Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Religion a figment of human imagination
newscientist.com — That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.
MrBabyMan- 194 diggs
- digg it
- buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -16/+4god is.
- JigoroKano, on 04/28/2008, -3/+14Dead.
- Waiting2awake, on 04/28/2008, -5/+2Long live supermen?
- custal, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6"God is dead" -- Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead" -- God
"The dead don't talk" -- Django
- DeskFlyer, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2The prince of Bel-air.
- Diderotten, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2In my toast.
- DarkSamus, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1a n00b
- JigoroKano, on 04/28/2008, -3/+14Dead.
- sykotik, on 04/28/2008, -5/+6An excellent book that goes deeper is "Why God won't go away." It seeks to find a fundamental reason for religion. It argues that without religion, the human race would have basically become apathetic and died out, due to being the only species able to contemplate on death and the "meaningless" of life and all that one accomplishes during their lifetime.
In other words, "what's the point?"- JigoroKano, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14That conclusion flies in the face of the numerous irreligious cultures prospering right now.
- sykotik, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4We're talking ancient man here, not current society. Read the book first, gain some insight. You'll enjoy it, believe me.
- KokomoNYC, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Are you implying that the average person has gotten more "rational" or something since antiquity? There's more science, but I think people are still generally as dumb and scared as they ever have been.
- sykotik, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Somewhat, yes, I elaborated in a comment in the main body, just so that people who don't read replies will understand why I suggested the book.
- doubledoh, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2It's not that man has gotten more rational, it's that we have a hell of alot more knowledge about the universe and its components which certainly allays many of our fears and uncertainties. Also, science DOES and will play a huge role in the eventual demise of religion because its technologies will eventually eradicate disease and probably even death. When this happens, people will be far less likely to seek "meaning" in a life after death, because they simply won't need to.
- KokomoNYC, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"it's that we have a hell of a lot more knowledge"
The knowledge is available, yes, but I disagree that "we" "have" said knowledge. People are still ignorant, and probably always will be. I don't buy that science will play a role in the "eventual demise" of religion. While it might be possible that we push the limits of human age, I sincerely doubt death will be "eradicated" especially since old age isn't the only thing that kills ya. I find that many people, religious or not, don't look for meaning in life because they know they're going to die; many seem to look for meaning because they want life (death or no death) to have one.
- sykotik, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4We're talking ancient man here, not current society. Read the book first, gain some insight. You'll enjoy it, believe me.
- Terr01, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3In the words of Morpheus (the AI):
The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.
[...]
God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgment, and punishment. Other sentiments toward them were secondary.
[...]
The human organism always worships. First it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be the self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment.
[...]
The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization.
[...]
God was a dream of good government.
--- And that is why you need to play Deus Ex :) - MisterFreeze, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4You could just as easily argue that the expectation of a paradise waiting after death makes life on earth seem pointless, and that religious people would be apathetic or suicidal. Actually, that does seem to be the case for the religious right... they are hell-bent on destroying the planet as quickly as possible.
- JigoroKano, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14That conclusion flies in the face of the numerous irreligious cultures prospering right now.
- lucidguru, on 04/28/2008, -7/+24Religion = Fairy Tale
- bosssmiley, on 04/28/2008, -4/+9And, like all good fairy tales, it serves to teach us valuable lessons about how the world works.
- KokomoNYC, on 04/28/2008, -2/+10...as long as we don't take them literally, and pretend they are just as valid as rigorous science as an assesment of nature.
- bosssmiley, on 04/28/2008, -4/+9And, like all good fairy tales, it serves to teach us valuable lessons about how the world works.
- youtellme8, on 04/28/2008, -5/+20Religion is both a figment of our imagination and also one of the largest things standing in the way of peaceful globalization. The time of religions is over. The beginning of its end has come.
- johndi, on 04/28/2008, -3/+8It's easy to blame it on religion, but it's worse than that. Other primates engage in what is basically tribal warfare, the genes for distrusting outsiders run deep. On top of that most people are geared to play follow the leader. While many leaders use religion as a tool to get people to go to war it isn't necessary. Nationalism seems to be a better tool than religion. Look at what Stalin and Pol Pot managed in the name of the state. You're belief that religion is the root of war is an excellent example of how we easily we fool ourselves into believing our way is superior and those who our different must be made to conform for the good of all.
- sgiffy, on 04/28/2008, -2/+13I think the problem is faith ,whether in a a religion or an ideology. Anytime claims are not subject to rational analysis there is the potential for extreme evil.
- MrColdheart, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5i'd like to take it one step further and add it might be how evolution has made us prone to accept information from others as a substitute for actual experience and/or problem solving.
- sgiffy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Agreed. I think many of our biological predispositions that might have conveyed a survival advantage at some point, are now mostly liabilities. In addition to in group trust, I think that its our assumption that agency is behind everything that leads to a lot of religious nonsense.
- MrColdheart, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5i'd like to take it one step further and add it might be how evolution has made us prone to accept information from others as a substitute for actual experience and/or problem solving.
- dinsy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"peaceful globalization" = oxymoron
- sk11, on 04/28/2008, -3/+5Abraham must've had one ***** up imagination.
- KokomoNYC, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4I think the people who wrote about Abraham may have had the ***** up imaginations.
- atdigg, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4if Abraham lived nowadays he would get interned into a mental hospital....
- talonstriker, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1seriously guys don't rip on the "prophets." People of those times didn't have the scientific knowledge that we have at our disposal. So if they see a lightning strike or some natural phenomenon that they can't understand, its natural intuition to beleive that some sort of pissed off god is causing it. So at that period in time, religion was excusable.
- sgiffy, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5You could combine this with Meme theory for a fuller picture. Imagination allows us to create fanciful communities and explanations. Selection pressures then result in the ones most successful ones spreading.
- hydroplane, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1I can has religion?
- sykotik, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Ah yes, memes. For those, I highly suggest the book "The Lucifer Principle."
- cheezeme, on 04/28/2008, -19/+2The U.S. is based on freedom of religion. So stop with the anti-religion articles already.
- johndi, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10This isn't an anti-religion article. It is an article on why Maurice Bloch believes religion was inevitable. Read it again, you won't find anything bad said about religion in it.
- donjacko, on 04/28/2008, -1/+111- just because its legal doesn't mean its right
2- i live in Britain so i don't give a crap - DeskFlyer, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I suggest you read this comment left by a digger awhile ago:
http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Digg_and_YouTube_Powerin ... - sgiffy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6I don't think you really understand the concept of a freedom.
- buhbyebot, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3or what? You'll pout?
- kittnerrules, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3THIS GUY JUST SPOUTS GARBAGE TO GET A BUNCH OF REPLIES, AND YOU ARE ALL FALLING FOR IT
- DeskFlyer, on 04/28/2008, -3/+14Nonsense! I'm touched by holy noodly appendages every day. FOOLS
- Terr01, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4If you please, take this doll and indicate for the court exactly where he touched you with his noodly appendages.
- Kordras, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1RAmen.
- Orion1004, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2The real question is what is the brain chemistry that created our ability to "imagine"? Einstein said it's our species' most powerful tool.
- KokomoNYC, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3My dog has dreams.
- sgiffy, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0Its not a big leap form symbolic thought and symbolic thought itself is not that big a leap from memory.
- carbonetc, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1The ability to create internal simulations of reality is extremely useful for survival. Instead of simply doing something and finding out whether it kills you or not, you can simulate the action based on your understanding of how the world works to find out ahead of time AND repeatedly revise the action until you get the result you want.
Check out "Kinds of Minds" by Daniel Dennett for a great overview of the progression of internal representations of the world in animals. - MrColdheart, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1imagination comes from the minds ability to predict certain outcomes bye creating a simulation.. when we hunted in groups we needed the ability to use strategy.
I think most life can "imagine", the ability to think your next step through can save the organisms life.
- KingCook, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8Religion / the bible / egyptian pyramids / the aztec pyramids are all based on 1 thing ASTROLOGY
imagine 2000 years back it gets dark people get together around a fire seeing thousands millions of stars in the sky ... no TV no FOX no internetz : so people told stories about the sky and and the stars and about mozes and jezus to teach their kids the morals of the stories ....
Religion raped these stories and called them their own ( compare christianity with egyptian religion and you will see the old testament is almost (till the very last detail ... virgin births resurrections and all that supernatural stuff) a copy of their religion (so is islam and every other religion if you dare to compare them.
Religion is about values : not believing the book as it is written
And you dont need religion to have values ... You need a good nurturing violence-free environment to grow up, good education family and friends above all other things
It is time we start getting our act together so we can look past the heavens and see the sky ... SPACE really is the final frontier- 10lbhammer, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3"this is the dawning of the age of aquarius..."
astrologically, the age of pisces (religion) is drawing to a close, and the age of aquarius (man) is upon us. the end of an age is marked by the dominant paradigm of that age fighting hard to maintain their dominance. religious fundamentalism is alive and well, for the time being, and will only get worse...
not that I believe in that astrological crap or anything. - sykotik, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3What he's trying to say is, go hit up youtube or google videos and search "Zeitgeist" to get an idea of how much the various religions throughout the ages borrowed ideas from one another.
It's actually quite interesting.
- 10lbhammer, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3"this is the dawning of the age of aquarius..."
- Calcularius, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1http://www.dnahelices.com/noreligion/noreligion.jp ...
- kittnerrules, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2So no Muslims, Jews, or Christians; but Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Baha'iism, and Jainism are okay then? Please clarify, I don't want to worship under false pretenses.
- dwilljo, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1I didn't bother reading the article because...well human imagination is a figment of human imagination
- hiscity, on 04/28/2008, -7/+2No surprise that the CHOkers endorse maya.
CHO = cult of human omniscience (aka atheists)
maya = illusion deified - sykotik, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Ok, this is in reply to the people who posted to my comment earlier about the book "Why God Won't Go Away"
------
I'm simply implying to read the book. And think about it like this, ancient man, had the same capacity for intelligence we have, but that doesn't mean they had the same knowledge we have.
Let me try to elaborate on a passage that was in the book, though this will be from memory and in my own words.
An ancient hunter is facing a harsh winter. Not many deer have been seen in the area, and he's tasked with going out and finding food for the tribe. Weary from lack of hunger, he goes out, determined, because he knows that if he does not come back with meat (food) he, and possibly his tribe, will perish. Days pass as he stalks out in the woods, hunting for any sign of deer, life, food.
After 3 days, exhausted to the point of delirium, resting against a tree, he looks up, and he sees the most beautiful thing he's ever seen in his entire existence. He sees a deer, the largest he's ever seen, standing against a rising sun. Something inside him stirs, something he's never experienced before, a tingling of the skin, and the hairs on the back of his neck raise, and endorphins flood his brain, causing giddiness and happiness.
Awash with this bizarre sensation, he carefully takes aim and slays the animal. He approaches the beast, and in a moment of stupor, he does something he's never done, he falls on his face before the slain beast and chants, and sings, and cries, and begs the beast for forgiveness and thanks the beast for it's body and soul.
Once the moment passes, he feels strength renewed, he takes the animal back to the camp, and explains in detail the experience he had. How the beast magically appeared, bathed in radiant light, how they looked straight into each others eyes, into each others souls, and how the beast surrendered his life willingly to the hunter so that their tribe may have food, and survive another winter.
This feeling he had, it would be felt in the other members of the tribe, but it wouldn't be as vibrant or as powerful, but it would be felt nonetheless.
So, in a moment of reverence, the grab some burnt coal and go into the cave, and draw the beast in all it's splendor on the wall, and thus, the first religion, the first GOD was born.
An animal god.
Now, that's basically from memory, though I probably embellished it a bit with poetry and prose, but that was the gist of the book. Also, they made points about being ancient man, and being aware of death, something that other animals arguably don't have any sense of. And this awareness would cause apathy towards life because, what would it all mean in the end? Nothing, life is for nothing. Thus the beginning of the afterlife, and burial, etc.
It's damn good book, that's what I'm trying to say here.- doubledoh, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I read this book a couple of years ago and I have to concur, it is worth reading.
- bstory, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3religion = incentive trap
- JimmySpaza, on 04/29/2008, -11/+2Christianity came about because people saw Jesus do miracles, fulfill the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament, and supernaturally appear very much alive after being killed via crucifixion. To them, it was all about seeing and believing.
To millions of Christians today, it's about faith, science, AND experience. We have had encounters with angels, demons, and perhaps God Himself. It is real.
Why do you think that most Christians remain as Christians? Honestly, if I found Christianity to be false, I'd leave it behind in a heartbeat. To walk as a Christian every day is a huge pain. I only do it because God is real...and I have experience to back it up.
Just because YOU have never experienced anything...- atdigg, on 04/29/2008, -2/+10I've seen David Copperfield perform miracles too, I wasn't that impressed, but I bet people living 2000 years ago would have been very impressed if I did a trick with a penny.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/29/2008, -11/+1Nah, they probably would have just laughed at you.
Why do some people assume that humanity 2,000 years ago was soooo stupid compared to that of today? Why do people think that common sense only occurred in the last few hundred years?
Perhaps some people have an inflated opinion of technology's impact on human intellect.- sk11, on 04/29/2008, -1/+10Well, luckily we have people like you to remind us that gullibility is as alive today as it was in the past.
- Lyk4n, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8Not that long ago, people though termites sprouted from wood because it began to rot. Termites, out of nowhere!
- carbonetc, on 04/29/2008, -1/+102000 years ago people understood virtually nothing about the brain. For most people, the mind and soul were completely synonymous. They didn't have that Freudian notion that there are elaborate things going on in our minds that we aren't aware of. There was only transparent consciousness and nothing else.
The consequence of this is that they had little understanding of the various cognitive biases that continuously interfere with our perceptions (especially in undisciplined people). So you're right, seeing WAS believing, and this isn't always a good thing. Looks are often deceiving.
They were very smart, but their ignorance of how polluted their perceptions were often lead them to misapply their intellect, as you so often misapply your own. This is largely what the scientific method is about. It's about triangulating knowledge that our perceptual apparatus are too tinted and warped to show us fully. It's about weeding out the cognitive biases that are so often celebrated on the religious side; "Faith" is just another name for some of them.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/29/2008, -11/+1Nah, they probably would have just laughed at you.
- brainwash, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9But what you don't take into consideration is the subjective aspect of those 'encounters'. Those experiences you base your faith might just be influenced by what you have been taught as true in your religion. One person might look at an event and proclaim it a miracle, while another might just say that the devil just tried to possess someone, and even another will say it was just the wind.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/29/2008, -8/+3True. It is difficult to promote one's subjective experiences as evidence for others to consider.
Nevertheless, intelligent people can come together in agreement on even the most spectacular supernatural events.
For example, a young girl with glowing red eyes, speaking Latin backwards, and spinning her neck around in a physically impossible way can be explained several ways:
1) It's an illusion or special effects.
2) The observers to this event are not really seeing such things...vis-a-vis The Matrix.
3) The girl is exhibiting some very rare form of body control and superior intelligence.
4) The girl really is possessed by one or more demons, and those demons are using their supernatural power to scare the crap out of anyone watching.
Using common sense:
1) Very doubtful. How can special effects do such things, especially if the observers are mere feet away from the girl?
2) Not possible. You would first have to provide evidence that this Matrix is real.
3) Impossible. No one can do such things. Science has shown this to be the case.
4) Possible...if you allow for the supernatural in your assessment. The Bible records such events and details information about demons.
I have been in the presence of people possessed by demons. While they did not exhibit the characteristics of this girl as exemplified in the movie The Exorcist, there were supernatural attributes.
I guess at some point you would have to see it to believe it. I believed it beforehand. Perhaps that's why God allowed me to be exposed to such events...because I was spiritually prepared to deal with it.
If you never believe ANYTHING without scientifically testing it first, then it is doubtful that you will believe me.
Of course, human consciousness is not scientifically testable in this manner either. Yet, you exist...and know it subjectively. So, are you sure that subjective experience is of little worth?- sykotik, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8I don't believe anyone would proclaim a subjective experience as having "little worth," unless they have no real understanding of what constitutes a subjective experience. I mean, if you look at it, reality itself is a subjective experience. Very few people regard their reality (and really, is there any other reality beyond ones own?) as being of "little worth." No, to each person who has ever lived, reality was all they had, regardless of mental health or even suicidal tendencies. To me, a subjective experience, apart from reality, is something to be shared and reflected upon, regardless of the experience. Even religious experiences such as you've encountered.
I've been to a Pentacostal (spelling?) Church, and let me tell you, those people, to me, were crazy. Not mentally crazy, just really into their worship, and tongues, and things of that nature. They were filled with the "holy spirit" and that was their reason for acting how they acted. To me, a person who was never baptized, or even taken to a church until I was old enough to try one out on my own, it was merely the brain releasing a flood of chemicals that caused euphoria and near psychosis. I felt a tingle or two, as some talked to me, but again, for me, it was just a bio-chemical reaction, not a "holy spirit" entering my soul.
My thing is, I agree to disagree. I'll gladly hear out or read the writings of a Christian or Muslim, or WHOEVER, I won't disrespect them, I won't even try to sway them... well.. maybe I'll get slightly irritated by the ones that come door to door.. but I'll still hear them out before informing them of what I think. After all, if I had to listen to them, why can't they listen to me? But they never really LISTEN. They hear, but they don't listen to what I'm trying to say. And that is, I respect your right to believe what you like, you obviously believe very much in religion and God. But I do not, and since I do not force my beliefs on you, or belittle you, don't do the same to me.
That would be about the only problem I have with the "religious" types, though in all fairness, it's not all of them, only some.
I have no qualms with any other person, I have no hate for any other person, I respect each persons right to live how they wish, and sometimes, I wish that's how everyone thought, but then, that would be paradoxical, because then I'd want everyone to believe what I believe.
So aside from a few comments on digg, I keep my mouth shut and let everyone do whatever makes them happy, because if people are happy, then I'm happy.
In the end, the only right answer is ones own personal answer. And that is subjective, and there's no easy way to make someone believe something they don't want to believe. It's that persons choice. It's their RIGHT as a HUMAN. Think about this lonely blue planet floating in space, cold, empty (from a biological perspective) and alone, precious in that there is thought and life and reflection on it and IT alone, as far as we know. That is my perspective. I stand by that, and will stand by that, until the day I die, and my reality, subjective though it may be, disappears and is lost forever.
Because my reality is all I really have in the end.- JimmySpaza, on 04/30/2008, -3/+4I may not agree with your conclusions, but I dugg you up for fairness, open-mindedness, and honesty. I hope that you post more in Diggland.
- Arcesius, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Wow, dude, that was almost poetic. You should be a writer or something.
- sykotik, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8I don't believe anyone would proclaim a subjective experience as having "little worth," unless they have no real understanding of what constitutes a subjective experience. I mean, if you look at it, reality itself is a subjective experience. Very few people regard their reality (and really, is there any other reality beyond ones own?) as being of "little worth." No, to each person who has ever lived, reality was all they had, regardless of mental health or even suicidal tendencies. To me, a subjective experience, apart from reality, is something to be shared and reflected upon, regardless of the experience. Even religious experiences such as you've encountered.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/29/2008, -8/+3True. It is difficult to promote one's subjective experiences as evidence for others to consider.
- sk11, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7You can make the same claims about any religion. I'm sure many people say the same about the buddha for example. Obviously, christianity and buddhism can't both be right. Therefore, your reasoning is flawed.
- hiscity, on 04/30/2008, -5/+2JS ... The one's that want to know Jesus will be drawn to Him; all we need do is help. It's mainly up to Him though, and He doesn't fail. The rest are subject to "strong delusion." They don't care about our daily experiences of interacting with Christ, (Rev. 22:11-12). Or the battles... overcomings... testimonies....
The funny thing is that they wrestle with trivia like religion or belief, and miss that neither can save them from "the dump." No worries. Hell is a very good thing (and loving). It serves an excellent purpose, like a medical waste or bio-hazard incinerator, (spiritually considered of course).
The focus is not on the battle or taking out the trash (which is part of the angels' duties), but on search and rescue. He saves! (and much much more...)
G&P!- sk11, on 04/30/2008, -2/+5So much for "christian compassion" lol. So they consider non-christians to be bio-waste, like excrement. I guess that would justify treating non-christians as untermenschen. I can almost hear hiscity gleefully preparing the gas chambers for the 'purification'. Heil christ.
- hiscity, on 04/30/2008, -4/+2Dung is at least good for fertilizer.
Hell was made for the devil and the rebel angels. It's more like a place to contain black plague or anthrax.
We don't exterminate violent criminals, we lock them up. That's lovingkindness extended to both the criminals and those they victimized.
The damned aren't cast out into hell to burn them up. That's not their function.The damned are hell. It's true they aren't fit to be the Temple of the Living God. But that's not their purpose. They are fit to be the prison (like bio-waste containers) of satan and the demons.
Demon possession is the same. Roach motels.
Our battles are not with "non-christians." It's with satan and the rest of the wicked angels.
Very glad to have you trap them.- sk11, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4Ah, I see, so now non-christians are the equivalent of violent criminals such as murderers and rapists, who need to be locked away in a concentration camp forever. But christians who commit violent crimes get rewarded, right? I guess it's at least one step up from hitler, talk about low standards.
Demon possessions are dangerous delusions. It's like that Texas mother who murdered her children because she thought they were possessed by satan. When she earlier told her fellow church goers about the voices in her head, they reassured her that god was speaking to her directly. I guess you'd think her to be an example of a good christian?
Your babblings about angels and demons are no different to those of the ancient pagans. It's just that they had a few more gods to choose from. This antiquated superstitious nonsense has no place in the modern world.
"Very glad to have you trap them."
I can't: I lost my ghostbusters kit a few years ago. - hiscity, on 04/30/2008, -3/+1Nope, you missed again -- perfect response. Non-christians are the equivalent of the prison to contain the murderers and rapists. Satan and his ilk are the real criminals.
In other words, non-christians are like radioactive materials containers. They have a purpose, contain the contamination. Just as I'm glad that we have such containers, that provide needed long term storage, I'm glad that non-christians serve in such a capacity likewise.
Of course that means that they have to be a very durable container. It takes hard walls to make a prison and very long lasting super hard walls to make up a radioactive waste container, especially one that can take the heat.
That's true of non-christians also. To be hell, and imprison or contain the rebel angels -- they need to be hard-hearted, hard-assed, hard-headed, and stiff-necked. Typical idol worshippers in fact. You'll do nicely -- and for a very very long time, forever.
Praise God!- sk11, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I'm not fluent in crazy-speak so it's hard to decipher what you say half the time. Trying to understand what crazy people are ranting about is like trying to understand a drunk.
Read the whole post, not just the bits you prefer, oh wait, you're christian: cherry-picking verses from the bible must have forced a habit.
"non-christians are like radioactive materials containers"
Your repugnant superiority complex is no different to that of race supremacists.
You sound more and more like that schizophrenic woman who murdered her children. I urge you to seek psychiatric help.
- sk11, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I'm not fluent in crazy-speak so it's hard to decipher what you say half the time. Trying to understand what crazy people are ranting about is like trying to understand a drunk.
- sk11, on 04/30/2008, -2/+4Ah, I see, so now non-christians are the equivalent of violent criminals such as murderers and rapists, who need to be locked away in a concentration camp forever. But christians who commit violent crimes get rewarded, right? I guess it's at least one step up from hitler, talk about low standards.
- nitsuj, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4"Christianity came about because people saw Jesus do miracles, fulfill the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament, and supernaturally appear very much alive after being killed via crucifixion."
These events are claimed by the gospels. The gospels authors are UNKNOWN and they were written way after the supposed death of christ. Furthermore, the gospels are based from the same earlier anecdotal stories and are therefore not credible isolated documents. Even in this respect they get much wrong and there are inconsistencies.
So what you have is a bunch of anecdotes written way after christ's time by authors unknown. This is more than enough to start alarm bells ringing.
Match that with Paul borrowing attributes from other mythologies which influenced him (virgin birth, Resurrection, etc) and you have what appears to be a fabrication with little to no basis in actual events. OT prophecies don't hold water either. Much of that is conjecture and interpretation, and if I was going to fabricate a mythology (as Paul did) then I'd have little problem making sure the features of it nicely tied in with previous so-called prophecies.
"To millions of Christians today, it's about faith, science, AND experience."
Or rather the shameless cherry picking from science, discarding those elements which you think threatens your preconceived ideas of faith - Cosmological theories such as the big bang and age of the universe, Geology and Physics for age of the Earth, Evolution theory for explanation of biology.
There's hardly one aspect of modern science that you'll completely agree with due to this self imposed ignorance.
The hypocrisy is that you'll exchange peer reviewed hard evidence an ancient book of anecdotes. You're so critical of the sciences but the same rigor somehow dissolves when your fatih is in the spotlight.
"Why do you think that most Christians remain as Christians?"
Well, why do you think that most atheists remain as atheists? It's because we think that religious belief in god(s) is totally lacking credibility. - hiscity, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1The fundamental logical flaw of atheism is human omniscience.
Hence they should be known as the cult of human omniscience.- nitsuj, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Let's see:
om·nis·cient
adj. Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.
Well, no atheist claims to have total knowledge or anything near to that and the second definition is regarding theism.
Continuing:
cult
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
Nope, atheism doesn't fall under any of these definitions either. It is not a system of worship, an ideal or an object of devotion.
This is a common creationist trait; it seems that the only way you can attack atheism is to demonize it somehow by thinking of it as a religion and then opposing it. This is a fallacy and your are in error to do so.
The problem with you is that you like to hide behind snide troll-like comments whilst misusing well defined terms.
Consider yourself exposed. - hiscity, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1Like I said...
atheist assertion that "there is no god(s)" is either an absolute statement or belief
if absolute, then asserts omniscience about god
if belief, then cultic
in either case fundamentally flawed on the most basic point of atheism
their whole house of cards falls- nitsuj, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3"atheist assertion that "there is no god(s)" is either an absolute statement or belief"
That is not what atheists assert. For all we know there might be god(s). But there is no evidence of 'them' and therefore an atheist *lacks* belief until such evidence is provided. Just like a person may lack belief in fairies, unicorns or mermaids.
Even so, making a statement such as "There is no god(s)" still doesn't lead to a claim of omniscience. Believing that there is no god isn't omniscient as it pertains to only one believed fact - not everything (omni). Please refer to the dictionary definition of 'omniscience' that I provided.
"if belief, then cultic"
So your own beliefs make you part of a cult? Absolute rubbish - please refer to the acknowledged dictionary definition that I provided.
"in either case fundamentally flawed on the most basic point of atheism"
Yet unable to show why.
"their whole house of cards falls"
No, you FAIL again for complete misuse of terms despite having the very dictionary definitions presented to you. Shame that your bible doesn't class willful ignorance as a sin.
- nitsuj, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3"atheist assertion that "there is no god(s)" is either an absolute statement or belief"
- hiscity, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1"Those who throw dictionaries..."
from merriam webster's online:
=quote=
atheism
One entry found.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
=unquote=
cp. def. of "agnostic"
I rest my case.
- nitsuj, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Let's see:
- atdigg, on 04/29/2008, -2/+10I've seen David Copperfield perform miracles too, I wasn't that impressed, but I bet people living 2000 years ago would have been very impressed if I did a trick with a penny.
- lived666, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Religion is a sick joke played on the living by the dead.
- hiscity, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1Thank you for clearly identifying yourself 666! One handy thing about that mark system, it sure saves a lot of debate.
Funny to see a "beast worshipper" detract religion? Or perhaps, you're just being honest about your own experience ... I wonder if that's possible....- TheCatsPants, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Someone who believes in the devil obviously believes in religion. So really, if he does, he is on your side.
- hiscity, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2Not my side. I agree that religion is a waste. If you're anti-christian -- you're on his side. And headed straight for beast worship.
- SantafromNorth, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You really either don't understand Cats' argument or you see the "666" an immediately lose all reasoning skills. Think of it this way:
If you believe in the existence of the devil, then you must believe in the existence of a god as that is part of the same belief system.
"person a" believes in the existence of the devil.
therefore if "person a" believes in the devil, ergo he he believes in the existence of a god according to your faith system
therefore, he is essentially on the same side as you in arguing fo a god's existence as opposed to Zeus, Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Watcher on the Moon.
If I do not think a god exists and he is vain enough to condemn me for it, he is just a sadist if a god did create people with free will. If the god in question predestined me not to believe in him, then he is equally as much a sadist. Your view of god is no better than that of a serial child abuser or sociopath who tortures small animals.
- SantafromNorth, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You really either don't understand Cats' argument or you see the "666" an immediately lose all reasoning skills. Think of it this way:
- hiscity, on 04/30/2008, -4/+1Thank you for clearly identifying yourself 666! One handy thing about that mark system, it sure saves a lot of debate.
- principle, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6This theory is not new. It is based on idea that religion is a result of the herding instinct gone awry.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
