I think i do believe in God

Zillah

ScumLord wrote:

At no point in the ten comandments did it ever say Kill thy neighbour for not beliving in the one true God.

No but Leviticus and Exodus probably did.

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

Here s one of four million articles

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/index.htm

Reads more like social engineering than evolution.

stevejazzx wrote:

Can you show me examples of evolutuion which aren't progressive?

It depends by how you define progressive
You can argue that the Red Queen effect is not progressive. There are many examples of animals with the loss of body parts that are no longer useful in their current enviroment. I mentioned blind fish earlier but also there are many examples such as the T-Rex "arms" and flightless birds. Loosing the ability to fly is ecomonical but can be considered a major step backwards for a progressive process. More info can be found here.

stevejazzx wrote:

Anything that improves, or develops to a stage where it gets what it wants more comfortably in order to survive is progress. Progress doesn't mean to win and it also isn't tied down to just meaning 'gets better or improves, it means both these things but most importantly in this it also means to go further, develop.

Fair enough, but in order to aviod confusion it would just be easier to use words in a context that everyone understands. I did read the thread before I commented but I still disagreed with your use of the word evolution. I hope my whinging has at least shed some light on the meaning of the word.

So go to Hell (by which I mean have a nice day!)

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people? Says who?

Religion since human civilisation began has been about two things

1 - Control of population groups under a common dogma
2 - Attempting to explain what is not understood

Getting the "best" out of people is normally defined by the people who are at the top of the pyramid of point 1, ie those who control the religion. They are the ones that decide how a person should act so that they can achieve their "best," which funnily enough is normally how those in control wish them to act.

Morality was not invented by religion. Yes some points of some religion contain nice things, about being nice to each other, but that is more a reflection of the fact that religion is just another social construct. Humans can be nice, so you will find elements of religions that are nice. Humans can also be very horrible, so you will also find elements of religions that are very horrible.

Religion did nothing that wasn't being done anyway, good or bad. Nothing new about human behaviour or humanity emerged from religion. Religion reflects human nature, not that other way around.

Scofflaw

ScumLord wrote:

At no point in the ten comandments did it ever say Kill thy neighbour for not beliving in the one true God. I actually think the ten comandemts are a pretty good set of rules for living in a large social group. Even the 1st one has it's uses one God means no arguing.

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

It has been argued that the major religions largely arose because they enable the social bonding of large groups of unrelated people. They provide: a coherent worldview for use between believers; a set of rituals in which anyone can participate; an automatic other who is excluded (the unbeliever); an explanation for the universe; a balancing of scales after death that helps reconcile tensions in this life; and last a set of arbitrary instructions as to behaviour (usually entailing charity and orderliness).

One can argue that all that religion provides can equally well be provided by politics, and to a large extent now is - the geographical nation-state, for example, provides a lot of the above. However, it may be that the nation-state turns out to be just a particular phase - as geography becomes less important, religion increases in importance again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ScumLord

I hope the politics we've seen so far isn't the norm for the future (celeb attention whores) but at the same time I don't want to go back to Catholic or Islam rule.

Wicknight wrote:

Religion since human civilisation began has been about two things

1 - Control of population groups under a common dogma
2 - Attempting to explain what is not understood

I suppose you could look at it that way and I suppose that, seeing as religion or believing in spirits and higher powers probably came about gradually it can't be said that it was invented for any particular reason. It does seem to me though, that it always had the best intentions for people as a whole even if they ways they went about aplying it went completely against the good intentions.

I still think it's an important part of the human condition and can't be ignored, maybe upgraded for the modern society. Just look at the power of meditation which is controlled by the religious part of the brain. My point is the thinking process involved in religion could be benificial. I think that's my point anyway I see religious thinking to be almost the same drive that makes scientists constantly question he world. That part of the brain is unique and special and I still think it's possible something planted it there.

Religion reflects human nature, not that other way around.

Ya I'd go along with that.

Maybe I don't believe in God after all Just the power of the human mind but I'll still hold out on the possibility.

Zombrex

ScumLord wrote:

that it always had the best intentions for people as a whole even if they ways they went about aplying it went completely against the good intentions.

What is "it"?

"Religion" isn't a single body or entity. There are religions that advocate mass suicide. There are religions that claim that all non-believers should be killed.

When you say "it" do you mean the Judeao/Christian religions (Jews, Chrisitians, Muslims) that was spawned by the Hewbrews around 3,000 BCE?

ScumLord wrote:

I still think it's an important part of the human condition and can't be ignored,

Who is ignoring religion. There is a difference between ignoring something and recongising that something is not what it claims to be. Atheists don't "ignore" religion, they abandon it because they realise it is what it is, simply a social construct for control and explination.

ScumLord wrote:

Just look at the power of meditation which is controlled by the religious part of the brain.

There is no "religious" part of the brain. There are parts of the brain that develop concepts like religion, but they develop lots of other things to.

Meditation is great, but there is no religious origin of meditation, humans were resting and meditating long before they came up with religion.

Seriously people have to stop attributing things to religion which it did not create. Religion did not create morality. Religion did not create meditation or inner peace or inner fullfilment etc etc.

All these things are a product of the way our brain chemistry functions. Evolution and biology created these things, religion just uses them, as do all aspects of humanity. Religion is a human invention, and as such reflects human nature. If religion didn't exist we would all probably be still acting in similar ways

ScumLord wrote:

My point is the thinking process involved in religion could be benificial.

Well most atheists would probably argue that you can get all the benefits without believing in the silly mumbo jumbo, by looking at what really is going on in things like meditation, rather than the made up religous explination

ScumLord

There is no "religious" part of the brain. There are parts of the brain that develop concepts like religion, but they develop lots of other things to.

There is a part of the brain that seems to deal specifically with religious (religious probably isn't the right word to use here as it lights up during meditation too) thinking, damage to this region of the brain can cause people to think there God or see angles and generally turn into a religious nut.

Seriously people have to stop attributing things to religion which it did not create. Religion did not create morality. Religion did not create meditation or inner peace or inner fullfilment etc etc

I think there linked and you couldn't have one without the other, now you can because the change has already taken place.

Well most atheists would probably argue that you can get all the benefits without believing in the silly mumbo jumbo,

That's what I've been saying! I said from the start that I didn't belive in the christian or any version of the mumbo jumbo stuff but that religious/spiritual thinking and instilling morals in people at that level of the brain had value to society and that we needed to update the way we used that way of thinking.