Posts

If there are chemical reasons for extending your "feeling of self" to include your children and pack, these reasons might also be involved in binding oneself to a nation or a religion.

They almost certainly are, but those chemical reactions in your brain are also not evidence that the subject of those reactions actually exists. Just because I can use my brain to think of a purple unicorn does not mean they actually exist.

 

I differenciate between invisible Rabbits and God, because God is a delusion we have agreed upon, that we have built, and it need not have an actual body, or measurable presence to a piece of scientific equipment, inorder to activate the "kinship" chemicals.

Doesn't matter. None of this bears on either the question of existence nor on the question of evidence. Mass delusion is not equal to truth, nor is truth determined by popularity, and nor is truth determined by what makes us feel closer to those around us or happy or any of the other warm fuzzy stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your evidence is good, their evidence is bad. Of course you will find the comparison flawed.   We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God i

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!   Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the origina

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.   Anyone here believe in str

Posted Images

They almost certainly are, but those chemical reactions in your brain are also not evidence that the subject of those reactions actually exists. Just because I can use my brain to think of a purple unicorn does not mean they actually exist.

 

 

Doesn't matter. None of this bears on either the question of existence nor on the question of evidence. Mass delusion is not equal to truth, nor is truth determined by popularity, and nor is truth determined by what makes us feel closer to those around us or happy or any of the other warm fuzzy stuff.

 

Inow,

 

I am thinking that mass delusion is very evident. Knowing the causes is what does not nescessarily change the facts.

And if knowing the causes is used to change the facts...well that borders on elitism and oppression. That one person would know, better than the rest of humanity, what is good for them. Maybe it is still a parent child relationship and the same chemicals are involved, and trying to rescue others from their delusions is delusional in itself.

 

But I am shifting the goal posts, and I apologize. My point is merely that you can know why people root for teams, and objectively view the stadium as a bunch of people just rooting for their side, with neither side being objectively any different from the other...and still hope your team wins.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Are people that believe in the Olympic Spirit, delusional? Or was it a rather good idea to bind the warring cities of Greece together, to a "greater ideal"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concepts such as olympic spirit, or love, kinship, friendship, or even nationalism and tribalism are NOT functionally equivalent to concepts like god(s). Is my point on this really so difficult to grasp?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inow,

 

I am thinking that mass delusion is very evident. Knowing the causes is what does not nescessarily change the facts.

And if knowing the causes is used to change the facts...well that borders on elitism and oppression. That one person would know, better than the rest of humanity, what is good for them. Maybe it is still a parent child relationship and the same chemicals are involved, and trying to rescue others from their delusions is delusional in itself.

 

But I am shifting the goal posts, and I apologize. My point is merely that you can know why people root for teams, and objectively view the stadium as a bunch of people just rooting for their side, with neither side being objectively any different from the other...and still hope your team wins.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Are people that believe in the Olympic Spirit, delusional? Or was it a rather good idea to bind the warring cities of Greece together, to a "greater ideal"?

 

Although I don't necessarily agree with whatever disagreement you have with Inow, I think it is an interesting thought that you can still support things individually, because in order for many things to work, relationships to form, they need individual attention, but one person at least right now can't really do everything, so there needs to be individual people to give individual attention and support individual things for society to work, there needs to be individual components that all have their own support. The only problem is when people confuse those feelings with competitive and aggressive feelings.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Concepts such as olympic spirit, or love, kinship, friendship, or even nationalism and tribalism are NOT functionally equivalent to concepts like god(s). Is my point on this really so difficult to grasp?

 

Soren Kierkegaard equated faith to love.

 

The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_Theology

 

People who believe in God are testing God(s) claims, if that is broken then people who fall in love are also broken. There is an element of rationality behind faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. I've read Kiekegaard. Both Fear and Trembling, as well as The Sickness Unto Death. His basic argument is that existence itself is an infinite despair, and that you just have to give up and accept the absurd. That the only way to find god is through faith.

 

Well gosh... Call me a hard ass, but that doesn't exactly address ANY of the criticisms I've put forth, nor are the philosophical musings and speculations from a guy 200 years ago a form of evidence. To be perfectly frank with you, his conclusion merely reinforces the problem I have so clearly and consistently expressed and articulated throughout this thread... That faith is perhaps the worst possible reason to accept a proposition as true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was brought up atheist and i've never really experienced religion but for vague teenage dalliances. What this means is that i deny god not because i have reasoned carefully about it, but because existential god concepts largely just bore me; they are uninteresting. So am i broken? I suppose i must be if religious people are because they don't reason about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That faith is perhaps the worst possible reason to accept a proposition as true.

 

There's more than just logic involved here, there's numerous psychological elements that have built upon religion, and these same elements are in atheists too. Perhaps it isn't god, but there are easily things that are somewhat improbable that atheists believe in. Thought matter? Yeah right. Reincarnation? No proof of a soul. Finite universe? Astronomers cannot observe a boundary. With religion, it's like that. To a religious person, god isn't actually that improbable because so much can be justified by it.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

That faith is perhaps the worst possible reason to accept a proposition as true.

 

I think there is a threshold point, anyone who doubts the existence of God and knows that faith alone is not enough to accept something as true and as Kierkegaard puts it to have faith means to be inherently doubtful is below the threshold point and is not broken and anyone who has absolute beliefs without any doubt in the absence of evidence and deny the existence of other Gods and claim that only their version of god is true is above the threshold point and they might be called broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's more than just logic involved here, there's numerous psychological elements that have built upon religion...

I sincerely believe that you have this backwards, and that it is religion that has built upon psychological elements.

 

To a religious person, god isn't actually that improbable because so much can be justified by it.

Yes, and that's a large part of the reason I find such an unfounded belief held so strongly to be such a danger to us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionposter,

 

My disagreement with Inow, is not a real disagreement. I have come to the same conclusions he has, on many things. My disagreements are on a subtle level, either a little above, or a little below the actual conversation. I overall think that Inow has it right. And I agree with his arguments. But somehow, for me, it is not good enough to find my own logic sound. I like to look for the reasons upon which my opponents base their logic. This is often stupid and dangerous because I have to undermine my own logic on some level, to find that little glimmer of evidence that might validate my opponent's claims. Probably not my job, to attempt to rationalize someone elses position. "Let others fend for themselves" should probably be my rule. If they can not back up their claims, then certainly there is no reason for me to try and back them up, for them.

 

But we are after the truth. And the truth is not likely to change, based on individual claims of what it is.

 

Perhaps Immortal's current take is the answer to the thread question, that I am looking for.

I think there is a threshold point, anyone who doubts the existence of God and knows that faith alone is not enough to accept something as true and as Kierkegaard puts it to have faith means to be inherently doubtful is below the threshold point and is not broken and anyone who has absolute beliefs without any doubt in the absence of evidence and deny the existence of other Gods and claim that only their version of god is true is above the threshold point and they might be called broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited by tar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Inow,

 

I see your point. Belief in God(s) is not functionally the same as belief in each other. We have evidence of each other.

 

I withdraw my objections.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

My disagreement with Inow, is not a real disagreement. I have come to the same conclusions he has, on many things. My disagreements are on a subtle level, either a little above, or a little below the actual conversation. I overall think that Inow has it right. And I agree with his arguments.

<...>

But we are after the truth. And the truth is not likely to change, based on individual claims of what it is.

Thank you, TAR.

 


 

I think it is an interesting thought that you can still support things individually, because in order for many things to work, relationships to form, they need individual attention, but one person at least right now can't really do everything, so there needs to be individual people to give individual attention and support individual things for society to work, there needs to be individual components that all have their own support.

The way I view this, questionposter, is that none of those things require belief in an ill-defined three letter word with no evidence of existence beyond someones personal faith. All of those individual actions, areas of attention, things that help make society work... all of those things happen simply as a result of being a social species. The mythology of god(s) is not required to support them. That's how I see it, anyway. It is all extraneous and ultimately unnecessary.

 


 

I think there is a threshold point, anyone who doubts the existence of God and knows that faith alone is not enough to accept something as true and as Kierkegaard puts it to have faith means to be inherently doubtful is below the threshold point and is not broken and anyone who has absolute beliefs without any doubt in the absence of evidence and deny the existence of other Gods and claim that only their version of god is true is above the threshold point and they might be called broken.

So, the position is that faith is equivalent to doubt, and since doubt is good these folks would not be broken? If that's accurate, I'd have to see anywhere outside of Soren's writings that anyone has equated faith with doubt. In practice and in the modern world, it seems to be the exact opposite... Faith is not only not equivalent to doubt, it is its polar opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely believe that you have this backwards, and that it is religion that has built upon psychological elements.

I suppose it's both, but there are logical parts of religion. How did the universe get here? Something that did not have to exist by physical means could have created it, and this can include god. How could Noah have possibly fit so many animals on a boat? Well, god can do anything, so...

But then, there's people's loved ones who die, and they would like to think they are in a better place and things like that.

 

 

Yes, and that's a large part of the reason I find such an unfounded belief held so strongly to be such a danger to us all.

God isn't "dangerous" at all if the belief is that everyone should be a pacifist is it? 99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same with proteins in the same exact order, it's hard to think such a slight variation that is already being used up on physical features like skin tone and hair and eye color could cause such a big difference and that atheists and religious people are actually somehow different types people.

 

The way I view this, questionposter, is that none of those things require belief in an ill-defined three letter word with no evidence of existence beyond someones personal faith. All of those individual actions, areas of attention, things that help make society work... all of those things happen simply as a result of being a social species. The mythology of god(s) is not required to support them. That's how I see it, anyway. It is all extraneous and ultimately unnecessary.

 

Society might not have formed without god in the first place, because without it people couldn't see a reason to really support each other in larger groups.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it's both, but there are logical parts of religion. How did the universe get here? Something that did not have to exist by physical means could have created it, and this can include god. How could Noah have possibly fit so many animals on a boat? Well, god can do anything, so...

But then, there's people's loved ones who die, and they would like to think they are in a better place and things like that.

 

You honestly assert those things are logical?

 

 

 

God isn't "dangerous" at all if the belief is that everyone should be a pacifist is it? 99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same with proteins in the same exact order, it's hard to think such a slight variation that is already being used up on physical features like skin tone and hair and eye color could cause such a big difference and that atheists and religious people are actually somehow different types people.

 

God isn't dangerous? How many atheists stand on street corners preaching the evils of other people compared to his group of people? how many times a day do you hear on the news about some religious person asserting that one part of the population that do something his god thinks is wrong have to outlawed? How many atheists do you see asserting that anyone who is not an atheist should be killed? Strike that, even though killed is not over the top think of how often you hear of religious people claiming the rights of people who disagree with them should have their rights restricted in some way. in my state in a couple days we will vote on whether or not to restrict the rights of one group over another group for no reason what so ever other than religion.

 

Holy texts abound where god demands that unbelievers be restricted in same way, often this is by taking their lives. Religion demands it's believers convert others to their beliefs, often this is done between small groups who's beliefs are almost identical other than tiny differences in interpretation of scripture, in the past and we as currently these tiny differences have been used to dehumanize and justify killing human beings over nothing more than belief.

 

 

Society might not have formed without god in the first place, because without it people couldn't see a reason to really support each other in larger groups.

 

Society was formed by religion? You really can't see a reason to form groups other than religion? i think it's more likely that religion was used to justify one group dominating another after groups had already formed. There is no doubt that religion retarded the growth of society during for instance the dark ages.

 

I have no problem with someone having a belief that there is some sort of god, if that was as far as it goes but invariably that belief results in the dehumanizing of people who do not share that belief and trying to convert others to your belief. The Christian religion we see today, as an example, was at one time very counter productive to civilization, dehumanizing and killing anyone who disagreed on even tiny things. But the Christianity we see today is not the all powerful religion it once was and that is the only reason why it seems as reasonable as it does today and even ow it is used to dehumanize others... to the point of death...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly assert those things are logical?

They aren't "illogical" with the axiom of god being real.

 

 

 

 

 

God isn't dangerous? How many atheists stand on street corners preaching the evils of other people compared to his group of people? how many times a day do you hear on the news about some religious person asserting that one part of the population that do something his god thinks is wrong have to outlawed? How many atheists do you see asserting that anyone who is not an atheist should be killed? Strike that, even though killed is not over the top think of how often you hear of religious people claiming the rights of people who disagree with them should have their rights restricted in some way. in my state in a couple days we will vote on whether or not to restrict the rights of one group over another group for no reason what so ever other than religion.

I didn't say that the current scriptures of mono-theistic religions don't tend to advocate some violence, but religion can still be shaped for the purpose of doing good, and as far as I know that's what people like Jesus and Siddhartha intended.

 

 

 

 

 

Society was formed by religion? You really can't see a reason to form groups other than religion? i think it's more likely that religion was used to justify one group dominating another after groups had already formed. There is no doubt that religion retarded the growth of society during for instance the dark ages.

If you looked life in the old times like and how people lived life in ancient times, it isn't much different than how groups of chimps work, other than people knew how to farm. There was constant violence and theft among different groups, and it wasn't until someone said "you go to hell for doing that" did people able to settle down enough for the more advanced specialization of workers to form and more hospitable environments to form, and with the domination of other groups it would only create a more unified group. Newton's calculus didn't do much good setting in his desk for 20 years, it was only after the entire world got a hold of it that things could be accomplished with it, only by working together can we do things with it, and whether you like it or not, religion originally helped with that.

 

I have no problem with someone having a belief that there is some sort of god, if that was as far as it goes but invariably that belief results in the dehumanizing of people who do not share that belief and trying to convert others to your belief. The Christian religion we see today, as an example, was at one time very counter productive to civilization, dehumanizing and killing anyone who disagreed on even tiny things. But the Christianity we see today is not the all powerful religion it once was and that is the only reason why it seems as reasonable as it does today and even ow it is used to dehumanize others... to the point of death...

 

As I said there are numerous psychological aspects involved with the actions of religion, however these same aspects are present in atheists.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything is easier when you assume your conclusion.

 

True, but science works in a similar way. The main axiom being that your observations are what you measure of reality. The structure of religion can still be built upon logical steps.

Noah can't fit that many animals on a boat ---> god can do anything ---> god can fit that many animals on a boat.

 

 

It's unlikely that the specific religion like Christianity would have survived this long if it was as illogical as you make it out to be.

It's more likely that it's been abused and altered over the years.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but science works in a similar way. The main axiom being that your observations are what you measure of reality. The structure of religion can still be built upon logical steps.

Noah can't fit that many animals on a boat ---> god can do anything ---> god can fit that many animals on a boat.

 

 

It's unlikely that the specific religion like Christianity would have survived this long if it was as illogical as you make it out to be.

It's more likely that it's been abused and altered over the years.

 

That part that I've bolded undoubtedly leads to contradictions. It is easy to draw conclusions from axioms, the question is always whether or not an axiom is valid.

 

Why would a god who could do anything even need a boat? Why would he need a flood to wipe out the wicked people he created? While I'm at it, why did he create the people with the capacity to be evil if his intent was to later wipe them out (remember that Yahweh is omniscient, so he can never be surprised)?

 

It's sort of like asking "what happens to an object when it accelerates past the speed of light?". The axiom that objects with sub-luminal velocity can accelerate past c is a broken one. Any conclusion drawn from the broke axiom is fruit from the poison tree (Genesis allusion not intended).

 

With a broken axiom you can justify just about anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That part that I've bolded undoubtedly leads to contradictions. It is easy to draw conclusions from axioms, the question is always whether or not an axiom is valid.

 

Why would a god who could do anything even need a boat? Why would he need a flood to wipe out the wicked people he created? While I'm at it, why did he create the people with the capacity to be evil if his intent was to later wipe them out (remember that Yahweh is omniscient, so he can never be surprised)?

 

It's sort of like asking "what happens to an object when it accelerates past the speed of light?". The axiom that objects with sub-luminal velocity can accelerate past c is a broken one. Any conclusion drawn from the broke axiom is fruit from the poison tree (Genesis allusion not intended).

 

With a broken axiom you can justify just about anything.

 

It's not "broken" unless you disprove it. God wants free-will, but it also wants Noah and all the animals to survive, so the answer is in ways we can't currently explain to make a ton of room and gather every species. And you can logically justify anything with any axiom, that's the whole point, the only problem with any of it seems to be that some parts of scripture seem to advocate violence.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very bad idea to start with an axiom which contradicts itself or is inherently paradoxical.

"god can do anything" is such an axiom.

 

Can God set Himself a task that He can't accomplish?

 

 

"It's not "broken" unless you disprove it. God wants free-will, but it also wants Noah to survive, so the answer is in ways we can't currently explain to make a ton of room and gather every species."

Another answer is simply that it didn't happen, and , given that there's no actual evidence that it did...

A major problem with the "God did it and logic doesn't apply to Him" response is that I for one look at it and think "Well, they would say that wouldn't they, if I were setting up a religion I'd also have to include things like that to get round the impossibilities."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very bad idea to start with an axiom which contradicts itself or is inherently paradoxical.

"god can do anything" is such an axiom.

 

Can God set Himself a task that He can't accomplish?

 

 

"It's not "broken" unless you disprove it. God wants free-will, but it also wants Noah to survive, so the answer is in ways we can't currently explain to make a ton of room and gather every species."

Another answer is simply that it didn't happen, and , given that there's no actual evidence that it did...

A major problem with the "God did it and logic doesn't apply to Him" response is that I for one look at it and think "Well, they would say that wouldn't they, if I were setting up a religion I'd also have to include things like that to get round the impossibilities."

I don't see how an axiom can contradict itself unless it specifically states it, but there's also no actual evidence that what we are observing is actually reality anyway. In fact, all observation is the electrical signal of a photon that bounced off of or was emitted from an atom, which has already been changed position by the time we measure a photon as an electrical impulse.

There's not much to disprove god at this point anyway, and when numerous psychological elements are involved, that plays an important role, and I still wouldn't say religious people are broken because the things that would make someone religious are just as easily present in atheists.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how an axiom can contradict itself unless it specifically states it, but there's also no actual evidence that what we are observing is actually reality anyway. In fact, all observation is the electrical signal of a photon that bounced off of or was emitted from an atom, which has already been changed position by the time we measure a photon as an electrical impulse.

There's not much to disprove god at this point anyway, and when numerous psychological elements are involved, that plays an important role, and I still wouldn't say religious people are broken because the things that would make someone religious are just as easily present in atheists.

 

 

Questionposter, you do understand that disproving stuff is, if not impossible then, very difficult. I have an a dragon who lives in my basement that only I can see, disprove that....

 

To absolutely disprove god would require god like powers at the very least. Your suggestion that god hasn't been disproved and is therefore likely to exist is nonsensical....

 

They aren't "illogical" with the axiom of god being real.

 

Yes they are, your axiom has no evidence to support it what so ever, how can it be an axiom?

 

 

I didn't say that the current scriptures of mono-theistic religions don't tend to advocate some violence, but religion can still be shaped for the purpose of doing good, and as far as I know that's what people like Jesus and Siddhartha intended.

 

 

While I don't know that much about Siddhartha, you seriously need to do some study of the Holy Bible...

 

If you looked life in the old times like and how people lived life in ancient times, it isn't much different than how groups of chimps work, other than people knew how to farm. There was constant violence and theft among different groups, and it wasn't until someone said "you go to hell for doing that" did people able to settle down enough for the more advanced specialization of workers to form and more hospitable environments to form, and with the domination of other groups it would only create a more unified group. Newton's calculus didn't do much good setting in his desk for 20 years, it was only after the entire world got a hold of it that things could be accomplished with it, only by working together can we do things with it, and whether you like it or not, religion originally helped with that.

 

 

You keep asserting this but you provide no evidence what so ever that it is true, only your assertion... Then there is the fact that the idea of hell is not synonymous with religion, only with a few quite recent ones, and if you had bothered to actually read the Holy Bible you would have noticed that the bible is not exactly a book of instructions on how to be peaceful.

 

 

As I said there are numerous psychological aspects involved with the actions of religion, however these same aspects are present in atheists.

 

Please provide some evidence of this...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an a dragon who lives in my basement that only I can see, disprove that....

Now you know how God works.

 

To absolutely disprove god would require god like powers at the very least. Your suggestion that god hasn't been disproved and is therefore likely to exist is nonsensical....

I didn't say he was likely to exist, that was your assumption, I'm virtually completely atheist, not believing in any religious, magical or mystical aspect of any part of the universe, but if your going to try and say people are broken for believing in something or say we should simply assume something because it seems likely when really it can't be proven either way, I'm going to step in. I merely find it very unlikely god exists. However, this is not the case for everyone.

 

 

Yes they are, your axiom has no evidence to support it what so ever, how can it be an axiom?

Axioms inherently are assumed to be true, even in mathematics.

 

 

 

 

 

While I don't know that much about Siddhartha, you seriously need to do some study of the Holy Bible...

Yes I am aware of all those horrors and the Crusades, but I don't see Jesus actually advocating people doing those things, but perhaps as lessons.

 

 

 

 

You keep asserting this but you provide no evidence what so ever that it is true, only your assertion... Then there is the fact that the idea of hell is not synonymous with religion, only with a few quite recent ones, and if you had bothered to actually read the Holy Bible you would have noticed that the bible is not exactly a book of instructions on how to be peaceful.

I stated I have already read much of the bible, and on top of all that, many mono-theists aren't completely by the book, something you'd know if you actually tried to understand this issue. Most mono-theists, although take advice from the high-up people like priests and bishops, like to see god as being more logical, like Newton and possibly Einstein. In fact, it wasn't every mono-theistic religion that hated science, it was only Christianity. While Western Europe was in turmoil, the Muslim peoples were a prosperous group with colleges of philosophy and culminations of students for mathematics and the arts. It was actually during that time period that many religious Muslin or at least religious scholars boosted many things in science such as astronomy, anatomy and mathematical equations.

 

 

 

 

Please provide some evidence of this...

Are you serious? Ok, the most basic evidence there is:

99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same and in the exact same order. And, the .01% is already being used up largely by physical differences, such as skin, hair and eye color, slight variations in muscle density, height, weight, metabolism, the list goes on.

Furthermore it has been believed in psychology even since before modern times that the environments of people shapes them, and if you don't believe me, go ask a psychologist. This factor is not excluded from atheists. Someone who grows up in an non-religious environment has a higher chance of being non-religious, someone who grows up in a religious environment has a higher chance of being religious. To say atheists don't have this is to say being an atheist automatically makes you immune to the effects of your environment. Not only that, but religion is often connected to different experiences, the most prominent one being death. All atheists and religious people with the exception of maybe some psychopaths are effected by the deaths of their loved ones. But, religion builds off of this, and to someone who is agnostic, religion then becomes more important in their life because it is better to think about someone you care about being alive in some way. Atheists also have this and most probably do think about the possibility of a dead loved one being alive. To say atheists to not have the aspect of connecting ideas to important events in their life is unwise. And then ironically, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that beveling in a religion impairs brain function in any way. This should be especially considered when looking at the existence of religious scientists. The only thing research has found is that when people pray very intensely, their brain changes in such a way that certain parts seem to interact less with each other, sort of like meditating.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you know how God works.

 

 

I didn't say he was likely to exist, that was your assumption, I'm virtually completely atheist, not believing in any religious, magical or mystical aspect of any part of the universe, but if your going to try and say people are broken for believing in something or say we should simply assume something because it seems likely when really it can't be proven either way, I'm going to step in. I merely find it very unlikely god exists. However, this is not the case for everyone.

 

 

 

Axioms inherently are assumed to be true, even in mathematics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I am aware of all those horrors and the Crusades, but I don't see Jesus actually advocating people doing those things, but perhaps as lessons.

 

 

 

 

 

I stated I have already read much of the bible, and on top of all that, many mono-theists aren't completely by the book, something you'd know if you actually tried to understand this issue. Most mono-theists, although take advice from the high-up people like priests and bishops, like to see god as being more logical, like Newton and possibly Einstein. In fact, it wasn't every mono-theistic religion that hated science, it was only Christianity. While Western Europe was in turmoil, the Muslim peoples were a prosperous group with colleges of philosophy and culminations of students for mathematics and the arts. It was actually during that time period that many religious Muslin or at least religious scholars boosted many things in science such as astronomy, anatomy and mathematical equations.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you serious? Ok, the most basic evidence there is:

99.99% of human DNA is exactly the same and in the exact same order. And, the .01% is already being used up largely by physical differences, such as skin, hair and eye color, slight variations in muscle density, height, weight, metabolism, the list goes on.

Furthermore it has been believed in psychology even since before modern times that the environments of people shapes them, and if you don't believe me, go ask a psychologist. This factor is not excluded from atheists. Someone who grows up in an non-religious environment has a higher chance of being non-religious, someone who grows up in a religious environment has a higher chance of being religious. To say atheists don't have this is to say being an atheist automatically makes you immune to the effects of your environment. Not only that, but religion is often connected to different experiences, the most prominent one being death. All atheists and religious people with the exception of maybe some psychopaths are effected by the deaths of their loved ones. But, religion builds off of this, and to someone who is agnostic, religion then becomes more important in their life because it is better to think about someone you care about being alive in some way. Atheists also have this and most probably do think about the possibility of a dead loved one being alive. To say atheists to not have the aspect of connecting ideas to important events in their life is unwise. And then ironically, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that beveling in a religion impairs brain function in any way. This should be especially considered when looking at the existence of religious scientists. The only thing research has found is that when people pray very intensely, their brain changes in such a way that certain parts seem to interact less with each other, sort of like meditating.

 

 

Weird_Science_Facepalm_01.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.