On Sat, 14 May 2016 19:40:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 17:49, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 09:35:08 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 09:00, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 18:46:28 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 13/05/2016 18:36, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 16:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 9:55 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:45:28 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:10 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:12, Muggles wrote:

BUT, the text doesn't address either explanation 100%. They are
the 2
possibilities that I've seen discussed that explains people living in
the land of Nod where Cain found a wife.


"Nod"! is that where the character *Noddy* comes from? ;-)


Who knows? Probably!

I thought god knew?


God knows ... but I don't!

And you know this!....how do you know god knows?
Please be specific!


IF I believe that God IS God, then it is logical that I'd believe God
knows. ;-)

So nothing specific then. As expected.

Actually...its quite specific. You are in denial again.

The Nile is a filthy river ;-)

So is the Thames

And?

Completely untrue:

Seals, whales and porpoises regularly spotted in the Thames, survey ...

www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Earth › Wildlife
20 Aug 2015 - Seals, whales and porpoises regularly spotted in the
Thames, survey ... The animals are among a wide variety of seals,
dolphins and otters that ...
...die within hours of entering that flowing river of poison, and vile
substances

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:03:08 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 20:49, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 10:12:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 09:06, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:59:10 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So lots of could be's and maybe's. Nothing definitive then.

You expected differently? Why should this be any different than
Global Warming/Cooling/Change?

(VBG)

It isn't. Religious folk are stupid, and so are those who believe in global warming.

--
As are atheists. They have STRONG belief systems...based on
faith...not on truth.

Gunner

Jesus was almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the
medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural
texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his
disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.
The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an
ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as
cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs
magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by
Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr
Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic
religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston
University said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...ience.religion


Interesting. And you posted it as a diverson for what reason?

Gunner

As you just said "interest".

Diversons are occasionally interesting..but they are still diversions

On Sat, 14 May 2016 19:42:46 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 17:52, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 09:45:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 09:04, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:58:31 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So you have no ****ing idea. Always the same, religion is based on maybe this maybe that jumping to conclusions with no evidence whatsoever.

Pretty much identical to atheism.

Atheism, just another faith based religious system

Twist things how you like, but Atheists do not believe in *any* gods nor
*any* religion. You can't not believe in a religion at the same time as
believing in a religion, except in your own mind.


Now thats about as fanatical a religious concept as any Ive ever seen.

Good to see you practicing your religion

Er, I repeat "I do not believe in any religion"

That IS your religion.

Gunner

On Sat, 14 May 2016 19:37:56 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 17:46, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 15:03:40 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 09:31:11 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 08:49, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:19:10 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:20, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:00:38 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 08:24:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

Gunner

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner
The "irish problem" was not based on "religion". It was based on
economics. The (protestant) British over-ran (catholic) Ireland and
took over the economy - relegating the Irish (who happened to be
Catholic) to the lowest economic strata. The English put down the
Irish - which of couse "got up the Irish" of the Irish - who fought
back, long and hard - to rid their country of the "English". With the
church being the social center of Irish life (next to the pub) it
became a "Catholic" thing - turning it into a "religious war"

It was not based on "religion" or "faith". It was primarily an
economic and nationalist conflict - with virtually NO "religious
tenents" involved.

What...you are denying Liberal History??!!!

And of course you are correct. The ****ing Brits beat the Irish down
like curs and murdered or moved out millions of them, to other lands.
They sold them like slaves as well.

There were more Irish in New York City than there were in Ireland by
1895.

And here we have Brits claiming that they are just and rightious
people. Bah!! Humbug!!

India is a perfect example of their work and deeds....(spit!)


Gunner

Hmm!....and *I* get accused of being hateful :-)

You ARE hateful. While Im not a gentleman..I am however..accurate.

Accuracy is never hateful..its simply...accurate.

Gunner

Show me where I've been hateful then?

Merely telling a religious ****wit that there is no god can cause them to break down in tears.

4 bits of hate stuck together in that one sentence...and you claim I
was being inaccurate?

Snicker

Gunner

Erm! that wasn't me.

Really? Denial is not a river in Egypt

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:52:58 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 15:00:30 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 09:06:21 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:59:10 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So lots of could be's and maybe's. Nothing definitive then.

You expected differently? Why should this be any different than
Global Warming/Cooling/Change?

(VBG)

It isn't. Religious folk are stupid, and so are those who believe in global warming.

--
As are atheists. They have STRONG belief systems...based on
faith...not on truth.

Idiot. Atheists don't believe in anything, that's the definition of the ****ing word.

Buffoon! Moron! You Believe that there are NO god(s), based on ZERO
evidence. Its your religious belief. You are as fanatical about it as
a sect of snake handlers. You go on evangelical spews here on
Usenet..no different than those snake handlers.

Why can't you distinguish something from a lack of something? I only believe in something I see evidence of. There is no evidence of any god, so I don't believe in any.

--
The dot over the letter i is called a tittle.

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:22:38 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Buffoon! Moron! You Believe that there are NO god(s), based on ZERO
evidence. Its your religious belief. You are as fanatical about it as
a sect of snake handlers. You go on evangelical spews here on
Usenet..no different than those snake handlers.

Why can't you distinguish something from a lack of something? I only believe in something I see evidence of. There is no evidence of any god, so I don't believe in any.

So therefore you dont believe in Quarks, the ozone layer, and other
planets in other solar systems, and that includes solar systems
themselves...just to name a tiny fraction of things you cannot
possibly belief in.

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:50:50 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:22:38 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Buffoon! Moron! You Believe that there are NO god(s), based on ZERO
evidence. Its your religious belief. You are as fanatical about it as
a sect of snake handlers. You go on evangelical spews here on
Usenet..no different than those snake handlers.

Why can't you distinguish something from a lack of something? I only believe in something I see evidence of. There is no evidence of any god, so I don't believe in any.

So therefore you dont believe in Quarks, the ozone layer, and other
planets in other solar systems, and that includes solar systems
themselves...just to name a tiny fraction of things you cannot
possibly belief in.

There is evidence of all those things.

--
Lysdexia: a peech imspediment we live to learn with...

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:17:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 00:16, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:29:56 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:07, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:39:33 +0100, Bod wrote:


Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner

Oh dear, you're dragging the past up again.
The UK is very tolerant of Jews and we are in no way "thugs".
I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own homes and
all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay for dinner.

--
Bod

Dragging up the past again? Oh...so you dont like it when I do
it..but you do it as a matter of course and think its ok?

Of course most Jews are nice people. As are most Catholics, Anglicans,
Methodists, Lutherens and so on and so forth. Yet you lead us to
believe they are all ****ing ******s.

Do try try to be consistant in your distain and hate, old boy.

Gunner

Why do you refer to what I've said as *hate*?

Why do you deny what youve said is anything but?

What was hateful about what I said?

Was it "I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own
homes and all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay
for dinner"

Saying nice things about the wrong type of religious nut is considered hateful to the religious nut you're conversing with.

--
You can't please everyone. But it IS possible to **** 'em ALL off at the same time.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:39:33 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 16:24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

Gunner

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner

Oh dear, you're dragging the past up again.
The UK is very tolerant of Jews and we are in no way "thugs".
I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own homes and
all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay for dinner.

Jews and Muslims are both hairy apes that haven't evolved as far as us. They both like to blow stuff up. I guess explosions are like magic to people like that.

--
A hammer is a device designed to break valuable objects next to the nail you are aiming at.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:18:43 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

So, you now believe that Catholicism is wrong. Yet you think Buddhism is right? I wonder if you'll change sides again....

--
Mixed emotions are when your mother-in-law drives your new Ferrari off the cliff.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 16:24:28 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 14:48:14 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 12:39, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:32:03 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 10:18, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:32:59 +0100, Bod wrote:


I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

Gunner

Er, this was the *Irish*, *not* the English. The Irish Catholic IRA even
bombed several of our English cities causing death and carnage.
*That's* religion for you.

Thats odd..I thought the Inquistion and the Reformaton were largely
English hatred against other religions..particularly the Jews...few of
whom survived.

So you are trimming the data again eh? Typical of your lot

Gunner

So it was religious hatred then. Just as I thought.

Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

And if neither side believed in god there would have been no war.

--
When Mike got arrested, the police told him, "Anything you say will be held against you."
Mike smiled and simply replied, "Jessica Simpson's boobs."

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:57:47 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

Gunner

Oh dear, you're dragging the past up again.
The UK is very tolerant of Jews and we are in no way "thugs".
I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own homes and
all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay for dinner.

Jews and Muslims are both hairy apes that haven't evolved as far as us. They both like to blow stuff up. I guess explosions are like magic to people like that.

Of course the worst of the lot are todays British. All the smart,
ethical and intelligent Brits died in the last several big
wars..leaving the children of those too halt, too lame and too stupid
to make it into the military.

So...what was your father...halt/lame/stupid?

Gunner

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:56:08 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:50:50 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:22:38 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

Buffoon! Moron! You Believe that there are NO god(s), based on ZERO
evidence. Its your religious belief. You are as fanatical about it as
a sect of snake handlers. You go on evangelical spews here on
Usenet..no different than those snake handlers.

Why can't you distinguish something from a lack of something? I only believe in something I see evidence of. There is no evidence of any god, so I don't believe in any.

So therefore you dont believe in Quarks, the ozone layer, and other
planets in other solar systems, and that includes solar systems
themselves...just to name a tiny fraction of things you cannot
possibly belief in.

There is evidence of all those things.

But have you seen them with your own eyes, stamped your feet on them
and rubbed them between your own fingers? There is more than a bit of
evidence in god(s) as well. However...you apparently hold them all to
different standards than you do religion, based on your own admission

On Sat, 14 May 2016 23:46:15 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

So, you now believe that Catholicism is wrong. Yet you think Buddhism is right? I wonder if you'll change sides again....

Catholicism is wrong? You poor *******...you keep trying to change
what your betters here on Usenet say..and you only look the fool doing
it.

I didnt say Catholisism was wrong...I said I became Buddhist from
being a Catholic. I found Buddism fitted me better, I didnt say
Catholisism was wrong. You are really quite a buffoon.

Gunner

On Sat, 14 May 2016 23:46:57 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


Indeed it was. One English religion hated the Jews. The Jews of
course being very religious and not killing anyone. So its probably
the combination of English and a religion that turned it so brutal.
The Brits being well known thugs and all...shrug

And if neither side believed in god there would have been no war.

Odd..the Godless USSR and China managed to murder 270,000,000 of their
citizens. Are you saying there was no war??

Really? Croms butt..you really are a stupid *******.

Gunner

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:56:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


What was hateful about what I said?

Was it "I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own
homes and all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay
for dinner"

Saying nice things about the wrong type of religious nut is considered hateful to the religious nut you're conversing with.

Interesting admission on your part.

Gunner

In article ,
wrote:

First of all, a very large percentage of "Christians" believe in
intelligent design, but not a litteral 144 hour creation. I am one of
them.
Look at Genesis 1, Vs 2.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice - the eath WAS.

Then notice the progression
night and day
Earth and atmosphere.
Land and sea.
Vegatation
The entire solar system
Sea creature
Land creatures
Man

A sequence that HAD to happen in that precice order - and supported
even by the more progressive evolutionary minds.

I personally can't see the sense of creating the first 4 before creating
the sun and it makes even less sense to form the entire solar system
after creating the earth

I guess air creatures never got created

On Sun, 15 May 2016 00:32:26 +0100, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

First of all, a very large percentage of "Christians" believe in
intelligent design, but not a litteral 144 hour creation. I am one of
them.
Look at Genesis 1, Vs 2.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice - the eath WAS.

Then notice the progression
night and day
Earth and atmosphere.
Land and sea.
Vegatation
The entire solar system
Sea creature
Land creatures
Man

A sequence that HAD to happen in that precice order - and supported
even by the more progressive evolutionary minds.

I personally can't see the sense of creating the first 4 before creating
the sun and it makes even less sense to form the entire solar system
after creating the earth

I guess air creatures never got created

Maybe god created evolution? [titter]

--
The best way to insulate your home is with a big pile of fridge-foam aerosol cans:
Just fill the entire house with foam and tunnel to the bits you need to get to, pack rat style.

On Sat, 14 May 2016 03:28:00 +0100, wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:14:46 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:46, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:22 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:28 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:09:08 +0100, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on
something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.

Point to it. Hold it in your hand.

All very good points, and more than I can be bothered wasting my time
with religious folk. She will keep her head stuck in the sand
forever,
because it's easier for her little brain.

Can you explain why our bodies work?


The answer can be found in evolution. Life started as a simple bacterial
amoebas.


Why do amoebas exist? Where did they evolve from?


You will find the answer in science. It's basically to do with elements
and chemicals reacting and creating new elements etc.
Similar to how Oxygen was created.

How Earth Got its Oxygen

http://www.livescience.com/5515-earth-oxygen.html

Why does it work?? Is it just an accident?


First of all, a very large percentage of "Christians" believe in
intelligent design, but not a litteral 144 hour creation. I am one of
them.
Look at Genesis 1, Vs 2.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice - the eath WAS.

Then notice the progression
night and day
Earth and atmosphere.
Land and sea.
Vegatation
The entire solar system
Sea creature
Land creatures
Man

A sequence that HAD to happen in that precice order - and supported
even by the more progressive evolutionary minds.

Just happened????
Very doubtfull....

What exactly the "void and without form" consisted of nobody knows
for certain. No scientist of any standing even pretends to know.
No thinking christian will agree with a 144 hour creation 6000 years
ago.

Like with Atheists, there ARE a fair number of "non-thinking"
Christians. Neither Christianity nor Atheism has a lock on low
intelligence., and the HOW or WHEN of the "genesis" of life on earth
is NOT the central point of Christianity.
It is the WHO WHAT and WHY, not the WHEN or HOW

WHO did WHAT and WHY

5:6-11 Christ died for sinners; not only such as were useless, but
such as were guilty and hateful; such that their everlasting
destruction would be to the glory of God's justice. Christ died to
save us, not in our sins, but from our sins; and we were yet sinners
when he died for us. Nay, the carnal mind is not only an enemy to God,
but enmity itself, chap. 8:7; Col 1:21. But God designed to deliver
from sin, and to work a great change. While the sinful state
continues, God loathes the sinner, and the sinner loathes God, Zec
11:8. And that for such as these Christ should die, is a mystery; no
other such an instance of love is known, so that it may well be the
employment of eternity to adore and wonder at it. Again; what idea had
the apostle when he supposed the case of some one dying for a
righteous man? And yet he only put it as a thing that might be. Was it
not the undergoing this suffering, that the person intended to be
benefitted might be released therefrom? But from what are believers in
Christ released by his death? Not from bodily death; for that they all
do and must endure. The evil, from which the deliverance could be
effected only in this astonishing manner, must be more dreadful than
natural death. There is no evil, to which the argument can be applied,
except that which the apostle actually affirms, sin, and wrath, the
punishment of sin, determined by the unerring justice of God. And if,
by Divine grace, they were thus brought to repent, and to believe in
Christ, and thus were justified by the price of his bloodshedding, and
by faith in that atonement, much more through Him who died for them
and rose again, would they be kept from falling under the power of sin
and Satan, or departing finally from him. The living Lord of all, will
complete the purpose of his dying love, by saving all true believers
to the uttermost. Having such a pledge of salvation in the love of God
through Christ, the apostle declared that believers not only rejoiced
in the hope of heaven, and even in their tribulations for Christ's
sake, but they gloried in God also, as their unchangeable Friend and
all-sufficient Portion, through Christ only.
(Matthew Henry Commentary)


THAT is the central core belief of Christianity.

That is a bigger load of waffle than I've seen come from a committee meeting.

--
Why are Jewish Men circumcised? Because Jewish women don't like anything that isn't 20% off.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 00:27:07 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:56:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


What was hateful about what I said?

Was it "I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own
homes and all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay
for dinner"

Saying nice things about the wrong type of religious nut is considered hateful to the religious nut you're conversing with.

Interesting admission on your part.

It was a statement, is English not your first language?

--
An old Irish farmer's dog goes missing and he's inconsolable.
His wife says "Why don't you put an advert in the paper?"
He does, but two weeks later the dog is still missing.
"What did you put in the paper?" his wife asks.
"Here boy" he replies.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 00:23:49 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 23:46:15 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

So, you now believe that Catholicism is wrong. Yet you think Buddhism is right? I wonder if you'll change sides again....

Catholicism is wrong? You poor *******...you keep trying to change
what your betters here on Usenet say..and you only look the fool doing
it.

I didnt say Catholisism was wrong...I said I became Buddhist from
being a Catholic. I found Buddism fitted me better, I didnt say
Catholisism was wrong. You are really quite a buffoon.

You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

--
An old Irish farmer's dog goes missing and he's inconsolable.
His wife says "Why don't you put an advert in the paper?"
He does, but two weeks later the dog is still missing.
"What did you put in the paper?" his wife asks.
"Here boy" he replies.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:26:16 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/11/2016 3:32 AM, Bod wrote:

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.


Bullying anyone is wrong, imo. I've been bullied by religious people,
too, but just because they did something wrong, it shouldn't be cause
for me to abandon something I believe in. I may question "why", but at
the same time if I truly "believe" in a higher power then what people do
to me can't change what I truly believe.

Bullying people is fun, especially when the person you're bullying is a pathetic little worthless piece of ****. Survival of the strongest, fittest, cleverest, fastest, etc, etc. Oh, you don't believe that, you're religious. So er.... why do religious folk blow each other up?

--
A blue whale's heart is roughly the size of a VW Beetle, and its aorta is large enough for a human to crawl through.

On Sat, 14 May 2016 09:31:48 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2016 08:51, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:24:49 +0100, Bod wrote:


Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.


Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion
long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen.

Gunner

No, I offer my opinion. Religious people tend to get shirty when
challenged. You are no different.
I'm not attacking anyone.

Your "opinion"? You preach and spew like a medicine wagon preacher.
And you attack the very concept of religion and ALL who follow one.

You are a blind bigot of the worst sort. The Self Rightious and self
delusional sort.

Are you talking to a mirror?

It's the only explanation for the illogical rants he's coming out with. What he says seems to have no connection to what he's replying to.

--
When I told my mum I was going to buy a motorbike she went crazy:
"Don't you remember what happened to your brother? He was killed on one! Why would you want to buy one when you could just have his?"

On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:50 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:

"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views,
sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that
relate
humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances,
and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs
..."

Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.


Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion
long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen.

I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever.

--
What advice don't you want to hear from a doctor before an operation?
"Whatever you do, don't go into the light."

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:24:49 +0100, Bod wrote:


Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.


Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion
long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen.

Gunner

No, I offer my opinion. Religious people tend to get shirty when
challenged. You are no different.
I'm not attacking anyone.

You're threatening their little make believe world. Imagine it like telling a little girl that the little people in their dolls house don't actually have lives.

--
If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?

On Sat, 14 May 2016 16:32:26 -0700, Malcom Mal Reynolds
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

First of all, a very large percentage of "Christians" believe in
intelligent design, but not a litteral 144 hour creation. I am one of
them.
Look at Genesis 1, Vs 2.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of
the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Notice - the eath WAS.

Then notice the progression
night and day
Earth and atmosphere.
Land and sea.
Vegatation
The entire solar system
Sea creature
Land creatures
Man

A sequence that HAD to happen in that precice order - and supported
even by the more progressive evolutionary minds.

I personally can't see the sense of creating the first 4 before creating
the sun and it makes even less sense to form the entire solar system
after creating the earth

I guess air creatures never got created
Obviously you never bothered to reesd genesis as the birds of the
air came along at the same approximate time as the fish of the sea.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:44:16 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2016 00:23:49 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 23:46:15 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.

Odd...I was raised Catholic, before I became Buddhist..and dont recall
any kneecappings or tar and feathers. Is this an English version of
some religion? Probably..afterall...you lads do do things rather
****ed up.

So, you now believe that Catholicism is wrong. Yet you think Buddhism is right? I wonder if you'll change sides again....

Catholicism is wrong? You poor *******...you keep trying to change
what your betters here on Usenet say..and you only look the fool doing
it.

I didnt say Catholisism was wrong...I said I became Buddhist from
being a Catholic. I found Buddism fitted me better, I didnt say
Catholisism was wrong. You are really quite a buffoon.

You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion.

Who the hell are you to say that? You only have a single religion,
Atheism to guide you. Are you saying a Baptist cannot become a
Friends of Jesus, or an Episcopal cannot become a Church of England,
without claiming one is wrong and the other is the One True Religion?
Crom's tit, boy..you really are in ignorant git. Sweet crude....you
are truly stupid.

You know obviously less than nothing about Buddhism as well. Its not
so much a religion as a philosophy...and one can belong to a religion
and be Buddhist at the same time without being in any conflicts. Your
ignorance...simply astounds me....deeply.....makes me want to bend
over and start laughing outrageously at you.

Sheese boyo....you are as dumb as sheep.

Gunner

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:43:30 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2016 00:27:07 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:56:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:


What was hateful about what I said?

Was it "I speak as I find and I've worked for many Jews in their own
homes and all were lovely kind people. A few even insisted that I stay
for dinner"

Saying nice things about the wrong type of religious nut is considered hateful to the religious nut you're conversing with.

Interesting admission on your part.

It was a statement, is English not your first language?

Of couse it was. Admissions are statements of guilt. Second thoughts
now, do you?

Gunner

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:45:38 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:26:16 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/11/2016 3:32 AM, Bod wrote:

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar.
Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church.
Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered.
What lovely religious people.


Bullying anyone is wrong, imo. I've been bullied by religious people,
too, but just because they did something wrong, it shouldn't be cause
for me to abandon something I believe in. I may question "why", but at
the same time if I truly "believe" in a higher power then what people do
to me can't change what I truly believe.

Bullying people is fun, especially when the person you're bullying is a pathetic little worthless piece of ****. Survival of the strongest, fittest, cleverest, fastest, etc, etc. Oh, you don't believe that, you're religious. So er.... why do religious folk blow each other up?

And you claim repeatedly that you dont attack the religious in the
most viscious ways. When I pointed out that you lied...you denied
it.
And here you are doing it again. You are a true fanatic of your
religion

And a Putz.

Gunner

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:50 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote:

"Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views,
sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that
relate
humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
observances,
and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human
affairs
..."

Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.


Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion
long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen.

I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever.

What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics
are that way...pathetic and queer.

On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:41 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:24:49 +0100, Bod wrote:


Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal
organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as
stated above, it can be classified as a religion.


So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe
in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm!

No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a
religion.

Being "religious" is a whole different practice.


So I'm not religious, but I am?

No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious".

But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form.


Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion
long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen.

Gunner

No, I offer my opinion. Religious people tend to get shirty when
challenged. You are no different.
I'm not attacking anyone.

You're threatening their little make believe world. Imagine it like telling a little girl that the little people in their dolls house don't actually have lives.

So you DO sleep together. Isnt that cute!

On 5/14/2016 10:00 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

It isn't. Religious folk are stupid, and so are those who believe in
global warming.

--
As are atheists. They have STRONG belief systems...based on
faith...not on truth.

Idiot. Atheists don't believe in anything, that's the definition of the
****ing word.


Actually, it looks like many don't really know what to believe. Or not.
See the sample of findings below.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...bout-atheists/

Estimating the number of atheists in the U.S. is complicated. Some
adults who describe themselves as atheists also say they believe in God
or a universal spirit. At the same time, some people who identify with a
religion (e.g., say they are Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) also say
they do not believe in God.

4 Although the literal definition of €œatheist€� is €œa person who believes
that God does not exist,€� according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary,
8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or
a universal spirit. Indeed, 2% say they are €œabsolutely certain€� about
the existence of God or a universal spirit. Alternatively, there are
many people who fit the dictionary definition of €œatheist€� but do not
call themselves atheists. About three times as many Americans say they
do not believe in God or a universal spirit (9%) as say they are
atheists (3%).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...eclares-god-is





Nicholas Kardaras Ph.D.

How Plato Can Save Your Life

The Scientific Atheism Fallacy: How Science Declares that God Is Dead,
But Can't Prove It

Without proof, should a scientist be an atheist?







Posted Jun 17, 2011




SHARE



TWEET



EMAIL



MORE


























A scientist has to be an atheist; that seems to be the pervading
popular wisdom these days. Yahoos, snake handlers and Bible freaks are
"true believers," but sober men and women of science can't possibly
believe in such fairy tales.

The thinking goes that if a person is smart and educated, then
obviously they get that God is a convenient psychological crutch and
religion nothing more than a social mechanism designed to reign in our
baser tendencies-tendencies that, if uncontrolled by the do's and
don'ts of religion, would lead to societal anarchy.

This idea that atheism is the ideology of choice for the more educated
and enlightened and can be the only mind-set of the rational and
scientifically minded is certainly in literary vogue as evidenced by
best sellers such as Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great (2007)
and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006).

They reflect a cultural climate where so-called smart
people--academics, scientists, intellectuals, and wannabe
intellectuals--declare themselves atheists with a capital A and tow
the company line: since God, or cosmic sentience, can't be
affirmatively proven (or even observed) via scientific methodology,
then those empirically unobservable things can't exist. Thus, anything
beyond our observable material reality is considered right up there
with Big Foot and the Chupacabra.

But here's the thing. As I discuss in my new book How Plato and
Pythagoras Can Save Your Life (Conari, 2011), it's this matter of
proof and evidence that gets to the source of the modern conflict
between science and religion: science demands affirmative proof for
what's essentially un-provable in the scientific arena. But perhaps,
just perhaps, when it comes to "proof " regarding God, the
evidentiary burden should instead fall on the atheists to prove that
there is not a God or, at the very least, that there isn't some sort
of cosmic purpose. Think about it; if an atheist is so quick to invoke
science as their guiding rationale in their belief in a random
universe, then shouldn't they prove it?

Because, really, if any scientists proudly and self-assuredly declare
themselves atheists (Richard Dawkins and Stepehen Hawking-you know who
you are!), then they're not only being intellectually dishonest, but
they're also going counter to the guiding principles of the thing that
they profess to love so much: Science.

In science, we can't affirmatively know or assert something until
we've empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the
true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates'
credo of "I know that I don't know". (Socrates is said to have been
dubbed by the Oracle at Delphi the smartest man in all of Greece
because he alone was smart enough to realize that "I know that I know
nothing.")

Thus, without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not
exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of "I don't
know since I don't have enough data one way or another."

Really, how can Dawkins claim, as a scientist, that he's an atheist
when he hasn't proven that God doesn't exist? As a private citizen, he
can choose to believe--or not believe--anything he wants. But what
irks me is when scientists use the banner of science to somehow give
legitimacy to their own--oftentimes dogmatic--beliefs.

Now, the atheist will counter my affirmative proof argument by crying,
"Well, OK, but there isn't any affirmative proof of God." Fine, even
if we grant that assertion (which some will dispute), then the proper
scientific stance should still be one of uncertain agnosticism--not
definitive atheism.

Here, some might echo the old axiom that, well, you can't prove a
negative. But if we were to believe that, then that's all the more
reason why a person of science should not claim to be an atheist since
the nonexistence of God is empirically impossible to prove (although
some have disputed this old "you can't prove a negative" axiom by
pointing out that some scientific experiments do indeed prove a
negative; Francesco Redi's famous seventeenth-century experiment
proving that maggots do not spontaneously generate from meat is an
example of proving a negative).

This difficulty in proving a negative should be even more reason for
the scientist to embrace agnosticism. Absent an experiment that shows
that God does not exist or a proof that concludes that the universe
has no purpose, we can not scientifically accept those assertions;
thus for a scientist to embrace atheism is not only intellectually
dishonest, but also logically inconsistent.

I understand that some might reasonably say that theistically inclined
scientists are also guilty of intellectual dishonesty; after all, they
too believe in something that hasn't been scientifically proven,
which, as we've said, is a big scientific no-no.

But here's the thing: there is a logically consistent proof for the
existence of God. It's not commonly taught in most public schools, but
Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian
developed his "five proofs for the existence of God" hundreds of years
before an apple dropped on Newton's head.

In essence, Aquinas argues that "something" (i.e., us, the universe)
can't arise from "nothingness," that "something" (namely God) had to
be the "cause" of all things and of all "movement." (This notion
borrows heavily from Aristotle's "Unmoved Mover" conception of what we
might call God.)

Aquinas's second key idea has to do with the universe's tendency
towards order, which seems to contradict the chaos of the laws of
entropy; in other words, the order that comes from disorder leads to a
conclusion that the universe has some sort of purposeful unfolding.
Some might call this a form of universal DNA encoded into the
existential fabric to guide, over the course of roughly 15 billion
years, the evolutionary development of an inanimate, subatomic,
pre-Big Bang speck into the sentient and reasoned being that's reading
this blog.

Yes, admittedly Aquinas's proof relies on reason and logic; for those
seeking C.S.I.-style evidence of God, sorry. Nor do we have the George
Burns version of God testifying in a courtroom or revealing himself to
a befuddled John Denver.

Instead, all we have is a thirteenth-century proof from a long-dead
philosopher. That, and wondrous and miraculous creation
itself--flowers, and babies, and rainbows, and luminous stars and
galaxies, and, perhaps most amazing of all, this amazing thing called
the human mind with its seemingly infinite ability to create and to
imagine.

But even if everything that I've just mentioned doesn't convince the
atheist that there's more to the universe than meets the eye, I have
yet to see the compelling proof or the scientific evidence that God or
cosmic purpose does not exist.

So the question remains: is there such a thing as God? Is there a
purpose to the evolutionary unfolding of the universe that
science-with all of its man-made high-tech gadgets-has yet to
discover?

I know that I don't know.

Certainly the ancient Greeks would suggest a humble agnosticism rather
than a self-assured--and unproven--atheism. Really, if you're a
no-doubt-about-it atheist, for all you really know, you might just be
a butterfly dreaming that you're an atheist!

from: deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm


Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance

by Peter Murphy

The repeated arguments presented by atheists using science as evidence
against the existence of God is erroneous -- and can be demonstrated
such. This paper will first define the terms agnosticism, deism,
theism, and atheism. Second, this paper will summarize a number of
scientific concepts and ideas to put science into its proper and
correct context. And third, this paper will demonstrate that active
atheism (as opposed to passive atheism) for all its pretensions to
scientific literacy is in effect composed of people scientifically
illiterate, illogical, and cynical.

Religious views on the subject of a God fall into four general
categories. Agnosticism is the belief that the question of whether a
God exists or not cannot be known. Theism is the belief in a personal
God who is interested in the minute details of daily life and who
intervenes in the workings of nature through miracles. Other aspects
of theism are the acceptance of direct revelation from God to prophets
and holy men in times past, the importance of ritual, the leadership
of a clerical body, and government support; all of these aspects exist
in all theistic religions to some degree. Deism is a rational religion
where God is generally seen as impersonal and nature accepted as the
only true revelation, the very handiwork of God; holy books, ritual,
and clerics are viewed as superstition. Atheism has two practical
meanings: one is the lack of belief concerning God, and the other is
the certainty that God does not exist. As such, atheism can be divided
into passive atheism and active atheism. Passive atheism is merely the
lack of belief, and children are born passive atheists -- of course
this is not a justification for atheism because children are also born
unable to take care of themselves. Active atheists are not people
merely lacking a belief in God, but people dogmatically declaring God
does not exist through positively worded statements like:

a) There is no scientific evidence for a Creator.

b) Science proves there is no Creator.

c) All things have naturalistic explanations.

This essay from this point will refer to active atheists as dogmatic
atheists to better reflect their true mindset. Dogmatic atheists like
to link their position to science as a means to squash any debate or
discourse, but this use of science is in effect a belief dressed up to
look more valid than it really is in light of the facts. This paper,
in order to address the scientific issues at hand, will refer to God
as the Creator, and the reasons will become clear as the paper
progresses. The relationship between God and science is best
understood if one considers the relationship as being between a
Creator and the creation/nature, which allows science to touch upon
those issues central to the existence of a Creator. The word God
belongs in the domain of metaphysics; while the term Creator is
compatible with a scientific view and open to definitions that are
falsifiable.

Beliefs are fundamentally opinions. An opinion is any position taken
by someone that something is true or untrue. An opinion can be either
informed or uninformed. Uninformed opinions are extremely common and
the dogmatic mind is amazingly uninformed. The dogmatic atheist like
the dogmatic theist is obsessed with conformity and will spew a tirade
of angry words against anyone who does not conform to their own
particular world view. Both of these dogmatic types demand their own
version of orthodoxy (literally: right opinion) be accepted as the
rational norm and attack any nonconformists with as much bile as
possible. Orthodoxy is not a good thing since it desires conformity
and obedience to a self-elevated elite that presents itself as
authoritative and informed. George Orwell wrote in his novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four: “Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think.
Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” There is no freedom of thought in a
world of orthodox views. Skepticism and orthodoxy cannot coexist. To
be a skeptic is not the same as being a cynic; cynicism is merely
taking a negative view to a particular issue without giving it
thought, while skepticism is an approach to information.

Understanding science is essential in order to refute the dogmatic
mind. In science there are no absolute truths, no sacred cows, and no
great secret to be discovered that will allow all scientists in a
field to retire and go home. Instead, all hypotheses and theories are
subject to modification and even replacement as new research and
discoveries become available. Science is not dogmatic, and those who
try to present it dogmatically are doing it a disservice. It is
important to understand the basics of several scientific concepts in
order to understand the nature of science and the method central to
it.

A summarized format for the Scientific Method is as follows¹:

1) Ask a question concerning observations which have been made.

2) Propose a hypothesis which could explain the reason(s) for the
observations.

3) Make a prediction (which would hold true if the hypothesis were
correct).

4) Test the prediction.

5) Draw a conclusion based on the outcome of the test.

Note: Use of controls, replication of experiment(s) and publication of
results are also employed when using the scientific method.

A theory in science is the end result of a process of rational
development that starts with a hypothesis. Unfortunately, the word
“theory” is loosely used for hypotheses and theories by most
scientific layman and a few scientists. Here is a further breakdown of
what these two words actually mean in a scientific context:

A hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in
specific situations; it implies insufficient evidence to provide more
than a tentative explanation before experimental work has been
performed and perhaps even before new phenomena has been predicted.

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis, or a group of
related hypotheses, which have been confirmed through repeated
experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms
of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with the "laws
of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted
scientific theories become part of our understanding of the universe
and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. A
law is a theory so well supported by evidence and experimentation that
there is almost no room to argue against it.

Occam’s Razor, although not technically part of the scientific method,
is essential to it. Occam’s Razor is the principle that all things
being equal, one should not make more assumptions than needed; when
multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest
version is preferred. Since the natural assumes far less than the
supernatural, science seeks a naturalistic explanation to scientific
questions.

Here are a few examples of some scientific ideas in a summarized form:

The Big Bang is the theory that speculates on the origin of the
physical universe and the mechanics that brought it into existence. It
is believed that the universe before the Big Bang was composed of
energy in the form of photons (packets of light), and some of these
became quarks, in turn forming neutrons and protons (the building
blocks of atoms) leading up to the Big Bang itself. After the Big Bang
took place, atoms came into being and with atoms, matter. In the 1920s
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding outward and
inferred that the cause was a Big Bang explosion. The Big Bang
hypothesis was supported by what is now known as Hubble’s Expansion
Law, and became a theory. The theory also predicted that there should
be a background microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang, and
this was found a few decades later. There are few problems with the
Big Bang, for example, the uneven rate of expansion in the universe.
Carl Sagan in his book Cosmos pointed out that this uneven expansion
may be explained if one or more near simultaneous Big Bangs took
place. This paper will return to this topic later and will look at
some other questions that the Big Bang theory raises.

The Theory of Evolution started off as a hypothesis and grew by
observation and testing into a scientific theory. Although there is
debate about the fine points of the theory, for example the speed of
evolution, the fact remains that observation, the fossil record, DNA
research, and genetic experimentation demonstrate it as a force in
nature. All scientific research and experimentation conducted up to
now, without exception, support the Theory of Evolution, and nothing
yet detracts from it. The detractors of the Theory of Evolution have
no alternative theory that fits the evidence. Since it is a fact that
artificial selection happens (where humans have manipulated plants and
animals to produce and then reproduce those traits valued by humans),
then to argue against natural selection over eons borders on the
delusional. Creationists are merely dogmatic theists more obsessed
with conformity to a religious ideology through the misrepresentation
of science than studying nature. The Theory of Evolution will hold
unless a better theory arises to replace it. Nevertheless, the one
thing the Theory of Evolution does not address is the rise of life on
earth.

The question of the origin of life is fundamental to the idea of a
Creator. If one considers the Creator as the instigator of life, then
there has to be something in the origin of the rise of life that has
no naturalistic (meaning insentient) origin. To understand the issue
here requires a review of some chemistry and scientific speculation
about the first life forms on this planet. For the sake of argument,
assume a life form is something capable of self replication by
whatever means.

In nature everything is fundamentally atomic in essence. At the very
base of matter are atoms; atoms are the elements themselves. The
Periodic Table of Elements contains the 109 Elements that are the base
of matter. The first 92 occur in nature, and the remainder can be
created in particle accelerators. All matter, whether defined as
materials or substances are either composed of these basic Elements or
are compounds of the basic Elements. Iron (Fe) for example is an
Element existing at the level of the atom; while water is a compound
of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom forming a single molecule.
Water cannot exist in a more simple state, but iron, hydrogen, and
oxygen exist in a free (atomic) state. Among the Elements, simpler
Elements become more complex by adding neutrons and protons to their
state, and the reverse is true. If one proton and three neutrons are
subtracted from mercury, gold is the result. The forces of nature can
change atoms, isotopes, and molecules. For example, ultraviolet light
converts methane into more complex hydrogen molecules and basic
hydrogen gas.

When one takes the position that everything in nature has a natural,
and in some cases accidental, explanation then it follows that before
natural selection came into being some form of life must have arisen
on earth. Logically, this life form had to be even simpler than a
viroid, which is simpler than a virus, which in turn is very simple
compared to a bacterium. At some point in the early history of the
planet earth there arose a molecule that was capable of
self-replication; thereby, triggering natural selection. As time
passed, new more specialized molecules arose and joined together, and
this collective evolved into the first plant cell, most likely
something similar if not identical to microscopic blue-green algae.

In the world today there are millions of different molecules, which
along with the Elements compose the matter, material, and substances
of the physical universe. If one rules out the intervention of a
Creator in the rise of life and accepts the idea that life is the
result of an unintended natural process, then it follows that life
began as a molecule. Obviously, something as complex as a bacterium or
blue-green algae just did not appear in the oceans one day; life
proceeded from the very simple to the highly complex. Unfortunately
for those advocating this position, there is no evidence beyond
speculation that such a molecule existed. There is no fossil of it,
and no other molecule in nature self-replicates; so what was it
composed of? Science knows that the early earth was composed of the
Elements and basic molecules. In addition, the early earth was
bombarded by radiation from the sun, lightning storms pounded the
planet, and volcanoes produced great heat making, changing, and
breaking molecules in the process. Millions of different molecules are
known to exist, and yet, no self replicating molecule has ever been
discovered in nature or created in a lab -- there is not even a
hypothesis of what Elements may have composed this molecule. This
paper will return to this important issue later.

In order to proceed with the purpose of this paper it is important to
understand what “Burden of Proof” means. Technically, it refers to
legal matters, but it also applies in other fields of human endeavor
like philosophy and science. Every affirmative statement carries a
Burden of Proof, and although dogmatic atheists deny their own
assertions are subject to this basic logical requirement of
argumentation, no one is exempt. A Burden of Proof does not imply,
outside of its legal context, proving something beyond a shadow of a
doubt, but on the responsibility to provide reasons for one’s
position. If one publicly makes a statement, then one has the burden
of providing reasons for that statement. This paper will now
demonstrate by example that the Burden of Proof lies on the one making
an affirmative statement. It is important to realize that an
affirmative statement involves the wording of the statement and not
just a positively worded statement. For example, the Burden of Proof
equally applies to someone stating a mathematical formula is valid as
one saying it is not valid. A proponent of a mathematical formula
should be able to mathematically prove it, and an opponent of the
formula can prove the formula flawed by showing that the proof does
not work. An extremely simple example would be someone claiming that
18 is a prime number. A prime number is a number divisible only by
itself and 1. The proponent would have to prove that 18 can only be
divided by 1 and 18; while the opponent could easily prove that 18 is
divisible by 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 18. Consider the following examples.

Example 1) A skeptic states he is not convinced that a Big Bang ever
took place.

Response: The skeptic is unconvinced and has no Burden of Proof to
prove or disprove anything. The proponent of the Big Bang model can
offer scientific evidence to show that there is an outward expansion
of the universe and that radio telescopes are picking up a background
radiation consistent with the idea of a Big Bang.

Note: The skeptic did not state no Big Bang took place, but merely
that he is not convinced. Being skeptical is not the same as making
affirmative statements that things are or are not. The essence of the
skeptic is to question, not to state things are not so. Socrates is an
excellent example of a skeptic.

Example 2) A flat-earth proponent states that the earth is not a
sphere.

Response: The flat-earth proponent clearly made an affirmative
statement that something is not the case. As such, the Burden of Proof
lies on him to provide his reasons for rejecting the idea that the
earth is a sphere.

Note: The flat-earth proponent did not merely state he was not
convinced or did not believe, but that something was NOT the case. As
such, he places himself under the burden to explain his reasons. Any
attempt on his part to evade his responsibility to explain his reasons
would rightly be taken as intellectual dishonesty.

Example 3) A creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is
unscientific nonsense.

Response: The creationist has made an affirmative statement that
something is unscientific nonsense. As such, the Burden of Proof lies
on him to provide his reasons for rejecting the Theory of Evolution.

Note: The creationist did not merely state he was unconvinced or did
not believe in evolutionary theory, but that it was unscientific
nonsense. As such, he places himself under the burden to explain how
it is: unscientific and nonsense.

Example 4) A Biblical literalist states that Carbon-14 Dating is
fundamentally flawed.

Response: The Biblical literalist has made an affirmative statement
that something is flawed. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to
provide his reasons why he believes Carbon-14 Dating is flawed.

Note: The Biblical literalist did not initially state that he was
unconvinced by the science of Carbon-14 Dating, but that Carbon-14
Dating was flawed.

Now as can be observed from the above examples, an affirmative
statement can be worded as to appear negative. To state one does not
believe in something is not the same as to state something does not
exist or that something does exist. A statement to the effect that
“God does not exist” is not the same as saying “I am not convinced God
exists.” The former carries the Burden of Proof to offer one’s reasons
for that opinion; the latter carries no such burden. If the Burden of
Proof always rested on the proponent of those saying a thing exists,
then such people would always have to defend themselves and their
beliefs. Newton formulated the hypothesis that would become the Law of
Gravity, and was the one carrying the Burden of Proof to explain it.
If a critic of Newton stated he was not convinced such a law existed,
then that critic is not under the Burden of Proof obligation. If on
the other hand, that critic of Newton said Gravity does not exist,
then he has taken the Burden of Proof onto himself to provide his
reasons. It would be unfair and illogical to assert that only Newton
had the Burden of Proof but the denier of gravity did not. Although
one cannot prove something does not exist, one can refute or at least
rebut a theory that something exists by logically demonstrating flaws
in the theory. For example, if a denier of Gravity released a marble
that did not fall to the floor that would be proof that Newton’s Law
of Gravity was flawed.

Consider these additional situations: A holocaust denier states that
there was no genocide committed against Europe’s Jews by Nazi Germany
in the Second World War. Obviously this denier has the Burden of Proof
to provide his reasons for believing the holocaust never happened. Or
consider a teacher that corrects a student’s math paper and marks “X”
over a solution proposed by the student. Now it would be
unconscionable to assume the teacher does not have the Burden of Proof
to explain the problem and offer the correct solution.

Imagine how illogical everything would degenerate to when every
statement claiming something is not so is considered valid unless
proven wrong. The denials would never end. Consider this in a symbolic
form. Which makes more sense?

The avoidance form of argumentation:

J: A does not exist / A exists.

K: why do you say A does not exist / exists?

J: I am under no obligation to support my reasons for saying A does
not exist / exists.

(Discussion ends)

Obviously, J is immature and illogical.

Note: As can be seen from this form of argument, since J has taken it
upon himself to make an affirmative statement (for or against
something) then it is not unreasonable to expect him to offer his
reasons for his statement.

The valid form of argumentation:

R: A does not exist / exists.

S: why do you say A does not exist / exists?

R: Here are my reasons:

a) …

b) …

c) …

(Discussion at this point has the opportunity to continue since there
is an exchange of ideas.) In this case, R is mature and logical.

Dogmatic atheists refuse to accept the demands of their own positions
and one need only visit the internet to see a legion of atheist
apologetic sites claming that the Burden of Proof does not apply to
them. If one takes the time to visit impartial educational sites one
will see that whoever makes the affirmative statement for or against
something carries the Burden of Proof. If one says, for example, that
Carbon-14 Dating is in error, then one is not free from the Burden of
Proof simply because one stated something is in error -- how is it in
error is a perfectly valid question consistent with the rules of
argumentation. As stated earlier the dogmatic atheist is fundamentally
no different than the dogmatic theist; both are dogmatic, both suffer
from a need to force conformity on a number of ideas, and both refuse
to defend or even justify any position they put forward that something
is or is not true. Dogmatic atheists like to call themselves skeptics,
but their approach is a violation of the true meaning of skepticism.
Skepticism is an attitude of questioning ideas and evidence; it
enables us to test our speculations. It is not merely being negative
by saying things are flawed or do not exist; skepticism requires time
and effort to examine beliefs and speculations. Skepticism is a
process arriving at a rational conclusion; it is not the conclusion.
Skeptics are above all skeptical of themselves. Dogmatic atheists are
in reality merely cynics in the modern sense of that word. Cynics are
cynical of everything and usually refuse to give reasons for their
cynicism -- does that sound familiar? If someone is too cowardly to
give the reasons for a publicly stated opinion, then he should keep
his opinions to himself.

Let us now look at the standard dogmatic atheist statements earlier
presented in this essay and see how each is flawed and unscientific.

a) There is no scientific evidence for a Creator.

b) Science proves there is no Creator.

c) All things have naturalistic explanations.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR is a scientifically
inept statement. Science assumes all things have naturalistic
explanations in accord with Occam’s Razor. Claims that science has
found no evidence for a Creator implies that scientists are engaged in
research to prove or disprove a Creator. Dogmatic atheists peddling
this slogan open themselves up to a simple question that exposes their
ignorance and presumptions: What scientific research going on now is
specifically looking for evidence of a Creator? (The answer is none.)

SCIENCE PROVES THERE IS NO CREATOR is not only scientifically inept
but stupid. Since science is not attempting to prove or disprove a
Creator and there is no scientific research being done based on such a
hypothesis, then science is proving nothing that justifies such an
outlandish statement. It is no surprise that the proponents of this
particular slogan become extremely defensive when asked to share this
“proof” that there is no Creator. Dogmatic atheists repeatedly fall
back to claiming, like the cynics they are, that they have no Burden
of Proof although they claimed they have proof. The irony here is that
if they had such proof, then it would be easy to prove it, so why the
defensive emotional anger? The answer is self-evident, the dogmatic
atheist was called on his bluff, and like a poor card player cannot
maintain his cool. The intellectual hypocrisy to claim on one hand
that science proves something and to become defensive and not explain
how science proves it is the product of an immature and emotional
mind, and such people are the ones who give science a bad name in many
circles. While the dogmatic theist will hide his own ignorance and
intolerance behind largely misrepresented scripture, the same holds
true for the dogmatic atheist who hides behind misrepresented science.
Although the dogmatic atheist will claim they have no Burden of Proof
because negatives cannot be proven, the opposite is true. An
affirmative statement that something can be proven not to exist is
workable. The statement that science proves there is no Creator can
be demonstrated if the Creator is defined in a falsifiable way and the
definition shown to be fundamentally flawed. This paper will now put
forward just such a definition and an examination of the definition in
light of modern scientific findings. If science proves the definition
flawed, then that definition is invalid.

Definition: The Creator is defined as the creator of the physical
universe and the originator of biological life.

Such a definition avoids the abstractions so common in theological
definitions. The above definition contains two parts and both can
prove a Creator does not exist if scientific naturalistic explanations
can be produced. Remember one works within the definition.

If natural forces triggered the Big Bang, then that part of the
definition of the Creator being the creator of the physical universe
would be refuted. Unfortunately for the dogmatic atheist, no such
explanation or demonstration exists; the present Big Bang Theory,
although helpful, is not the final word. What happened before the Big
Bang is based solely on speculation, and it is this unknown region
leading up to the Big Bang that is open to speculation -- it is here
that there is room for the intervention of a Creator.

There are many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions
concerning the Big Bang, here are a few:

a) What conditions existed before the Big Bang?

b) Where did the energy and matter that existed before the Big Bang
come from?

c) What triggered the Big Bang?

d) How and why did the universe expand?

The Big Bang was a singularity, where the laws of nature do not exist;
as such, there is no naturalistic explanation and that leaves room for
a Creator.

If the self-replicating molecule can be produced which triggered life
and natural selection, then the second part of the definition of the
Creator being the originator of life would be refuted.

Although one hears that one cannot prove a negative, the fact remains
that negatives can be proven by invalidating evidence. All that is
needed is a hypothesis, model, theory, or a mere statement to be
invalidated. Invalidating evidence is evidence that contradicts a
hypothesis, model, theory, or statement. This can be cleared up with
an example: if someone claimed there was a graveyard under his new
lawn, then this claim can be either validated or invalidated by
digging up the lawn. Finding nothing would be invalidating evidence.
Depending on how one defines a Creator, there is no invalidating
evidence against the possibility of such an entity.

ALL THINGS HAVE NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS is an equally inept
statement. There is far more unknown than known about nature as any
scientist will state for the record. There are plenty of things
without explanations. For example, the origin of the Big Bang and the
origin of life are rooted in speculation. How does a Big Bang happen?
How did life begin? What was the first self-replicating molecule? What
was it composed of? These are just a few of the legion of unanswered
questions in science and to claim that all things have naturalistic
explanations is to expose one’s scientific ignorance.

Carl Sagan wrote the following concerning the question of atheism,
God, and science:

An [dogmatic] atheist is someone who is certain that God
does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the
existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God
can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we
would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now
to be sure that no such God exists…." ²

In conclusion, the dogmatic atheist’s assertions on the creator issue
are invalid as demonstrated in this paper. Every argument presented by
dogmatic atheists involving science to disprove a Creator is
fallacious; there is no scientific evidence proving or even
demonstrating a Creator does not exist, and there is no scientific
research into the “God” issue. The shameful misuse of science by
dogmatic atheists is due to their failing to make distinctions between
science fiction and science (nonfiction). Dogmatic atheism, for all
its pretensions to scientific literacy, is in effect composed of
people scientifically illiterate, illogical, and addicted to
argumentum ad verecundiam (arguments from modesty). These people are
not skeptics or freethinkers but modern cynics -- the great naysayers.
Deism is the only religion which is science friendly. The naturalistic
approach to science should be encouraged because eventually by the
process of elimination, it can indirectly provide evidence for a
Creator and with time maybe find not only evidence of a Creator, but
the Creator itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Endnotes:

(1) University of Southern Mississippi

http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/scimethod.html

(2) Carl Sagan, “The Amniotic Universe,” Broca’s Brain.

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto
suspected




WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God
doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that
atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a
metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought
processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to
decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines
indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make
for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper
levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in
stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that
“atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans
think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the
New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even
people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious
beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers,
not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth,
with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A
slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer
in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of
some of their religious ideas”.



INTERNAL MONOLOGUES



Scientists have discovered that “invisible friends” are not something
reserved for children. We all have them, and encounter them often in
the form of interior monologues. As we experience events, we mentally
tell a non-present listener about it.

The imagined listener may be a spouse, it may be Jesus or Buddha
or it may be no one in particular. It’s just how the way the human
mind processes facts. The identity, tangibility or existence of the
listener is irrelevant.

“From childhood, people form enduring, stable and important
relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased
relatives, unseen heroes and fantasized mates,” says Boyer of
Washington University, himself an atheist. This feeling of having an
awareness of another consciousness might simply be the way our natural
operating system works.



PUZZLING RESPONSES



These findings may go a long way to explaining a series of puzzles in
recent social science studies. In the United States, 38% of people who
identified themselves as atheist or agnostic went on to claim to
believe in a God or a Higher Power (Pew Forum, “Religion and the
Unaffiliated”, 2012).

While the UK is often defined as an irreligious place, a recent
survey by Theos, a think tank, found that very few people—only 13 per
cent of adults—agreed with the statement “humans are purely material
beings with no spiritual element”. For the vast majority of us, unseen
realities are very present.

When researchers asked people whether they had taken part in
esoteric spiritual practices such as having a Reiki session or having
their aura read, the results were almost identical (between 38 and
40%) for people who defined themselves as religious, non-religious or
atheist.

The implication is that we all believe in a not dissimilar range
of tangible and intangible realities. Whether a particular brand of
higher consciousness is included in that list (“I believe in God”, “I
believe in some sort of higher force”, “I believe in no higher
consciousness”) is little more than a detail.


Starry Night at La Silla. Creative Common license 3.0 ESO/H. Dahle

Starry Night at La Silla

Creative Common license 3.0 ESO/H. Dahle -
http://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1333a/


EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSES



If a tendency to believe in the reality of an intangible network is so
deeply wired into humanity, the implication is that it must have an
evolutionary purpose. Social scientists have long believed that the
emotional depth and complexity of the human mind means that mindful,
self-aware people necessarily suffer from deep existential dread.
Spiritual beliefs evolved over thousands of years as nature’s way to
help us balance this out and go on functioning.

If a loved one dies, even many anti-religious people usually feel
a need for a farewell ritual, complete with readings from old books
and intoned declarations that are not unlike prayers. In war
situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray
far more than they think they do.

Statistics show that the majority of people who stop being part of
organized religious groups don’t become committed atheists, but retain
a mental model in which “The Universe” somehow has a purpose for
humanity.

In the US, only 20 per cent of people have no religious
affiliation, but of these, only one in ten say they are atheists. The
majority are “nothing in particular” according to figures published in
New Scientist.



FEELING OF CONNECTEDNESS



There are other, more socially-oriented evolutionary purposes, too.
Religious communities grow faster, since people behave better
(referring to the general majority over the millennia, as opposed to
minority extremists highlighted by the media on any given day).

Why is this so? Religious folk attend weekly lectures on morality,
read portions of respected books about the subject on a daily basis
and regularly discuss the subject in groups, so it would be inevitable
that some of this guidance sinks in.

There is also the notion that the presence of an invisible
moralistic presence makes misdemeanors harder to commit. “People who
think they are being watched tend to behave themselves and cooperate
more,” says the New Scientist’s Lawton. “Societies that chanced on the
idea of supernatural surveillance were likely to have been more
successful than those that didn't, further spreading religious ideas.”

This is not simply a matter of religious folk having a
metaphorical angel on their shoulder, dispensing advice. It is far
deeper than that—a sense of interconnectivity between all things. If I
commit a sin, it is not an isolated event but will have appropriate
repercussions. This idea is common to all large scale faith groups,
whether it is called karma or simply God ensuring that you “reap what
you sow”.



NARRATIVE PRESENCE



These theories find confirmation from a very different academic
discipline—the literature department. The present writer, based at the
Creativity Lab at Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s School of Design,
has been looking at the manifestation of cosmic justice in fictional
narratives—books, movies and games. It is clear that in almost all
fictional worlds, God exists, whether the stories are written by
people of a religious, atheist or indeterminate beliefs.

It’s not that a deity appears directly in tales. It is that the
fundamental basis of stories appears to be the link between the moral
decisions made by the protagonists and the same characters’ ultimate
destiny. The payback is always appropriate to the choices made. An
unnamed, unidentified mechanism ensures that this is so, and is a
fundamental element of stories—perhaps the fundamental element of
narratives.

In children’s stories, this can be very simple: the good guys win,
the bad guys lose. In narratives for older readers, the ending is more
complex, with some lose ends left dangling, and others ambiguous. Yet
the ultimate appropriateness of the ending is rarely in doubt. If a
tale ended with Harry Potter being tortured to death and the Dursley
family dancing on his grave, the audience would be horrified, of
course, but also puzzled: that’s not what happens in stories.
Similarly, in a tragedy, we would be surprised if King Lear’s cruelty
to Cordelia did not lead to his demise.

Indeed, it appears that stories exist to establish that there
exists a mechanism or a person—cosmic destiny, karma, God, fate,
Mother Nature—to make sure the right thing happens to the right
person. Without this overarching moral mechanism, narratives become
records of unrelated arbitrary events, and lose much of their
entertainment value. In contrast, the stories which become universally
popular appear to be carefully composed records of cosmic justice at
work.



WELL-DEFINED PROCESS



In manuals for writers (see “Screenplay” by Syd Field, for example)
this process is often defined in some detail. Would-be screenwriters
are taught that during the build-up of the story, the villain can sin
(take unfair advantages) to his or her heart’s content without
punishment, but the heroic protagonist must be karmically punished for
even the slightest deviation from the path of moral rectitude. The
hero does eventually win the fight, not by being bigger or stronger,
but because of the choices he makes.

This process is so well-established in narrative creation that the
literati have even created a specific category for the minority of
tales which fail to follow this pattern. They are known as “bleak”
narratives. An example is A Fine Balance, by Rohinton Mistry, in which
the likable central characters suffer terrible fates while the
horrible faceless villains triumph entirely unmolested.

While some bleak stories are well-received by critics, they rarely
win mass popularity among readers or moviegoers. Stories without the
appropriate outcome mechanism feel incomplete. The purveyor of cosmic
justice is not just a cast member, but appears to be the hidden heart
of the show.



ROOTS OF ATHEISM



But if a belief in cosmic justice is natural and deeply rooted, the
question arises: where does atheism fit in? Albert Einstein, who had a
life-long fascination with metaphysics, believed atheism came from a
mistaken belief that harmful superstition and a general belief in
religious or mystical experience were the same thing, missing the fact
that evolution would discard unhelpful beliefs and foster the growth
of helpful ones. He declared himself “not a ‘Freethinker’ in the usual
sense of the word because I find that this is in the main an attitude
nourished exclusively by an opposition against naive superstition”
(“Einstein on Peace”, page 510).

Similarly, Charles Darwin, in a meeting with a campaigner for
atheism in September 1881, distanced himself from the views of his
guest, finding them too “aggressive”. In the latter years of his life,
he offered his premises for the use of the local church minister and
changed his family schedule to enable his children to attend services.



SMALL DIFFERENCES



Of course these findings do not prove that it is impossible to stop
believing in God. What they do indicate, quite powerfully, is that we
may be fooling ourselves if we think that we are making the key
decisions about what we believe, and if we think we know how deeply
our views pervade our consciousnesses. It further suggests that the
difference between the atheist and the non-atheist viewpoint is much
smaller than probably either side perceives. Both groups have
consciousnesses which create for themselves realities which include
very similar tangible and intangible elements. It may simply be that
their awareness levels and interpretations of certain surface details
differ.



THE FUTURE



But as higher levels of education spread, will starry-eyed
spirituality die out and cooler, drier atheism sweep the field, as
some atheism campaigners suggest? Some specialists feel this is
unlikely. “If godlessness flourishes where there is stability and
prosperity, then climate change and environmental degradation could
seriously slow the spread of atheism,” says Lawton in New Scientist.

On a more personal level, we all have loved ones who will die, and
we all have a tendency to puzzle about what consciousness is, whether
it is separate from the brain, and whether it can survive. We will
always have existential dread with us—at a personal or societal level.
So the need for periods of contemplative calm in churches or temples
or other places devoted to the ineffable and inexplicable will remain.
They appear to be part of who we are as humans.

Furthermore, every time we read a book or watch a movie, we are
reinforcing our default belief in the eventual triumph of karma. While
there is certainly growth in the number of bleak narratives being
produced, it is difficult to imagine them becoming the majority form
of cultural entertainment. Most of us will skip Cormac McCarthy’s
crushingly depressing “The Road” in favor of the newest Pixar movie.





POPULATION IMPLICATIONS



When looking at trends, there’s also population growth to consider.
Western countries are moving away from the standard family model, and
tend to obsess over topics such as same-sex marriage and abortion on
demand. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these issues, in practice
they are associated with shrinking populations. Europeans (and the
Japanese) are not having enough children to replace the adult
generation, and are seeing their communities shrink on a daily basis.

Africans and South Asians, on the other hand, are generally
religious and retain the traditional model of multi-child
families—which may be old-fashioned from a Western point of view, but
it’s a model powerfully sanctioned by the evolutionary urge to extend
the gene pool.

“It’s clearly the case that the future will involve an increase in
religious populations and a decrease in scepticism,” says Steve Jones,
a professor in genetics at University College London, speaking at the
Hay Festival in the UK recently.

This may appear as bad news for pro-atheism campaigners. But for
the evolutionary life-force which may actually make the decisions,
this may augur well for the continued existence of humanity. (An image
of Richard Dawkins and his selfish gene having a testy argument over
dinner springs to mind.)

In the meantime, it might be wise for religious folks to
refrain from teasing atheist friends who accidentally say something
about their souls. And it might be equally smart for the more militant
of today’s atheists to stop teasing religious people at all.

We might all be a little more spiritual than we think.

Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2016 09:50:26 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 07:40:42 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2016 01:00:35 -0700
typed in alt.survival the following:

God knows ... but I don't!

And you know this!....how do you know god knows?
Please be specific!


IF I believe that God IS God, then it is logical that I'd believe God
knows. ;-)

So nothing specific then. As expected.

Actually...its quite specific. You are in denial again.

He keeps asking religious people questions, and when he gets a
religious answer, it bothers him no end. Must be that their theology
doesn't match his.

Frankly...it appears that he is mentally ill.

Are you attempting to say that religious fanatics are unhinged?

Shrug

Machts nichts als zu mir.


--
pyotr filipivich
"If once a man indulges himself in Murder, very soon he comes
to think little of Robbing, and from Robbing he comes next to
Drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to Incivility and
Procrastination." T. De Quincy (1785-1859) "Murder Considered As One of the Fine Arts"

Samuel James wrote:
4 Simple Responses to Science-Based Atheism
December 7, 2015

1. We cannot know from science if science itself is the best source of
knowledge.

There are two possibilities when it comes to human knowledge through
science. The first is that everything real is actually reducible to
scientific principles. Everything—from the universe, to human emotion,
to spiritual experiences—is explainable through scientific research.
The other option is simple: Not all existence can be explained through
science.

Here’s why this question matters. If the first option is true, then
logically science is the supreme mode of knowledge, and everything we
believe about anything must be in submission to it. The problem,
though, is that whether all of reality is ultimately explainable
through scientific concepts is not itself a scientifically provable
theory. It’s a philosophical premise, not a scientific conclusion. The
only way to definitively prove that science explains everything would
be to have exhaustive knowledge of all reality, and then be able to
explain (using only scientific data) what all reality is and what it
means. Such a feat is impossible. Therefore, the belief that science
is the best source of knowledge must be accepted on faith, since it
cannot be verified through testing.

2. Scientific consensus can and frequently does change. This limits
its epistemological authority.

The progressive nature of scientific inquiry is essential to its
value. Done rightly, science can correct its own errors. But this
presupposes science can make errors in the first place. And if that’s
true, we must ask: How do we know what could be a current error in
scientific consensus, and what do we know is absolutely true?

This is an important question to ask religious skeptics who appeal to
science. A likely response is that science may be wrong on almost
everything it says, but it almost certainly isn’t wrong about what it
doesn’t say (i.e., if science hasn’t revealed God by now, it’s not
rational to think it will). But this objection misses the point. One
doesn’t wait on science to exhaustively explain something before
believing it. If that were so, then 99 percent of human beings on the
planet wouldn’t believe in the most basic realities of existence, or
would be irrational in believing without having exhaustive scientific
knowledge. If current scientific consensus points away from the
existence of God (a highly disputable point), then who’s to say that
consensus cannot change? If it can, then science’s intellectual
authority is limited, and the expectation it will continue to oppose
religious belief is more a matter of faith.

3. Only supernatural theism provides a rational justification for
scientific work.

The wording of this point is important. If we left out the word
“rational,” then the statement would actually be false and quite easy
to shoot down. You don’t need supernatural theism to be curious, or to
explore the natural world. But you do need supernatural theism to have
a rational justification for science. What does rational mean here? It
means that scientific inquiry done on the assumption there’s no higher
intelligence than evolved human intelligence is making a value
judgment it has no right to make.

Why is knowledge better than ignorance? The atheist would respond that
ignorance has less survival value than truth; after all, if you
believe wrong things or don’t know enough about your environment,
you’re less likely to survive and flourish. But this explanation only
applies to a small amount of scientific knowledge. There is little
survival value in knowing, for example, the complicated workings of
time-space theory, or the genus of certain insects, or the distance
from Jupiter to Mars. All of these facts are pursued by scientists as
being intrinsically valuable, yet they offer little information that
can help guarantee a species’ continued existence.

The real explanation is that scientists pursue these facts because
there’s intrinsic value in knowing what’s true about the world,
regardless of how much help it gives us. Human beings believe knowing
is better than ignorance because they believe truth is better than
falsity, and light is better than darkness. But where does such a
conclusion come from? Not from scientific principles. Science itself
offers no self-evident account for why it should be pursued. You
cannot study science hard enough to understand why you should study
science at all. To study science presupposes a valuing of truth that
must be experienced outside of scientific study. It’s only rational to
pursue scientific knowledge that doesn’t offer immediate survival
value if there is some external, transcendent value in knowing truth.
Theism offers an explanation for why knowing truth is valuable.
Scientific atheism does not.

4. Only supernatural theism gives us assurance that real scientific
knowledge is possible.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is famous for articulating what he calls
the “evolutionary argument against naturalism.” The argument is
complicated in detail but simple in premise. Plantinga begins by
putting two facts alongside each other that nearly all atheists agree
on. First, the theory of evolution is true, and humans have descended
from lower life forms over time. Second, humans are rational beings in
a higher degree and superior way to lesser-evolved creatures.
Plantinga then directs our attention to a tension between these two
facts. If humans are a more evolved species of primate, then our
cognitive faculties (i.e., the parts of our body and mind that allow
us to be rational creatures) have evolved out of lesser cognitive
faculties.

But, Plantinga says, if God does not exist, then the only factors that
affected human evolution are time and chance. Based on time and chance
alone, why should we be confident our rational minds—which are merely
the sum of lesser evolved minds plus time and chance—are actually
rational at all? What basis do we have to believe our own conclusions?
How do we know we’re actually capable of knowing truth more than a
primate? If the only players in our existence are lesser creatures,
time, and chance, how do we know we’re even highly evolved at all?

This astute observation was echoed by Thomas Nagel in his recent book
Mind and Cosmos [review]. Nagel, an agnostic philosopher from New York
University, argues that human comprehension of the universe cannot be
explained merely by atheistic evolutionary processes. It makes no
sense to assume humans can make sense of their world on a conceptual
level if human consciousness arose out of the very world it responds
to. Nagel agrees with Plantinga that atheistic naturalism cannot
explain why human beings can be rational creatures and do rational
things that should be trusted.

Scientific knowledge is only possible if things unprovable by science
are actually true. If Carl Sagan is correct and the material universe
is all there was, is, and ever will be, then science itself is nothing
more than a shot in the dark. If, however, human beings are the
products of an infinitely greater mind, then we have justification for
believing that true and false are realities and not just the shadow
puppets of our ancestors.

HowStuffWorks

Are all great scientific thinkers atheist?


Did Charles Darwin's theory of evolution put his world at odds with
God? What about Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and
self-proclaimed atheist who openly speaks against religion?

If many scientific visionaries aren't religious, does that mean
they're atheist?

Sure, many marquee scientists haven't counted themselves among the
clergy, but hold on a second before hustling them all into the same
group. It all boils down to definitions. Depending on your
interpretation, atheism may equate to lacking a belief in God or a
more firm belief that God doesn't exist [source: University of
Cambridge].

Agnosticism muddies the (holy) waters even more. In general,
agnosticism means a person neither believes in nor denies God's
existence -- it insinuates not knowing for sure either way [source:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. A lot of ridiculously bright
folks, like Darwin, have been mislabeled atheist when in fact they're
agnostic.

More than 45 years after Darwin journeyed to the Galapagos to peer at
hummingbirds, the naturalist shed light on his religious beliefs in a
private journal. He wrote about lacking knowledge to know for sure if
there's a higher being: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is
insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic"
[source: PBS].

Other self-described agnostics such as physics and astronomy experts
Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan are sometimes
mislabeled atheists. These minds have challenged traditional religions
and God's role in everyday life, but may not have rejected God
outright.

Here's Sagan: " ... A general problem with much of Western theology in
my view is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny
world and not a god of a galaxy, much less of a universe."


Don't Stop Believing -- or Experimenting


And there are the believers, too. Francis Collins, who led the Human
Genome Project, identifies himself as Christian. In an interview with
PBS, the man who helped to discover the genes for Huntington's disease
and cystic fibrosis firmly rejected the idea that science and faith
must collide. Present-day primatology pioneer Jane Goodall has used
her Christian upbringing to promote religious tolerance. (As a
teenager, a passionate crush on a local man of the cloth led Goodall
to church as many as three times in a Sunday [source: Academy of
Achievement]). Reaching farther back into history, astronomer Galileo
Galilei practiced Catholicism and bundled up daughters Virginia and
Livia for the convent for life.

Still there's some truth to the atheist-scientist misconception --
scientists in the United States are more likely to not believe in God
when compared to nonscientists [source: The Pew Research Center]. Here
are the numbers from one 2009 Pew Research Center survey:


One-third of scientists said they believed in God, compared to 83
percent of the general public surveyed.
•Nearly one-fifth reported not believing in God but having faith in a
higher power (general public came in at 12 percent).
•Roughly two-fifths said they didn't believe in a God or higher power
(4 percent among the general public).

Why does a flock of the science faithful not subscribe to God?

Well, scientists often grapple with the lack of physical proof for a
higher being. There's also the idea that the world's most momentous
discoveries -- such as evidence for the massive explosion called the
big bang -- paint a different picture of the world's origins when
compared to certain religious explanations.

Whether scientists grace your local place of worship or believe their
work replaces the need for a higher being, it's no longer orthodox to
label these brilliant minds as atheist.

On 5/14/2016 3:00 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 20:33, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 2:27 PM, Bod wrote:

Just look at how different our very early ancestors skulls looked like
in the link.



It takes a lot of faith to believe humans originated from apes.

Nothing to do with faith. The DNA proves the links.


Show me an exact DNA match between apes and humans.

--
Maggie

Is the brain hardwired for religion?

by Molly Edmonds Science | The Human Brain



It started out as an ordinary day for Saul back in A.D. 36. He wanted
to murder disciples of a man who claimed to be the Messiah, and he was
on his way to Damascus to do so. Then, on the way to Damascus, a light
flashed all around Saul. He fell to the ground and heard a voice that
claimed to be Jesus Christ. The voice told him to continue to the
town, a task likely made no easier by the blindness Saul experienced
when he got up. Saul remained blind for three days, until a disciple
named Ananias laid hands upon him. Saul's sight was restored, and he
immediately became baptized. After his experience, Saul became a
powerful preacher for Jesus; today, he's better known as St. Paul.

Paul's story is interesting not just to biblical scholars, but to
neuro-scientists as well. Some scientists claim that the account of
this conversion, found in the book of Acts, contains enough evidence
to diagnose Paul with temporal lobe epilepsy. The flash of light, the
voices and the fall to the ground are the evidence of a seizure,
according to these neuroscientists, with the blindness a result of the
postictal state that follows a seizure [source: Brorson, Brewer].
While most doctors agree that it's impossible to diagnose epilepsy
definitively in someone who lived so long ago, Paul would join some
other religious figures reputed to have brain disorders, including
Moses and St. Teresa of Avila [sources: BBC, Begley].

The link between epilepsy and the Lord doesn't end with that list,
though. In one study, researchers examined how certain words affected
those with epilepsy compared to those without. The words were divided
into three groups: neutral words, like "table," erotic words, such as
"sex," and religious words, such as "God." In those without epilepsy,
erotic words produced the biggest change in body chemistry, but in
people with epilepsy, religious words created the biggest emotional
effect. Sexual words had a much lower response [source: BBC]. Like the
story of Paul, this study seemed to suggest that the temporal lobe has
something to do with religious feelings.

These examples represent the intersection of science and religion, a
field currently known as neurotheology. The goal of neurotheology is
to determine what's happening in the brain during a religious
experience. Obviously, the field can be a bit controversial; those
with deeply spiritual beliefs about the connection between a person
and his or her maker aren't thrilled about reducing religion to
something happening in the brain. But the work of the scientists does
seem to show that there's some connection with our gray matters and
our pray matters. So, is nirvana all in our noggin? Are we simply
responding to brain firings when we drag ourselves out of bed on
Sunday morning? Read on to find out what God might be doing to your
brain.


The Brain During Religious Experiences


Because of the work connecting temporal lobe epilepsy and spiritual
experiences, scientists previously believed that the temporal lobe was
the only part of the brain involved in religious feelings. Recent
imaging studies, however, have shown that many parts of the brain are
activated during a religious experience.

At the forefront of these imaging studies is Andrew Newberg, a doctor
at the University of Pennsylvania. Newberg used single photon emission
computed tomography, or SPECT, imaging to take pictures of the brain
during religious activity. SPECT provides a picture of blood flow in
the brain at a given moment, so more blood flow indicates more
activity.













One of Newberg's studies examined the brains of Tibetan Buddhist monks
as they meditated. The monks indicated to Newberg that they were
beginning to enter a meditative state by pulling on a piece of string.
At that moment, Newberg injected radioactive dye via an intravenous
line and imaged the brain. Newberg found increased activity in the
frontal lobe, which deals with concentration; the monks obviously were
concentrating on the activity [source: Vedantam].

But Newberg also found an immense decrease of activity in the parietal
lobe. The parietal lobe, among other things, orients a person in a
three-dimensional space. This lobe helps you look around to determine
that you're 15 feet (4.6 meters) away from a bathroom, 6 feet (1.8
meters) away from a door and so on. Newberg hypothesizes that the
decreased activity in the brains of the meditating monks indicates
that they lose their ability to differentiate where they end and
something else begins [source: Paulson]. In other words, they become
at one with the universe, a state often described in a moment of
transcendence.

And it seems to matter little to whom or what that religious activity
is directed toward, for Newberg found similar brain activity in the
brains of praying nuns. Though the nuns were praying to God, rather
than meditating like the monks, they showed increased activity in the
frontal lobe as they began focusing their minds. There was also a
decrease of activity in the parietal lobe, seemingly indicating that
the nuns lost their sense of self in relation to the real world and
were able to achieve communion with God [source: Paulson].

There were, however, slight differences in the brain activity of one
religious group: Pentecostal Christians who speak in tongues. The
Pentecostals actually experienced a decrease in frontal lobe activity;
instead of focusing their attention as the nuns and monks did, they
paid less attention to the task at hand [source: Carey]. Even though
they spoke in tongues, the language center of the brain wasn't
activated [source: Paulson]. This brain activity is fairly consistent
with descriptions of what speaking in tongues is like -- you lose
control of yourself as a person, and God speaks through you.

While Newberg's work has been supported by other scientists conducting
imaging studies, some have a problem with the basis of the experiment.
Critics of Newberg's work argue that you can't reduce all religious
behaviors to just meditating or praying [source: PBS]. Religion
encompasses more than that. What, for example, might happen in the
brain of someone doing charity work for the poor? What happens when
someone makes a moral choice based on his or her belief system?
Newberg's work as of yet is focused on individual, private
experiences, as opposed to the relationships and experiences that
happen between other people [source: Peters].

**Others are more concerned with the implications of the study. If
religion is just an activation of certain parts of the brain, does
that mean God or any higher power is just in our heads? That's not
necessarily what scientists are trying to prove or disprove. After
all, if we are wired to believe in God, then it's not a far leap to
believe that God is the one who wired humans that way. But if we have
this structure, is there any way to tinker with it so that we can have
mystical experiences all the time? And is there any benefit to this
brain structure in the first place? Go on to the next page to find
out.


Do We Need the God Helmet?




Not that kind of God Helmet. George Burns in the film "Oh, God!
Book II"




Not that kind of God Helmet. George Burns in the film "Oh, God! Book
II"

Warner Bros./Getty Images

As we learn more about what happens in the brain during a religious
experience, is it possible that we'll ever be able to create them
ourselves? Could we flip a switch and see the face of God? No more
meditation, prayer or fasting? A scientist named Michael Persinger
thinks it's possible. e's Per

Persinger has gained attention for his work with the "God Helmet,"
headgear so named because it may induce a person to feel the presence
of God. The God Helmet includes electrodes that Persinger uses to
alter the electromagnetic field at the temporal lobes. Persinger
claims he can create a religious experience for anyone by disrupting
the brain with regular electric pulses. This will cause the left
temporal lobe to explain the activity in the right side of the brain
as a sensed presence. The sensed presence could be anything from God
to demons, and when not told what the experiment involved, about 80
percent of God Helmet wearers reported sensing something nearby
[source: BBC].













Will it work for everyone? Richard Dawkins, famous for his criticism
of religion, reported only slight dizziness and twitching in the legs
after some time in the God Helmet [source: Horgan]. Persinger says
that some people may just be more genetically predisposed to sensing
God or another higher power, and they may not need a God Helmet to do
so [source: Hitt]. According to Persinger, naturally occurring
electromagnetic fields can also cause religious experiences,
particularly in those with this predisposition to sensing God. For
example, powerful meteor showers were occurring when Joseph Smith,
founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints, was visited by the angel
Moroni, and when Charles Taze Russell formed the Jehovah's Witnesses
[source: Hitt].

But is there any advantage to being genetically open to God?
Scientists are trying to discern if there's an evolutionary reason for
why our brains are so receptive to religious experiences. Religion
might be a side effect of a developing brain; our brains needed ways
to explain the world around us, so they may have created a belief
system that could serve as kind of default place to turn in the case
of questions. Religion could serve that purpose to early man, with its
somewhat supernatural stories to explain cause-and-effect. But now,
religion is an expensive trait to carry forward; it involves time and
sacrifice, such as fasting. And now, there are scientific methods to
explaining the world. Shouldn't religion have died by now?

Atheists may, of course, say yes, but as one anthropologist points
out, even some atheists cross their fingers when a plane experiences
turbulence. This may indicate that our brain will always seek out some
sort of transcendental hope or otherworldly protection, even if it's
not called God [source: Henig]. And some evolutionary biologists argue
that there are important individual and collective benefits to a mind
hardwired for religion [source: The Economist]. Individually, people
who believe that someone bigger than themselves is watching them may
make better choices in terms of their evolutionary fitness; they may
be less likely to drink or engage in other dangerous behaviors if they
feel something or someone higher than them may disapprove. But the
real benefit may come down to a facet of Darwinism that doesn't get
much attention anymo survival of entire groups.

One study evaluated the success of various communes in 19th-century
America. The communes with a secular ideology were four times as
likely to disband in any given year [source: The Economist]. But in
religious communes, such as modern-day kibbutzim in Israel, those
subject to the strongest religious rules have been shown to be the
most altruistic and cooperative of the bunch. In tests that examine an
individual's generosity when the entire group is at stake, those
living in these types of communities of faith are more likely to pool
resources, which promotes the survival of the collective [source: The
Economist]. Religion in that sense is a way for people to work
together, to have an interest in an entire group's survival due to
shared beliefs.