[QUOTE=Liberal]
I don’t have a problem with that. And I’ve never asked him to believe in God or even believe the evidence I’ve offered. All I’ve asked is that he will finally acknowledge that I’ve given him the evidence if I bother to list it here. He won’t answer that question, so I’m done with him.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, then will you give the evidence to me, if I promise to tell **Czarcasm ** he is not permitted to look at it? Because I’m actually curious.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yoohoo, guys. The snakes and vipers are still in the room. 
(Congrats to you, by the way, on being further evolved than we.)
[/QUOTE]
Oh and by the way, I guess that answers the question posted upthread about how to respectfully convey an idea that posits god doesn’t exist to a religious person. I guess it’s not possible.
Thanks for the snide remark, I won’t waste more of my time on trying to present a point of view that isn’t personally attacking you since it appears you’ll take it that way no matter what. Your statement is on par with DT’s attitude, so don’t complain when he acts the same way on the other side. You two can have at it.
For the sake of the discussion beyond you, however, yes while in the midst of what I take to be now an evolution that’s going past the body and into the mind (I think we’ll eventually be post-body) we’ll see more and more uneven development among humanity with the human brain being the next evolutionary step that is not on par with evolution as we know it up to this point. I posit that our own thoughts will take on evolutionary values of their own and become exponential over time.
Which, of course, is a theory. Anyone who’s personally attacked by that, oh well.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Okay, then will you give the evidence to me, if I promise to tell **Czarcasm ** he is not permitted to look at it? Because I’m actually curious.
[/QUOTE]
A child’s smile. A flower. The sky. Computers. AIDS. Love. The power of prayer. That feeling inside.
Life is a cookie.
The sad thing is, I’m only partly joking. Wait and see what the “evidence” is. Obviously, evidence is understood to be those assertions that are theoretically falsifiable. You won’t get any of those, because there are none. Hence, the upthread comment where someone said the word ‘evidence’ is misused. <yawn>
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
That’s a really astute point in that last sentence, I think. One theory of mine is that it developed thousands or millions of years ago when our brains were literally smaller as the species was evolving to serve functions at that time and that it’s passed down to us now and can be viewed like the reptilian part of our brain – still there, exerting influence, perhaps even useful, but being evolved out over time perhaps.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I wouldn’t be quite so condescending about it, but I’m pretty much with you there (except for the smaller brain thing). We only have evidence of spiritual belief from fossil sites of our own species and (possibly) the Neanderthals. That latter species had a brain the same size as ours, maybe a bit bigger. It’s possible that earlier species had spiritual beliefs, but we don’t have any evidence of that. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if the roots of religion go back as far as language does. Whether that was only in H. sapiens, or whether it was earlier we may never know.
But our brains interpret the world around us in terms of cause and effect. When the cause is not immediately apparent, assigning it a supernatural cause is not such a surprising thing to do.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I’m not bobbing and weaving, and your last post was a direct insult in more ways than one.
[/QUOTE]
So why didn’t you report that post ?
Oh wait. You’re a moderator.
[being careful} I think this is evidence that your posts in this thread are disingenuous.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Why do atheists get offended if I say they are blind because something that so clearly exists such as God is invisible to them?
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s condescending and a blatant lie. Another favorite is the lie that atheists really believe that there is a God but won’t admit it.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, I wouldn’t be quite so condescending about it, but I’m pretty much with you there (except for the smaller brain thing). We only have evidence of spiritual belief from fossil sites of our own species and (possibly) the Neanderthals. That latter species had a brain the same size as ours, maybe a bit bigger. It’s possible that earlier species had spiritual beliefs, but we don’t have any evidence of that. It wouldn’t surprise me, though, if the roots of religion go back as far as language does. Whether that was only in H. sapiens, or whether it was earlier we may never know.
But our brains interpret the world around us in terms of cause and effect. When the cause is not immediately apparent, assigning it a supernatural cause is not such a surprising thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. We need meaning, so we ascribe it. Even in science, things take off based on a hypothesis of imputed cause/effect just to experiment.
As for being condescending, I’m not sure how else that thought can be expressed.
The idea may be inherently condescending, but as to how else to convey it I have no idea. It’s interesting though, in that it goes to the OP’s question.
If I believe that religion originated from an inferior brain’s attempt at cause/effect (whether smaller or not; which is a good point I’m glad you educated me on) then I fear there’s almost no way to say that without being inherently insulting, is there?
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Thanks for the snide remark, I won’t waste more of my time on trying to present a point of view that isn’t personally attacking you since it appears you’ll take it that way no matter what.
[/QUOTE]
You have got to be joking. If I were to talk to a third poster about your atheism and attribute it to a vestigial quirk from the stimulus-response areas of our brain stems, and state that you could effectively outgrow it given sufficient mutation cycles, while at the same time implying that I have already made this great evolutionary leap, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you made a joke of it (complete with smilie). Why do we have to be mentally challenged in some way, or in some way have defective brains? Why can’t we just be on the same level as you but have a different life experience that leads us to different conclusions?
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
The idea may be inherently condescending, but as to how else to convey it I have no idea. It’s interesting though, in that it goes to the OP’s question.
If I believe that religion originated from an inferior brain’s attempt at cause/effect (whether smaller or not; which is a good point I’m glad you educated me on) then I fear there’s almost no way to say that without being inherently insulting, is there?
[/QUOTE]
But why would you believe that, when there is no actual evidence to support it? Your belief that religion was invented by an inferior (or smaller or more primitive) brain is right on par with religious belief itself.
[QUOTE=amelioration]
Why is it that, when people get into religious discussion (be it a calm and logical statement of beliefs or a fiery mud-slinging flame war), anything that makes assumptions about the existence/non-existence and nature of God is vigorously defended or rejected? Why do people feel the need to defend their position about the existence of God more strongly than they do about nearly any other controversial subject?
[/QUOTE]
From the short story, “The Real Story,” by Michael Peppe, collected in Three-Fisted Tales of “Bob”: Short Stories in the SubGenius Mythos (SubGenius Church founder J.R. “Bob” Dobbs is paying taking a test administered by “God” to get his prophet’s license renewed):
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Is there an atheist here who has paused to consider that we might hold onto our faith simply because it corresponds to what we have experienced in our lives?
[/QUOTE]
I know I never assumed otherwise. I figured you were a Christian because of what you’d experienced in your life, with the two most likely experiences being:[ul][li]A lengthy indoctrination starting in childhood from parents/guardians/peers who were Christian, ingraining their beliefs in you, or[/li][li]A childhood that had something other than Christianity, which you replaced as a young adult when you met proselytizing Christians that were charismatic and you embraced their beliefs as a means of rejecting whatever it was you were raised with.[/ul][/li]I’d never assumed for a second that Christianity came to you out of nowhere.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But why would you believe that, when there is no actual evidence to support it? Your belief that religion was invented by an inferior (or smaller or more primitive) brain is right on par with religious belief itself.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. It’s a hypothesis, which is what I meant by a ‘belief.’ I don’t claim irrefutable evidence for it so perhaps that’s the wrong word to use. I’m not asserting it’s a fact.
Also, I do think there is supporting evidence. Not conclusive, of course. It seems to me that there is supporting evidence that our brains have evolved over time and gotten ‘better’ with reptilian brains still included in ours but with other parts we now have that other species don’t (going back to including overall evolution).
Again, not conclusive of anything but I wouldn’t agree there is no actual evidence whatsoever to **support **the idea. Prove it, no. Support it, seems to me.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
From the short story, “The Real Story,” by Michael Peppe, collected in Three-Fisted Tales of “Bob”: Short Stories in the SubGenius Mythos (SubGenius Church founder J.R. “Bob” Dobbs is paying taking a test administered by “God” to get his prophet’s license renewed):
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty cute. Of course, it could be said that “God” is made up to refer to the “Big Bang.”
[QUOTE=John Mace]
But why would you believe that, when there is no actual evidence to support it? Your belief that religion was invented by an inferior (or smaller or more primitive) brain is right on par with religious belief itself.
[/QUOTE]
And, by the way, you didn’t answer my question which of course you’re under no obligation to answer but I was asking sincerely: if that’s my belief (which you changed the subject about into questioning its validity for which you may very well have a good point but it’s another point), how can I convey that belief respectfully?
I sincerely ask and it goes to the OP’s point to a degree, I’m genuinely curious.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
You have got to be joking. If I were to talk to a third poster about your atheism and attribute it to a vestigial quirk from the stimulus-response areas of our brain stems, and state that you could effectively outgrow it given sufficient mutation cycles, while at the same time implying that I have already made this great evolutionary leap, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you made a joke of it (complete with smilie). Why do we have to be mentally challenged in some way, or in some way have defective brains? Why can’t we just be on the same level as you but have a different life experience that leads us to different conclusions?
[/QUOTE]
What’s the name of this thread? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
You demand respect for your beliefs, yet your first sentence asks me to make a false swearing before a god I do not believe in, and your last is a preemptive strike against something I supposedly will do?
[/QUOTE]
Why have you conflated a demand for respect for the person with a demand for respect for the beliefs the person holds?
I think this goes to the heart of the post I originally submitted: some people hold their own (un)belief so closely that they cannot distinguish between the belief and the believer. As it happens, this thread is filled with non-believers positing all sorts of mental faults and psychological weaknesses among believers. I am fairly sure that if the SDMB still had more religious people of certain persuasions, we would see a similar number of claims that non-believers suffered some sort of delusions or trauma that led to their lack of belief, so I do not think that one’s general position on the OP is dictated by whether or not one believes in the divine or supernatural. However, it is interesting that so many posts in this thread have ignored the actual question of the OP simply to assert that the “other side” gets defensive because they are lacking in some quality or other, whether it is rationality or evolutionary growth or whatever.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
What’s the name of this thread?
[/QUOTE]
It’s “Why Do People Get Defensive About God?”. Note that it is not “Why Do Theists Get Defensive About God?”. It seems to me that there is plenty of defensive bristling on both sides, with some notable exceptions.
Sort of a mixture of those two. I was introduced to Christianity as a child, rejected it categorically as a teen, and then became irreversibly Christian in my early 20s.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
And, by the way, you didn’t answer my question which of course you’re under no obligation to answer but I was asking sincerely: if that’s my belief (which you changed the subject about into questioning its validity for which you may very well have a good point but it’s another point), how can I convey that belief respectfully?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know.
But I’m still not buying that your belief about the origin of religion is anything other than “faith based”, if you will. There is not one piece of physical evidence to support your hypothesis. It could be true. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if it were false. For instance, there is very little consensus in the scientific community about when human language evolved. But there are quite a number of anthropologists who think the evidence points to a very recent birth of language, perhaps even after our species first appeared on the scene (some 200k years ago). I would be quite surprised to find religious belief preceding the birth of language, so if those scientists are right, then religion is an invention of our species (and our big, modern brains).
I also think you misunderstand what it means to have brains that evolved and still contain some seemingly primitive structures-- we don’t know that those structures are actually unchanged from their original form even if they seem to be unchanged in their function. And if there was a “religion” structure in the brain, then we’d all be religious.
From my own perspective, I find the idea of a supernatural God to be rather meaningless. If there really is one, then He is beyond the comprehension of the human brain. In that case, there would be no difference (as far as we could tell) between there being a God and there not being one. If we could tell, then He wouldn’t be supernatural. And in that case, we couldn’t tell the difference between “God” and “some really advanced alien life form”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
From my own perspective, I find the idea of a supernatural God to be rather meaningless. If there really is one, then He is beyond the comprehension of the human brain.
[/QUOTE]
For anyone wondering how to show respect to believers, you have just demonstrated it perfectly. Thank you. Your point of view is exceedingly understandable.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And if there was a “religion” structure in the brain, then we’d all be religious.
[/quote]
Only if the “religion structure” was equally active/dominant in all people. Or even present in all people; it might not be if it’s recent. And I’ve read in the past of techniques that induce religiosity or religious experiences in people; drugs, brain surgery, magnetic induction of a certain brain area. That seems to imply a strong hardwired component. Although it could just as easily be some function that gets hijacked by religion as the source of religion.