I don't have all the answers; I am just putting my best thoughts on all of this out because I wanted them to be scrutinized and to be told whether or not they were solid. Douglas Adams once said that there are some people who believe that every time someone figures out the Universe, it completely changes and becomes more complex. Some people think that this has already happened several times. That's my answer.
The word atheist seems to be a sticking point amongst theists and possibly seems to dissuade rather than encourage them to reconsider. Do we even need a word to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god? No one is a theist at birth. Theism is something which is added. Why do we need a label for something which is the default for every person? I think that everyone should be assumed to be the default. The question shouldn't be are you an atheist? It should be are you a theist?
Some say it means "One who believes that no deities exist." And from there stems the whole "you can't prove my god doesn't exist!!!!!" argument. Which is true, gods haven't been disproven. What they haven't been however is proven or on the receiving end of any kind of evidence to support their existence. Theists are the people whom are different from the norm and therefore they deserve a word to describe them. This is why the word non-pastafarian hasn't been coined. Pastafarians are different from the norm which is why they deserve a word to describe them.
Let's argue about definitions for another 5 pages again. Cause it was so much fun last time.... And yeah, I agree with you, but the word already exists and people are going to use it no matter what anyways...
There's a quote that describes my annoyance with this, and several other topics in the Gen. Philosophy forums that basically says that the problem with modern philosophy is that people care more about words than the meaning behind them. Remember that all words exist to describe a phenomena or concept that we've encountered, and are only paths of communication, not the travelers.
One of the things I like about the Muslim portrayal of hell is that even if you're not Muslim, after serving an appropriate punishment you get to go up to Heaven anyway.
Well, hell isn't exactly skipping through a field of flowers. Plus, it's better than going to hell for ALL ETERNITY because you were born in some remote village in South America and never heard about the existence of Abrahamic religions.
"...Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past. For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance. Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged." The God Delusion becomes clearer everyday to me . The take away sentence to me, "Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection." I shall enjoy the angry responses and justifications as I once did. I'm feeling particularly atheist today after having visited my grandmother in the hospital for the 9th month in a row. If there was a God he would certainly allow her the death that she needs; I'd rather die young than die old, slow, and senile.
So you're going to throw out what scientists find and interpret this to support God's existence? You're ridiculous.
All logical/philosophical problems with this idea aside, you'll notice that it's a genetic argument. And, funny thing about genetic arguments, they can only make "predictions" AFTER THE FACT. Thought is a process infinitely too complicated for DNA to have a significant bearing over, something recognized by pretty much all scientists.
yurp! THE SUN RISES in the morning! The Tides rise! EVERY SINGLE DAY! YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT!!!! Sorry I'm not like mad I actually think it's kind of funny... and a terrible argument. everything is finite. there is a limited number of every thing. therefore, there is a limited number of natural laws that have always existed. mankind will eventually understand all the secrets of the universe, if we survive long enough. That is the nominalist approach to life. If you can't touch, taste, feel, hear, or see something; then it is just a theory.
The complexity of thought is at the very least exceedingly too powerful for DNA to significantly influence. This is an unprovable basic premise that you accept as true. This is a unprovable basic premise that you accept as true. This is an unprovable basic premise that you accept as true. And you hold no monopoly on objective reality, nor of perceivable truth. This is a terrible argument. It's a basic truth that our perceptions are limited. There are things we can't see, touch, taste, feel, or hear, and yet we know they exist. The spectrum of light is only partially visible to us. Yet we know that there exists much more than the visible spectrum.
I'm not saying I'm right... Just that your wrong. It's a bit like you suggesting that God exists. I say that all the evidence points to the contrary. The untouchable, unseeable, absent deity is the worst kind in my book...
What evidence? By what preposterous means might one divine the "religiousness" of a person through examination of their DNA? Correlation =/= causation and, more importantly, the circumstances by which religion may even come about require the existence of language, a medium for communication which is most certainly not inscribed in our genetic code. DNA might be able to affect the color of your hair, the likelihood you will get heart disease, or even which sex you find yourself attracted to, but it simply cannot affect something which exists outside of the realm of purely material existence.
Way to misinterpret and construe the findings. The findings specifically found that people attached to protector figures, such as mothers, and were desperate to not be 'lonely'. God is a convenient creation that does not take language to understand. The ultimate invisible friend. Of course, the study is bullshit. It doesn't prove anything... to me. I figured I would be arguing with you when I decided to post so I put up a quote that I could feel okay for you to systematically deny without me getting frustrated. You're not a nominalist, you're obviously platonic, otherwise you wouldn't have blind faith. I can't accept everything on faith like that. I don't deny that I trust consensus when I learn things like science, but I always hold on to doubt, which is why things like Einsteins curved space theorem fundamentally disproving hundreds of years of math evolution aren't surprising to me.
