Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

So it is just other peoples supposedly illusionary friends that you disbelieve in & not yours? Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. You may say that you don't smoke a lot of weed but you have obviously fried your mind if you don't see the hypocrasy you are spewing.

 

As I have understood Nataraja is that the brahman is the universe, the everything just another name for it and that his believes is pretty much the scientific view of hte universe he has just adapted part of the hindu terminology to it but I am sure he can speak for himself and I am not sure I got it right.

 

At my university we have quite a few Christian groups that actively proselytize and once you engage one of them in a debate they basically stalk you, and they use trickery and subterfuge in order to win converts. Not only those groups have thoroughly put me off, but also other cultish groups Ive had the displeasure of accidentally associating with. Even groups outside Christianity annoy me with their proselytizing, such as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I get into rather heated debates with their missionaries over their theology. Like how they claim that Krishna is God, like Brahman. So I say to them things like "How can Krishna, who is an avatar of Vishnu, who is the cosmic preservation and maintainer aspect of Brahman, be God?" and from there we get into theological discussions that I will spare you all the details. Needless to say, the devotees of Vishnu, which include Krishna and Rama avatars, are often at odds with the devotees of Shiva, who has no avatars. They dont like Shiva because they see him as an unkempt cannabis smoking ascetic beggar covered in ashes from a funeral pyre and with a cobra around his neck. However, I think Vishnu is a dainty pansy prancing around the place with his flashy jewels and his lotus flowers. Shiva is more me, more of an accurate reflection of who I am.

Brahman isnt a person, Brahman is the inexpressible oneness and unity of everything. It is not even a personification of the universe or even an anthropomorphization of the universe. As soon as you apply personage to it it becomes ishvara, your personal god, which is just one aspect of the universe. Maya is the personification of the illusion that humans have in thinking they are apart from nature, that that which is them is not the universe itself, that their 'soul' (non-metaphysical) is not the same as that which brings into being everything in the universe. Pretty much what joacqin said is correct.

 

So again your belief in this unscientifically testable being/thing/deity is ok but all others isnt? Still plain & simple hypocricy no matter how you dress it up.

 

You still dont actually grasp what Brahman is. It isnt a deity, it isnt a thing, it isnt a being, it simply is. Brahman is the supreme consciousness of the universe, like a grand unifying theory. Brahman is beyond all human comprehension, we just dont have large enough brains to grasp it. Brahman is synonymous with the Tao, or various other sort of vague semi-mystical semi-metaphysical-but-not-really concept found in other non-monotheistic religions. It is basically the concept of the universe. If you want to go and say that the universe is unscientifically testable then by all means go ahead. The real question would be something more like "So again your belief in this unscientifically testable universal consciousness and awareness is ok but all others isnt?".

But even that doesnt really address the key issue here. It isnt a matter of my beliefs are right, everyone elses are wrong, it is a matter of what are the implications of your beliefs - how do they make you view the world, what do they say about your nature, what predictions do they make concerning the future. I also never said that my beliefs were right and everyone elses were wrong, I never even implied that this was the case. I said that I find monotheistic religions to be nonsensical. I listed off a number of other religions which I dont find nonsensical, and they are religions that employ, for the most part, the same deductive reasoning that science uses. Ive even admitted that my own personal god is probably not even a real being, which is just as well because I never pray to him anyway anymore.

I dont think you realise how close I am to being an atheist. The only reason I dont take that position yet is because it is comforting not to. This is the only area of hypocrisy here on my part, and Im working on it. Eh...what the hell...Im going to do it, right now. I am accepting atheism from now onwards.

 

WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW!!! WRITE ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW!!!
Let me just point out this: How do you know that I haven't read the bible?

The answer: Because you know that it's near impossible to plow through. It's not fun to read, full of outdated rhetoric, dogma's, and distasteful ancient customs. And you think that my assessment will only be worth listening to if I read through its over 1200 pages? Gimme a break.

 

The only contradiction between evolutionary theory and the Bible is the one little word in evolution: 'random'. If mutation is random, there is no guiding force behind it. If it is not truely random, but ordered after a grand design, then there is no contradiction between God and Evolution. Evolution becomes one of the tools with which He created the universe, one of the laws He set up, like gravity and nuclear fusion. Please note here that God's Laws are not in the same sense as man's laws of nature. Man's laws of nature are our best guesses at what God's Laws may be, but God's Laws are what mankind actually observes and is guessing at.

If you don't believe me, look up Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. I've absolutely fallen in love with this book. It sets out the Genesis chapter 1 account of creation and correlates it on a 1:1 scale with modern theories of cosmology and the origins and early stages of the universe, using modern scientific theory and 1,000+ year old theological interpretations of scripture. Did you know that ancient Hebrew theologians believed there were 10 dimensions, but we could only interact with 4? Guess what M-Theory is now claiming, based on math rather than divine revelation? You need at minimum 10 dimensions to properly fuse quantum mechanics and reletivistic mechanics in a sensible reality. If you really want to know how Christianity and modern science can co-exist in one mind, read this book.

Ok, try this on for size, then. Did you know that modern psychology now recognizes mankind has almost no instincts whatsoever? Seriously, you can count the number of identified human instincts on one or two hands. The only eating instinct we have is to suck on things, and that actually dies out pretty early on. The only natural fears we have are of falling and loud noises (things many people now seem to enjoy more than anything else). There is no instincual fear of crawling, slithering, small, reptilian, insectiod, or clinging things. There is no instinctual fear of heights, only of the act of falling. There is no instincual fear of sharp objects, or other objects that are falling (only falling ourselves). There isn't even an instincual fear of being hit by things. Flinching is not an instincual reaction. Instincts are defined by DNA, and they are the only part of DNA that actually codes for our behaviour. Other parts may code for capacities, but not for actual behaviors. By DNA alone, mankind should be just past a vegetative state, with really high mental processing power dedicated to almost nothing. There is more to life than DNA. Yes, by morphology and DNA we are primates, but by psychology we are in a class of our own, one with dolphins and octopi closer to us than chimps.

... *shakes head in disbelief* It wasn't an arguement, it was an analogy. The point was to show that existence is derived not only from composition, but also from functional capabilities and many other things. Also, you're 'analysis' of my 'logic' is flawed. The computer and power screwdriver are both descended from common technological ancestors (electricity, plastics, metalworking), and any real study of technology will tell you that progression isn't 'designed', it is a matter of 'chance'. Individual items are designed, so if I were comparing two screwdrivers and remarking on how similar they were in design, in shape, then it would be an issue. Technological progression, however, is dependant on a combination of chance encounters of intelligent people with both tools and situations, and something of a snowball effect, where more technology means a wider variety of tools, more time to come up with new situations, etc., thus more chances for combinations, but what results from what is not 'designed' by any human agent.

There's the problem. The truth is, DNA isn't the deepest part of what makes life life, it's more like the most surface level. You've looked into the skin and seen that it's made of skin cells, and thus decided that all of the body is made of skin cells, without looking past the skin to see muscles, bones, organs, and nerves. Again, that was an analogy.

Mmm, not really. I think I just misunderstood your meaning of 'Shiva doesn't exist'. When I say something like that, I mean that it actually doesn't exist, that there is no such thing as that, not that the perception of that is a matter of perspective. As I've said before, Christianity can be as easily seen a polytheistic as monotheistic, with the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as three seperate entities who are also one entity. I believe this is largely (though not entirely) a matter of human perspective, that we see three faces of one entity that exists behind all three. I would never say that the Spirit doesn't exist, though, because it does. It is a perfectly valid way of interacting with God.

This is why I put 'supernatural' in quotes, because you don't really believe it to be 'super'-natural, but just natural at a higher level of complexity and organization (life over inanimate matter, the mind over the brain, etc.), yet still nature.

Furthermore, the problem with the idea of emergent properties is that putting all the pieces of DNA and biology and psychology together doesn't produce a human being, it produces mush that falls apart. Modern sciences (psychology, neurology, etc.) say, as is the wont of science, that this is because we don't properly understand things yet, and there is a truth to that. The deeper truth, though, is that it all falls apart because you've only put about a third of the pieces together. It's like putting together 1/3 of a human body, bringing it to life, and wondering why it bleeds to death. The soul isn't the emergant property of the brain, but rather human life is the emergent property of the body, mind, and soul together.

Mmm, sorry, I don't think that works. How am I being hypocritical? Am I saying one thing and then doing the opposite? Am I refusing to even consider other positions? Realize that I understand the beliefs you have presented (in as much as one person can understand another, especially on the internet). It makes a certain kind of sense to me. I see the logic that lead you to your conclusions. I just see it as limited and incomplete. I don't criticize you for believing it, I just try to tell you what I believe, and what I know. You attack others for believing something you don't understand. The particular part that prompted the claim of hypocracy is that you criticize others for spreading their beliefs via while not only claiming to do the same yourself, but actively doing it. Why is it ok for you and not others?

On top of that, you don't even seem to attempt to understand my beliefs, or those like me. You insist on one perception of the world and, even when presented with proof that it's wrong in places (and here I'm thinking mainly of your view of Christianity and science), you refuse to reconsider. That's what I meant by backward-minded.

If I have done either of the things I accuse you of, please point it out to me.

Ok, to begin with, any response that X is stupid, nonsensical, and anti-science without any details or specifics, is not answering a question or contributing to a discussion, it is an attack. To answer Chandos's question (as I understand your position) you should have said, "Because it doesn't make any sense to me and seems to be self-contradictory/incompatible with modern science." That would have been honest and blunt. Had you said that I would have asked for particulars and we may have had a discussion (it probably would still have gotten heated, but a discussion still). Instead, you attacked anyone that believes in almost any religion, including many people on this board.

From other things you've said, I had figured that, but when a different face of Christianity was presented to you, when you were shown evidence that the problem wasn't the religion, but the people you were faced with, you rejected it and clung to your perception.

And here again is your problem. You seem to percieve that science is the only possible, and anything that does not conform is 'anti-science'. Just because different reasoning is used, doesn't mean it is wrong, or nonsense. The scientific method, though detailed and usually exhaustive, has easily recognized failings even within the scientific community, and for anyone to claim that it is the one true way represents either a poor understanding of the scientific method, or a poor understanding of logic. Let me put it another way: do you see sociology as 'anti-science'? Do you see archeology as 'anti-science'? Do you see medicine as 'anti-science'? There are more than two sides to this discussion, so simply not agreeing with science is not necessarily opposing it.

One, the double standard was the same as the hypocracy. Sorry if I confused you. Two, I do understand evolutionary theory (well, reasonably well, I'm no expert). The basic premise is that random mutation changes one creature into another, while survival pressures determine if that creature lives or dies. If it lives better than it's neighbors, than it propagates and spreads and a new species is born, while if it doesn't, it dies off and, as far as the evolutionary tree is concerned, may as well have never happened. My point is that the Christian God is not incompatible with this. You claim that there is no God behind evolution, yet science makes no claim on that at all. It isn't the department of science to look past the 'how's. "Random", as far as science is concerned, is almost a nonsense term. It's a cath-all for God, outside forces we don't understand, internal processes that are too complex for us to understand in detail, and anything else modern science can't measure and observe. I've seen evolution without God, and I understand it, and I see a huge God-shaped hole in the middle where you see random chance and very favorable coincidences. I'm not a fool for what I see, nor are you one for what you see. It's just that one of us is wrong. Without further evidence we can't say for certain who is, and that's been my point all along.

Saw it, and it seems to be a refutal of, at best, the most extreme and irrational beliefs you see in the Christian community. I don't refute evolution, I don't refute that life can be categorized by features and that doing so also categorizes us by descent. I don't claim that we are not animals, just that we are more than animals. There's nothing in there about that.

I think the best part was when he said that Christians don't try to explain the organizational structure of life because they can't. I'll give you a hint, there's an organizational structure to the entire universe, and the organization of life is just one of those branches with lots of sub-branches. The universe is one massive, logically organized system run on fundamental laws that define it's development from the initial stage until now (with a few interesting exceptions, but we won't get into that as you don't believe they happen, which is ok since you've never seen any of them). That's science's perspective of the universe, and it's my perspective of the universe, along with (to some degree or another) almost all the Christians I know. The difference is that science stops at studying the organizational structure, the laws, and the branches, and doesn't ask anything about 'why', simply because it isn't supposed to. Science asks 'how' and that's all it can ever answer.

It's almost like aliens finding a car, taking it apart, studying the mechanics and structure and how it works. One group just studies how it works and what it's made from, while another starts piecing together elements of where it came from and who designed it, party by the Owner's Manual found in the glove compartment. The second group comes to some conclustions about man's physiology and language and such, when along comes a subset of the first group that calls them all stupid and anti-science for not studying the mechanics. Some of the second group gets defensive and calls the first group (in all) stupid and anti-religion, while the rest look at that first subset and say 'We've kept up on all your developments just fine, and we've added some of our own, but your mechanics doesn't explain this Owner's Manual'. The car, by itself, isn't a whole system, it's only part of a system, and the second group is studying where this part of the system comes from, and why it is what it is. The first group identifies the gas pedal as the signal to insert fuel into the engine, while the second group reasons that the creator of the car must have had some kind of appendage to press it with. They use two totally different sets of logic, but both are appropriately suited to their tasks, and both are logical.

 

Well, most people who study evolution do not start with "The Origin of the Species" -- they start with textbooks that make the material laid out by Darwin and his successors easily understood.* These textbooks lay out the basic framework for the discussion at hand and later, once an understanding is firmly in place, the student goes to the prime source and reads "Origin".

The same technique is true of the Bible -- getting a fair grounding in the framework, get people to give you some tips (like Chandos' suggestion to start with the 4 Gospels) and start your study from there. Chandos certainly wasn't saying that you must read every bloody page of the Bible in order to comment on it, but some study (endeavored without preconceptions like the ones you mentioned) is necessary in order to have your criticisms and comments taken seriously.

* this is how biology was approached in my high school, not to mention all classes. We talked about Linnaeus and classification systems but did not read his treatises. We discussed Newtonian physics but did not read his original writings. We discussed economics but read neither "Wealth of Nations" nor "The Communist Manifesto". We studied WW2 but did not read Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or "Mein Kampf" Put simply, we walked before we ran.

 

I'm glad you got the message.

Just read one Gospel then.

 

Im just going to disregard all that NOG has said in his posts. His view of biology is far superior to my own view of biology and that of coineineagh too. We should all bow before his biological insights.

Totally dude, thats how it is. Ive never read The Origin of Species. My introduction to evolution at university was in a philosophy class called "Philosophy and Human Nature" which was about the Darwinian Wars. In it we discussed the implications of all the competing models and we were left to make up our own minds. It was during this class that I embraced the gene-centric view of evolution, aka Dawkins Self-Gene (and I havent actually read that book either ). Since that class I went on to, eventually, evolutionary biology itself...albeit while being distracted by the many other philosophy classes that the hot young exotic foreign students went to...yeah I was chasing skirt . My current biology text book is great, it is Campbell & Reece "Biology", the latest edition. My only concern is that the animal behaviour section is small, but you cant win them all right?

I thought that Genesis would be the best place to start, since it gives the first premise of the belief system which is that some gods made the world and it was perfect, and a snake convinced the lady to eat some fruits, and it was bad fruits, and then they were naked and they knew the difference between good and evil, and the gods said that one from her womb will come that will save mankind from being sinful, which Christians and Muslims say is Jesus/Isa. That is how they presented it to me at my primary school, which my parents made me go to because I was a bad bad little boy

I have read most of the bible, and for about 4 years or so I was a Christian. In the end I rejected it because it just wasnt true, it didnt give an accurate portrayal of reality. And so I went back to hinduism.

Richard Dawkins sums up my view of the universe and Brahman nicely in this part of his presentation at Berkeley.

 

Last evening I went to a party held in a church basement (it's a youth club, and my friend decided to hold his birthday party there). My friend's 25th birthday is the same as Darwin's 200th, and the 150th anniversary of the release of the Origin of Species. So it became a theme party, sort of.
We played a fun game, in which the anonymous 'darwinians' make someone leave the community every round, and the faithful have to try to excommunicate who they think the darwinians are. I was quite impressed that the supervisors representing the church were okay with this game, and happily participated. I spoke to them later about the same subject we're discussing, and wanted to know how they fit evolution into their belief system. It turns out that they are a 'free-spirited' church community, and they see God, and the text of the bible, as metaphorical. They see God as a force within mankind, not as a literal all-powerful being. Having faith in God can be like having faith in yourself and mankind this way. I think it's not unlike the 'einsteinian' religion described in your youtube video, Nataraja.

 

Sounds like an interesting game. You should give me the rules for it some time, Id like to play it.

Another good one I have seen recently about how Christianity has to keep changing when it can no longer suppress science.

 

Well, my friend made up a theme-variation of an originally german group game (8-18 players plus a game leader) called 'Die Werwölfe von Düsterwald'. It's not marketed in english, so it's hard to explain further.

Yeah, I find it annoying how religion can morph into something entirely different when it's getting close to defeat. Religion will live on to annoy our grandchildren I'm sure, let's just 'pray' it doesn't get them killed. In its own way, religion is providing examples of evolution.

 

All religions will evolve over time. One of the fundamental natures of the universe is that things evolve, whether it is biological life, culture/religion, scientific ideas, stars, solar systems, galaxies etc. It just seems that religion is resistant to change, especially the religions that are revealed by a prophet or prophets and are direct revelations from 'god'. Hinduism is also resistant to change, and it may surprise you all but there are hindu creationists out there, Vedic Creationism I think it is called. It is just as bogus as Christian or Islamic creationism.

I will look up the game and deduce how you can make it into darwinian etc. Sounds really fun. Anyway Im going back to another fun game, IWD

 

Good, its about time too.

Not surprised.


Yeah I'm poking at you a bit now but you went from insulting a whole bunch of peoples' religions (which you probably figured-or should have-would offend them) to focusing sarcasm on one person. So you had at least a little ribbing coming.

If the latter comment is true you should already know why the former isn't. After all, where are the 2 most important Commandments?

I can respect this as you are actually trying to tell people what you believe here-not so much insulting others.

Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill with this but isn't he a very smart (which helps when making an argument) man who has his own critics in that he has exaggerated (smart people can do that too) the role of religion in conflict. I'll admit my weakness in not having not read many things of his. But I doubt Einstein would say his understanding of God is of one that doesn't exist. From what little I've glanced at about Einstein he would say he didn't feel there was a personal God (though he acknowledged that the possibility of God as understood as such could still be hidden within science not yet known), but of one that made and ordered the cosmos (in which case pantheon could be the wrong term to use-a group rather single).

I may even still be digging too deeply, but occasionally you used words like "virus" when referring to religion. Not only may that be word coding to get a stronger emotional response out of people, but you may not have come up with that using the term that way yourself. Self-perpetuating ideology?

Also you seemed to try to push all Christianity into fundamentalism when it doesn't rightly belong there. Your own experiences with Hindus and the difference you put between yourself and a fundamentalist, as well as your own education regarding religions should have given you more than enough information for you to realize that as not every Hindu is fundamentalist and neither is every Christian.

Are you still holding back on what you know or are you as weak in knowledge of some topics as the rest of us (perhaps different topics depending on the person, but still ones that have popped up in this discussion)?

And NOG's point about random isn't a bad one. Who says that a lot of randomness cannot be within whatever rules the cosmos operates by? The random events/changes may well not contradict any sort of basic rule and are thus totally within it/them. Would not noting this be missing the proverbial forest for the tree?

 

Im holding back. No point bringing out the big guns prematurely.

Nuh uh, Genesis is the foundation of the whole reason why Jesus had to come to earth to die for the sins of mankind. No original sin, no need to be saved from sin, no need for Jesus to come and die for our sins because they do not exist, no reason to believe Jesus is who he claimed to be and who others claimed him to be. Since we know that evolution is the only way that the diversity of life on this planet could come in to being, we can therefore reason that if the bible doesnt give an accurate portrayal of life at the beginning of the whole reason why god had to become a man to kill himself to save others from being sinful, then what else is it wrong about? You cannot just go and pick and choose from the bible as you see fit to match your own idea of what being a Christian is.

Deuteronomy.

I probably have too. A more accurate description of what a religious idea and belief is would be a parasite.

Actually, I push all Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai and other religions like it into delusional thinking. As I said, any religion in which there is a prophet or prophets, like a messenger of god, who has supposedly divine knowledge either given to him/her or has it implanted into their brains so that they can go about spreading this supposed truth to others, is going to give you a false perception of your true nature. I then contrasted those sorts of revealed religions with religions and belief systems that draw on observation of nature and the universe alone in deducing what is right and wrong, how one should live their lives, how to manage and care for the environment and what the role of humanity is in the ecology. I am not specifically anti-Christianity so much as I am anti-monotheistic religions in general. Even ones which shared their origins with the latter type of religion, namely Zoroastrianism which shared its origin with Sanatana Dharma. On the one hand you had the belief system that would evolve into hinduism which paid respect to nature and learned lessons from the natural processes of the world, and on the other hand you had a belief system that focused on socio-economic constructs of the human mind. An interesting commonality between Zoroastrianism and Christianity can be seen in the very similar ways in which the religious ideas/knowledge were revealed to the two main prophets, Paul and Zarathustra. They were both out in the desert and were hit by bright light that caused them to stumble about and a voice spoke to them saying what the true religion really was. After that they went off and did their preaching. It is also interesting to note that Paul was a Jew who followed Judaism originally, and Zarathustra originally followed the worship of the daeva until Ahura Mazda came to him and told him that the daeva were liars etc. The similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism are too great to be coincidental, especially considering that the Jews lived in the Persian Empire for a long time and Zoroastrianism was by that time the state religion of Persia.

It isnt a good one either. My disregard of what he said about biology was to do with his poor analogy of 'same parts does not mean they are the same' or something like that. He isnt a biologist, or even a psychologist. Also, he has a dangerous top-down approach it seems, claiming that psychology over-rules genetics, despite it being the genes that code for the proteins that make up the brain from which the mind originates. Saying that DNA isnt what makes life life is ridiculous to say the least.

 

But is that actually talking about what you know or just using tactics to win an argument. There is a point where the two diverge (if they were ever together in a discussion in the first place).

Some people do nonetheless. And not only do they, but they come with reasons to justify why. As a whole it may seem easy to dismiss. But you cannot properly claim to have done enough to evaluate such a claim until you listen to reasoning behind it. And if you are following the example of the guy in your latest video that encouraged people make modern Christians answer for mistakes or foolish comments/misunderstandings of the past that is itself wrong/has a problem. While we may joke about Freud on occasion but we don't make modern psychologists defend him when we generally expect them to be trained in modern rather than obsolete topics.

No. You're probably smart enough to figure it out with a second try, if you want I'll give you one before mentioning it.

Or is it possible the relationship is more symbiotic than that?

Yeah, but that can still be playing favorites-which is what someone else noted too. Also it could be argued that revelation can come in large or small amounts (and to those, perhaps in different ways, who are looking and to those who are otherwise oblivious).

I agree and think this is an interesting historical fact. Though in Paul's case (which I have better knowledge of) he wasn't told that X were liars, but that he shouldn't be hurting the people he was going after. Still, the mono- (though in places/times it changed to dual- and tri-) theistic commonalities are noteworthy.

No he isn't. But professional people in the field have been trying to figure out the nature vs nurture balance for years. And modern-day people who leave all their children in a burning building while they themselves escape aren't a strong argument for genetic evolution/preservation of genes theory of showing how their DNA line made it through history to today. Considering their actions anyway.

 

People often display traumatic reactions towards things like fires, leading to behaviour that is counterintuitive and illogical. Their reaction may be so deeply rooted, that their fear prevents them from doing anything but fleeing wildly from a fire. They couldn't save their kids even if they wanted to.

I recently saw a woman in my fire prevention course, who had been traumatized by fire. She couldn't get anywhere near a fire, and blocked up at the sight of it. I could imagine her fleeing a burning building, and being mentally powerless to save her children.

 

Knowledge. Im not here to win arguments, I am here to present knowledge and evidence and hope that some of it filters through the gauss of Christian mindset-ness that hangs over Christians.

Yes. Deuteronomy 6:5-9. The reiteration of it in the gospels by Jesus is beside the point, he never said it first.

Wrong direction there. When religion is said to be a parasite it is because it takes advantage of the way the human brain evolved to deal with the challenges it faced on a daily basis in Africa. It is the 'taking advantage of' that makes it a parasite because it takes over the brain and restricts critical, rational thinking. It is a hold over from our evolutionary past, one that we no longer need in a modern urban environment.

You are missing the point entirely. I am playing favourites with science and deductive reasoning, not with religions. It is about modes of thinking and gaining knowledge about the universe, not about what people believe in regards to spiritual things. The only people here who play favourites with religions are the Christians. They favour Christianity and anything that goes against their beliefs makes them grumpy indeed.

What I was actually implying was that since they were in a desert on a hot day and had similar experiences, who is to say that they didnt just have some sort of brain trauma?

This isnt the issue here. The issue is that we are what our genes code us to be. We share 98% or there abouts of the same genetic sequences with the chimpanzee and the bonobo, and slightly less with the gorilla and the orangutan. The reason for this is because not only do we share a common ancestor with the great apes, we are ones ourselves. Incase you didnt know, human chromosome 2 is the result of a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in the other great apes. We are still primates, we are still apes, we are still a species of animals. There is nothing 'more' to us than that. The genes make the organism. Our genes show that we are beyond a doubt apes. Nothing to do with nurture, because it is our nature that determines what we will become. Nurture can only shape that which nature has already made.

If you want a good book to read on this subject, I recommend Human Nature After Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction.

Also if you want to see how brain trauma can be a spiritual experience, watch this video "Jill Bolte Taylor's powerful stroke of insight".

 

... Well, if you really want to concede, thanks. If you're bowing out of the discussion because you think I'm right or recognize you can't present logical arguements against me, then I accept your surrender. Somehow, though, I don't think that's what you intended. If you have any criticism, so long as it is constructive and not just calling me stupid or anti-science again, please bring it forth.

As for Genesis being the best beginning, well, my history teacher in 11th grade did something interesting. He taught history backwards, meaning he started from the most recent events and, once he had explained how things are, he went to 'How'd they get like this', which means we saw a crystal clear picture of cause and effect, as opposed to a random sequence of happenings. Starting with the effect and tracing it back may be a very good way to go. Then again, it may not, as a lot of the new testament is culturally dependant on the old testament. A lot is also dependant on roman culture. There's also the fact that, as far as the main point of Christianity goes, the only objective main point is the whole. You can argue that the Fall, Genesis, is the main point and everything is recovery from there. You can argue that the sacrifice of Christ is the main point (to show God's love, devotion, and justice) and everything is either set-up (OT) or result (NT). You can also argue that the point is at the very end of Revelation, and that the whole Bible is set-up for that. All arguements have merit.

I'd suggest, more than anything else, that you actually study the Bible, instead of just reading it. You can start in Genesis, but study the cultures it's talking about, and the people it was written to.

This is the time to bring them out. A discussion or debate isn't a war, you don't have to hold your big guns in reserve. In fact, it's better to bring them to bear first. Get everything out as soon as it becomes the topic. To do anything else is to dance around the point without actually engaging in a legitimate discussion. Again I'll ask you, if you have proof, bring it out.

I got a good laugh out of that one. What can I say, I have a dry sense of humor. I do hope you know what pplr was talking about.

Not really. To be a parasite: 1.) it must be a foreign body (religious is part of humanity) 2.) it must produce detriment without compensating benefit (arguable, but I think even you can say religions have done good things in the past, and are doing some good things today). At best, you can get away with dysfunction (a natural part or process that is no longer serving it's purpose).

I KNEW it! Ok, seriously, I don't think you understood a single thing I said. The 'same parts does not mean they are the same' bit was a horrible mangling of my actual point. You're right that I'm not a biologist, but how many of the people here are? You're also right that I'm not a psychologist, but how many people here are? I do, however, have two psychologists in my home that I can ask questions of (well, one practicing with decades of experience and one studying for her Master's).

I'm not sure what you mean by my 'top-down' approach, nor am I sure why it's dangerous here and yet applauded in the phylogenetic tree. I don't claim that psychology over-rules genetics (well, not frequently, and only when genetics pulls back), I'm claiming that psychology fills in for genetics where genetics doesn't have anything. Previously, you (I'm pretty sure it was you at least) have attempted to claim that everything from language to musical skill was genetic and instincual. This is what is nonsense. Neither DNA nor instinct cause either of these, or any of the myriad of other human behaviors I'm sure you'd try to lay at their feet. At best, DNA provides the potential for them to be realized, without actually causing anything. It's about like blaiming the inventor of the first firearm for murdering your cousin who what shot recently. Providing the mechanism by which any thousand of things can be achieved, provided ten thousand more things come into play, is not being guilty of causing any single one of them.

Again, painting us all with the same brush. It's good to see you haven't learned anything in the past *quick glance* eight pages. I was afraid things may get boring.

Well, you only get the first one there, still, points for study and creativity. Also, I'm glad I was right about you knowing the answer.

Ah, but science and deductive reasoning are not absolute. That's the problem. It's ok if you reject religion because you think it's logic is faulty or inferior (though I'd still like to understand what parts you actually object to), but please don't try to convince any of us that science is absolute. That is making science into the worst kind of religion.

The fact that Paul wouldn't have had that kind of halucination, not from what we know of his personality at the time. Halucinations and delusions are dysfunctions in the brain/mind that alter the pre-existing functioning. You don't turn a radical Jew into a radical Christian with one, you just make him a more radical Jew. This is what I mean when I say that calling Christians 'delusional' doesn't actually work. There are definitions and effects of these things that we understand and if X doesn't fit those, then it isn't a delusion/halucination/brain trauma.

And what we're trying to tell you is that this is only true in plants and the most simple of animals (mainly insects and down). As you move up from there, instinct and DNA control less and less of the creature, and more and more is a result of other factors, such as available resources, disease, growth patterns, learning, and a thousand other factors.

If DNA made the creature, and it was as simple as that, then identical twins should grow up to be identical people. They don't, it's been proven. This 'scientific theory' has been tested and successfully falsified. Not only that, but even identical twins raised in the same environment, fed the same foods, getting the same injuries and illnesses, still don't turn out as the same people, which means radical factors of the human psyche are defined by elements we can't identify yet. Nature certainly doesn't do it, and if it's anything in Nurture, it must be the most subtle things imaginable.

I hope you get this, Nataraja, because I think it will expand your thinking substantially if you can accept it. The theory that DNA defines every factor of who and what we are has certain, clearly identifiable predictions, such as genetically identical twins producing identical people, in body and personality. These predictions have been tested and proven not to be the case. Even adding nurture into the equation doesn't appear to explain the observed phenomena, though there is always the possibility that missed details in the 'nurture' factor may.