Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well,well, well . . . my friend Gldn has been "jumped on" by atheists of every stripe . . . including the sharp tongued Rafius, cognitively sophisticated No Capo and the witty Rifleman. There are many strong arguments against Christianity as believed by the mainstream churches. The ancient logic and thinking of our ignorant ancestors that has been retained as a sign of Faith in God is insupportable given 2000+ years of knowledge, scholarship and understanding. I am amazed it has lasted this long in the face of such knowledge. But THAT is precisely what underlies Gldn's approach. He is responding to the underlying belief in God that anchors these faiths (of whatever persuasion). Its ubiquity and power is undeniable. It is only the many surface specifics of belief that crumble under scrutiny . . . and for many even that does not happen. What Gldn tries to communicate about atheism is that it is historically on the losing end of the underlying belief scale. It has no mojo (as he would phrase it). He enjoys provoking the snarksters, like Rafius and pulling the chains of the more serious and aggressive anti-religion atheists. So, while there can be many strong arguments against Christianity (or the specifics of any other religion) . . . the really strong argument is against atheism . . . the existence of God and consciousness Have fun, Gldn..
What is it you want to know about what I "feel" about Hinduism?
I'm not religious...and I'm not from India...so I have had very little exposure, except reading the basics of the belief.
Nothing to do with Hindu beliefs so don't worry your pretty little head about that. It is about your claim that because so many people think BibleJesus existed then there must be some truth in it. You also intimated that the longevity of Christianity lend weight to it being true. My question to you is, do you feel the same about Hinduism which, like Christianity has millions of followers and has been in existence for even longer than Christianity. What about Zoroastrianism? It has probably been in existence even longer than Hinduism and is gaining in popularity. So if, as you appear to be claiming, high numbers of followers and longevity are indicators of 'truth', do you think that Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are also true. Will you apply the same conditions that you apply to Christianity, to other popular religions.
Well,well, well . . . my friend Gldn has been "jumped on" by atheists of every stripe . . . including the sharp tongued Rafius, cognitively sophisticated No Capo and the witty Rifleman. There are many strong arguments against Christianity as believed by the mainstream churches. The ancient logic and thinking of our ignorant ancestors that has been retained as a sign of Faith in God is insupportable given 2000+ years of knowledge, scholarship and understanding. I am amazed it has lasted this long in the face of such knowledge. But THAT is precisely what underlies Gldn's approach. He is responding to the underlying belief in God that anchors these faiths (of whatever persuasion). Its ubiquity and power is undeniable. It is only the many surface specifics of belief that crumble under scrutiny . . . and for many even that does not happen. What Gldn tries to communicate about atheism is that it is historically on the losing end of the underlying belief scale. It has no mojo (as he would phrase it). He enjoys provoking the snarksters, like Rafius and pulling the chains of the more serious and aggressive anti-religion atheists. So, while there can be many strong arguments against Christianity (or the specifics of any other religion) . . . the really strong argument is against atheism . . . the existence of God and consciousness Have fun, Gldn..
Oh, I am sure he is enjoying himself immensely. And we understand exactly what he is arguing. And we know very well that the need for religion is a powerful mover just as the need to dominate the tribe next door and overwhelm their gene pool, see patterns and threats where none may exist and to prefer self -justification to getting at facts.
The repeated efforts to explain that this irrelevant to whether religious belief is factually justified are more because unanswered posts look too much like unanswerable ones - for myself I can't be bothered. Gldrule knows what we think well enough.
Gldrule probably also knows that we are well aware that we may never overcome the human tendency to give into self -delusion and opt for easy 'goddunnit' rather than think, and he probably even understands that we have to keep pegging away in hopes that the message will get through.
He may even understand that the last set of returns indicates that our pegging is having some effect.
Well,well, well . . . my friend Gldn has been "jumped on" by atheists of every stripe . . . including the sharp tongued Rafius, cognitively sophisticated No Capo and the witty Rifleman. There are many strong arguments against Christianity as believed by the mainstream churches. The ancient logic and thinking of our ignorant ancestors that has been retained as a sign of Faith in God is insupportable given 2000+ years of knowledge, scholarship and understanding. I am amazed it has lasted this long in the face of such knowledge. But THAT is precisely what underlies Gldn's approach. He is responding to the underlying belief in God that anchors these faiths (of whatever persuasion). Its ubiquity and power is undeniable. It is only the many surface specifics of belief that crumble under scrutiny . . . and for many even that does not happen. What Gldn tries to communicate about atheism is that it is historically on the losing end of the underlying belief scale. It has no mojo (as he would phrase it). He enjoys provoking the snarksters, like Rafius and pulling the chains of the more serious and aggressive anti-religion atheists. So, while there can be many strong arguments against Christianity (or the specifics of any other religion) . . . the really strong argument is against atheism . . . the existence of God and consciousness Have fun, Gldn..
Well, I think one of the more stronger arguments against Christianity is the claim of personal experience as being the sole evidence for one's faith in a god. You lament those who believe the words of "ignorant ancestors", yet expect them to believe the words of an unknown personality on an internet forum. What makes your "voices" and "visions" any more credible than those of these so-called "ancient ancestors"?
What Gldn tries to communicate about atheism is that it is historically on the losing end of the underlying belief scale. It has no mojo (as he would phrase it). He enjoys provoking the snarksters, like Rafius and pulling the chains of the more serious and aggressive anti-religion atheists. So, while there can be many strong arguments against Christianity (or the specifics of any other religion) . . . the really strong argument is against atheism . . . the existence of God and consciousness Have fun, Gldn..
Religion is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival. Belief and the brain's 'God spot' - Science - News - The Independent Evolution evolved a brain wired for belief because a belief in a religious authority figure and its morals (if they are good) enhances everybody's chances of survival. Sheep who don't understand the difference between right and wrong need shepherds to tell them, and they also need a brain wired for belief so they will believe whatever the shepherds tell them no matter how irrational and illogical. Unfortunately of course since the sheep don't know right from wrong they might follow any cult leader or religious leader or political leader. But as long as more follow religions with morals such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule than don't a brain wired for belief serves it's purpose. Many atheist priests continue to serve even though they may not believe in God because they do understand the importance of keeping the sheep believing and safe in their congregations/pens. Some atheists who understand how and why morals evolved just watch the sheep follow their shepherds, some atheists who are more vocal argue against belief. But that would be counter productive as they would be arguing against evolution and possibly depriving sheep of their belief causing problems when they have nothing to tell them right from wrong. Atheists should probably not argue for the application of logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to people who can't understand those concepts.
Sheep who don't understand the difference between right and wrong need shepherds to tell them, and they also need a brain wired for belief so they will believe whatever the shepherds tell them no matter how irrational and illogical.
Rubbish! Sheep do what they do because they don't want to get bitten on the arse by the sheepdog.
Religion is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival. Belief and the brain's 'God spot' - Science - News - The Independent Evolution evolved a brain wired for belief because a belief in a religious authority figure and its morals (if they are good) enhances everybody's chances of survival. Sheep who don't understand the difference between right and wrong need shepherds to tell them, and they also need a brain wired for belief so they will believe whatever the shepherds tell them no matter how irrational and illogical. Unfortunately of course since the sheep don't know right from wrong they might follow any cult leader or religious leader or political leader. But as long as more follow religions with morals such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule than don't a brain wired for belief serves it's purpose. Many atheist priests continue to serve even though they may not believe in God because they do understand the importance of keeping the sheep believing and safe in their congregations/pens. Some atheists who understand how and why morals evolved just watch the sheep follow their shepherds, some atheists who are more vocal argue against belief. But that would be counter productive as they would be arguing against evolution and possibly depriving sheep of their belief causing problems when they have nothing to tell them right from wrong. Atheists should probably not argue for the application of logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to people who can't understand those concepts.
^^^ That's not what the studies in your link are suggesting at all.
From your link:
"They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum – and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God."
"Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions."
"The results suggest that similar parts of the brain are involved when we consider our own beliefs and those of God - Epley thinks this is why we end up inferring a deity's attitudes based on those we hold ourselves."
Inferring the will of God sets the moral compass to whatever direction we ourselves are facing. He says, “Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one’s own beliefs.“
In other words there is no such thing as god given morals.
Religion is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival. Belief and the brain's 'God spot' - Science - News - The Independent Evolution evolved a brain wired for belief because a belief in a religious authority figure and its morals (if they are good) enhances everybody's chances of survival. Sheep who don't understand the difference between right and wrong need shepherds to tell them, and they also need a brain wired for belief so they will believe whatever the shepherds tell them no matter how irrational and illogical. Unfortunately of course since the sheep don't know right from wrong they might follow any cult leader or religious leader or political leader. But as long as more follow religions with morals such as the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule than don't a brain wired for belief serves it's purpose. Many atheist priests continue to serve even though they may not believe in God because they do understand the importance of keeping the sheep believing and safe in their congregations/pens. Some atheists who understand how and why morals evolved just watch the sheep follow their shepherds, some atheists who are more vocal argue against belief. But that would be counter productive as they would be arguing against evolution and possibly depriving sheep of their belief causing problems when they have nothing to tell them right from wrong. Atheists should probably not argue for the application of logic, reason and common sense and the scientific method and evidence to people who can't understand those concepts.
Do a search on 'mirror neurones' and the evolution of empathy. No religious beliefs required.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
