Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

What I'm trying to say is that our beliefs in facts of today are not very concrete. What we believe today, tomorrow may be proven as false. Meaning that our reliance on facts of today can be following a blind belief.

Do you even understand the concept of cumulative knowledge, Mish? Look at what I highlighted and think about how this process is the very antithesis of the belief of religion. Unprovable, untestable, and doesn't evolve based on new evidence.

Crazy has many definitions OV. But if by crazy you mean "mentally deranged". As in suffering from a mental illness, then I strongly disagree with you.

I'm certain I described earlier that there are studies investigating links between certain mental illnesses (e.g. schizophrenia) & religious belief. Whether you want to *believe* their results is up to you, lol. But the FACT is, the question is very testable. So, we may not be able to prove that God doesn't exist (not that we care to) but we can prove that belief in the concept looks like mental illness. If this worries you, good.

I don't know who "they" are that you are reffering to.

I suspect he's referring to ppl like, Einstein, Weinberg, Jefferson, more recently, Dawkins. Oh, and my favorite atheist: Douglas Adams, lol. Anyway, those are just a few off the top of my head. There are many many more.

As far as facts go. You are limited by them. You can only prove what is covered by them, everything that lies outside of these facts you can't know for sure, you can only speculate. Don't you agree?

I can't believe you actually posted this. LOL!! If we could only prove what is already known, then nothing further could ever be known. Hahaha. You don't credit scientists w/imagination? We don't have to believe our imaginings to be able to test them. Hahahaha.

Of course we speculate. That's how hypotheses work (I said earlier you don't seem to understand the difference b/t hypothesis & conclusion--go educate yourself). But we don't BELIEVE our highly creative conjectures until there is physical data to support them. And then we believe those facts according to some probability we assign (another concept you don't seem to understand). When better data comes, we revise our thinking.

Didn't Gribble already ask something earlier about when theists were going to come around in this regard?

Human nature is to use an ideology for good or for bad. If Religion is the dominant ideology it will be used for good or for bad. If Atheism is a dominant ideology it will be used for good or for bad as well.

I agree w/this statement, but its incomplete. The above statement suggests that the tendency for either group to do 'good or bad' is equiprobable. I argue otherwise. For all the reasons I already said earlier about the tendency for blind belief to negate rational thought. You can't do both. If you look at the God Hypothesis logically you must conclude its false & you become a de facto atheist (don't bother arguing, Mish, there are SO many books out there on this, just go to the library & get them. I'm NOT repeating their arguments here). So you believe. You CAN'T do both. As to the question of likelihood of whether belief or non-belief leads to increased tendency to violence, Milgrews experiments were a terrible example of what humans do when they capitulate to belief in authority in place of reason. And religion is totally a form of authority, however you want to squirm around this point.

Again, if this upsets you & makes you question your decision making processes, good. It should.

Mish, I'm not trying to take away your faith, dear. But your thinking is really conflicted on this subject. Its all a mess. Like OV said, you sometimes make good points, but some of what you say is just garbage. The fact there is so much inconsistency in your posts should be a BIG red flag there is a problem with your thinking on this subject. Religion does this to ppl, BTW. Messes with their rational thought processes. You don't have to believe me, just consider the possibility I (and OV & Gribble) are seeing something you can't. The ONLY reason I'm even still posting is b/c your last post to OV suggests you really are trying to work this out in your head & that IS something I support. So get out there, read lots, and sort it out for yourself.

[vashti]

I thought some of you people might like to check out the lectures about religion on this site... both atheists and believers. It looks like a really good site that covers a very large number of topics (not just religion)... it looks like the online equivelant of NPR.

[url]http://www.ted.com/themes/view/id/21[/url]

[IndiReloaded]

I thought some of you people might like to check out the lectures about religion on this site... both atheists and believers. It looks like a really good site that covers a very large number of topics (not just religion)... it looks like the online equivelant of NPR.

[url]http://www.ted.com/themes/view/id/21[/url]

FYI, the TED conferences started out as an elitist group of individuals basically self-reinforcing their own agendas, primarily in the area of technology progress. Until around 2006 (+/- a year, don't quote me) membership & attendance at the annual conference was by invitation only. Since then, they have opened up their membership & made their topics more publicly available & I am now supportive of their organization. Of their three offices, one is in Vancouver, Canada; just for those who might think this interesting.

Thanks for posting that Vash. I agree there is some good stuff on that site.

[Only-virgins]

I don't know who "they" are that you are reffering to.

No, no one in particular because the odd thing about religion is that everyone finds justification for it themself with illogical ideas and thoughs rather than look at the work of someone who has observed and tested the world around them.

The rest of your replies are just beating around the bush and dodging my points which are solid and factual. In one you talk about the animal spirit cultures but the odd thing is that I mentioned that for no reason and the point was the culture that DOES NOT believe in any spiritual being or god ... The point of the animal was just to show the variety in cultures...you just keep comparing the more popular ones.

I feel like I am arguing with a nine year old. Are you claiming all opinion is equal? that is nonsense. Einstein's word > any priest. My opinion on art isn't as valid and reliable as an artist's opinion, do you agree?. The religious buffs need to realize their opinion isn't as valid and reliable as that of a scientist who devotes his life to understanding the world around him. I find it that I know more about religion in this case than you even know about science...kind of funny..I was born in a Catholic family and have attended CCD school for 4 years when I was young. Everything you say either avoids what I said or nit picks something that didn't even have anything to do with the main point. This debate will go on forever simply because you CHOOSE not to accept the facts and truth and FEAR most of all being wrong.

Not only does religion have no proofs and facts it also has more contradictions than anything. Over the years it has proven itself wrong. We have said this a thousand times guy and nothing you have said counters this at all.

This isn't Atheism vs Religion anymore. This is Logic vs Faith.

FYI, the TED conferences started out as an elitist group of individuals basically self-reinforcing their own agendas, primarily in the area of technology progress. Until around 2006 (+/- a year, don't quote me) membership & attendance at the annual conference was by invitation only. Since then, they have opened up their membership & made their topics more publicly available & I am now supportive of their organization. Of their three offices, one is in Vancouver, Canada; just for those who might think this interesting.

Thanks for posting that Vash. I agree there is some good stuff on that site.

Hey, I heard about that before actually. Usually I'm not up to date on such things though.

The ONLY reason I'm even still posting is b/c your last post to OV suggests you really are trying to work this out in your head & that IS something I support. So get out there, read lots, and sort it out for yourself.

I really respect his willingness to debate like this also. Though he is using circular reasoning a lot and that is hard to really get around. I rarely give people the time of day to debate such things.

[Mish]

I'm certain I described earlier that there are studies investigating links between certain mental illnesses (e.g. schizophrenia) & religious belief. Whether you want to *believe* their results is up to you, lol. But the FACT is, the question is very testable. So, we may not be able to prove that God doesn't exist (not that we care to) but we can prove that belief in the concept looks like mental illness. If this worries you, good.

I find it hard to believe that something which devlopes in people naturally and instinctually is associeted with a mental illness. If it is, then surely all of us can be considered crazy?

Though I'm interested to have a look at these studies, just to see what their method is for establishing these links. Do you have links?

I suspect he's referring to ppl like, Einstein, Weinberg, Jefferson, more recently, Dawkins. Oh, and my favorite atheist: Douglas Adams, lol. Anyway, those are just a few off the top of my head. There are many many more.

I'm confused Indi. I thought OV posted "they" as in refference to some sort of Religious people who accuse him of being crazy for being an atheist. Are above examples of such?

But we don't BELIEVE our highly creative conjectures until there is physical data to support them.

What if you can spend your entire life looking for this physical data, but you can't find it throughout your whole life time, are you still going to refuse to believe what you have found even if it's actually true?

Indi, it seems like you are attacking the notion of "belief" itself. There is nothing wrong with believing in something even if you are not 100% sure. You seem to be of an opinion that belief requires facts, it doesn't, you don't need facts to believe. You also seem to attribute all the negative qualities to belief without any positive ones. It's okay to believe in something you think you know, but can't prove. It's okay to have hope even though there's no evidence to support the fact that you should. Belief plays positive role in many people's lives. The way I see it there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I agree w/this statement, but its incomplete. The above statement suggests that the tendency for either group to do 'good or bad' is equiprobable. I argue otherwise. For all the reasons I already said earlier about the tendency for blind belief to negate rational thought. You can't do both.

It all comes down to intent of the person. Yes, one person may "irrationally" do bad things and justify it with some garbage, but another can likewise "irrationally" do good. From my experience, the second type far outwieghts the first. Why should people who want to "irrationally" do good (E.g. Give to charity, support their communities, be generous and kind in example of their Lord) be stopped?

If you look at the God Hypothesis logically you must conclude its false & you become a de facto atheist

How can you logically conclude its false when you simply don't know?

You CAN'T do both. As to the question of likelihood of whether belief or non-belief leads to increased tendency to violence, Milgrews experiments were a terrible example of what humans do when they capitulate to belief in authority in place of reason. And religion is totally a form of authority, however you want to squirm around this point.

Relgion or Religious figures in the form of clergy are authority for some people and not an authority to many others. A lot of people state that the gospel is their sole authority others don't even go that far. Like I said before, to be classified as a Religious person all you need is to believe and follow tenets.

But like I mentioned earlier on the subject of authority I agree with you. Atheists in Soviet Union were authrotiy figures and look at what they've done. Maybe a better solution to this is develope solutions on how to keep authroty figures in check?

Again, if this upsets you & makes you question your decision making processes, good. It should.

It doesn't upset me at all. The post that upset me was the one where you attacked my logic without providing examples.

Mish, I'm not trying to take away your faith, dear. But your thinking is really conflicted on this subject. Its all a mess. Like OV said, you sometimes make good points, but some of what you say is just garbage. The fact there is so much inconsistency in your posts should be a BIG red flag there is a problem with your thinking on this subject. Religion does this to ppl, BTW. Messes with their rational thought processes. You don't have to believe me, just consider the possibility I (and OV & Gribble) are seeing something you can't. The ONLY reason I'm even still posting is b/c your last post to OV suggests you really are trying to work this out in your head & that IS something I support. So get out there, read lots, and sort it out for yourself.

Well again with the assaults on my logic without examples.

Look there is no way you will be able to take away from my faith even if you wanted to because I believe in God as an abstract pilosophical concept. I simply believe that its good for people to believe in an absolute good and lead their life based on that example. I don't have facts to prove this absolute good exists, but I have facts to prove that people who believe in that absolute good and strive towards it are good people. Tell me what's wrong with that?

What ticks me off is that there are people who think that I am not entitled to my beliefs because they have made up my mind for me that my beliefs are illogical or that following my beliefs will make me into either a mentally handicapped retard or a new Osama Bin Laden who is about to go on a killing spree.

I am arguing that beliefs are natural to people, that everyone has beliefs, everyone lives in a subjective reality and everyone has right to believe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Do you disagree with this?

[Mish]

No, no one in particular

Thanks for clarifying

The rest of your replies are just beating around the bush and dodging my points which are solid and factual. In one you talk about the animal spirit cultures but the odd thing is that I mentioned that for no reason and the point was the culture that DOES NOT believe in any spiritual being or god ...

Which one is the culture that does not believe in any spiritual and supernatural beings? I want to know.

I feel like I am arguing with a nine year old. Are you claiming all opinion is equal? that is nonsense. Einstein's word > any priest. My opinion on art isn't as valid and reliable as an artist's opinion, do you agree?. The religious buffs need to realize their opinion isn't as valid and reliable as that of a scientist who devotes his life to understanding the world around him. I find it that I know more about religion in this case than you even know about science...kind of funny..I was born in a Catholic family and have attended CCD school for 4 years when I was young. Everything you say either avoids what I said or nit picks something that didn't even have anything to do with the main point. This debate will go on forever simply because you CHOOSE not to accept the facts and truth and FEAR most of all being wrong.

OV I can't reply to this post. I'm not sure which post of mine it's in reference to.

Although I will say I agree that your opinion on art may not be as detailed and have as much weight as an artist's or someone who studied art history. That's not to say that your opinion is any less valid than theirs. You may simply interprett art differently.

This isn't Atheism vs Religion anymore. This is Logic vs Faith.

You are making it sound like one should be abandoned in favour of the other. Do you believe that all faith should be abandoned OV? Do you believe there's no purpose to have faith or there's absolutely no purpose to believe in something? (Anything)

[IndiReloaded]

Everything you say either avoids what I said or nit picks something that didn't even have anything to do with the main point.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say Mish. Just not so bluntly, lol. It just makes one disinterested in trying to explain further. Which is completely *your* problem if you are trying to understand someone's argument. I would suggest, in future, that in these types of situations you request simply clarification on the specific point you are trying to understand. Trying to make your own point in response (which is often irrelevant or tangential) just murks the waters. Not saying you can't have an opinion, of course not, just that you need to make sure you understand what the other person is saying before arguing their point. Otherwise, it devolves to a frustrating 'GIGO' situation that results in the person you are trying to learn from to simply say 'go figure it out yourself' or some equivalent.

Hey, I heard about that before actually. Usually I'm not up to date on such things though.

Oh, TED is a *very* interesting organization. You would do well to learn more. Its hard to find the info, but TED (which is now owned by Sapling Foundation) is very much into supporting the use of information to educate *cough* manipulate *cough* the masses through the use of media. Pretty effectively, I might add.

Notice I'm NOT saying anything about their target audiences and whether I disagree or not with what they are doing. BTW, its not too different from what's happened with the recent acquiring of Belief.net by Fox Entertainment. (wakey, wakey Mish!)

Look up 'Population Communications' (now called PCI). Enjoy!

[Mish]

This is pretty much what I was trying to say Mish. Just not so bluntly, lol. It just makes one disinterested in trying to explain further. Which is completely *your* problem if you are trying to understand someone's argument. I would suggest, in future, that in these types of situations you request simply clarification on the specific point you are trying to understand. Trying to make your own point in response (which is often irrelevant or tangential) just murks the waters. Not saying you can't have an opinion, of course not, just that you need to make sure you understand what the other person is saying before arguing their point. Otherwise, it devolves to a frustrating 'GIGO' situation that results in the person you are trying to learn from to simply say 'go figure it out yourself' or some equivalent.

Again, no examples or reference points to suppor the accusation

Look, I'm not saying that my debating skills are perfect and that it doesn't need to imrpove in some areas. But yours weren't perfect either. Even though you advertise objectivity a lot of your responses were deeply subjective. Many times I had to ask for points of reference because I simply didn't know what was being criticised by you. To add to this you've made a number of conclusions, without knowing facts. For example, you stated a genuinely interesting idea for an experiment to test violent acts in subjects Religious people and subjects Atheists and then even without knowing the results of such an experiment you assumed and reached for conclusion that one group will be more violent than the other.

If you want to point finger at least accept your own hand at murkying the waters and at least refer to it as "our problem" and not just "mine"

[IndiReloaded]

Indi, it seems like you are attacking the notion of "belief" itself. There is nothing wrong with believing in something even if you are not 100% sure. You seem to be of an opinion that belief requires facts, it doesn't, you don't need facts to believe. You also seem to attribute all the negative qualities to belief without any positive ones. It's okay to believe in something you think you know, but can't prove. It's okay to have hope even though there's no evidence to support the fact that you should. Belief plays positive role in many people's lives. The way I see it there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Nope, I don't have a problem with belief EXCEPT when it is adhered to DESPITE the presence of conflicting information that is supported by logic. I would argue equally with a scientist who refuses to revise his theories in the light of new evidence. We have all been saying how religious books are full of contradictions & recent scientific evidence has been provided to debunk much of what is in these books & writings.

Belief is belief. Logic is logic. Wasn't it you who said this already? So, by that logic you shouldn't be concerned if someone calls your belief 'illogical'. Because it IS, lol. (I wouldn't be offended if someone said "I don't have any faith in your logic", LOL, I'd tell them "Good, you shouldn't". So, want to believe in teapots orbiting Jupiter, go ahead, no harm done. But if you want to tell children in schools that its okay for them to believe in this teapot after we have sent probes to Jupiter & have found NO EVIDENCE for said teapot? You better believe I will fight that. You don't seem to recognize that logic can supplant belief. But belief never supplants logic. Why is that?

Many effects thought to be due to 'magic' or 'the gods' in the past (e.g. electricity) are now understood w/o having to resort to a 'higher power'. But there are those who would adhere to their beliefs DESPITE strong evidence to the contrary & would use appeals to faith to justify acts that are otherwise irrational. You bet I want to understand what makes them act this way & that I'd like them to realize their error.

'Not all ideas are created equal'; surely you must agree with this. Similarly consider, 'Not all beliefs are created equal'. It is the irrational ones that fly in the face of substantial amounts of proven facts that I take issue with. Particularly when they are proposed as 'equally contributing' to things like a school science curriculum. Or when they are used to justify violence merely to protect their own belief system.

[Mish]

Nope, I don't have a problem with belief EXCEPT when it is adhered to DESPITE the presence of conflicting information that is supported by logic. I would argue equally with a scientist who refuses to revise his theories in the light of new evidence. We have all been saying how religious books are full of contradictions & recent scientific evidence has been provided to debunk much of what is in these books & writings.

Belief is belief. Logic is logic. Wasn't it you who said this already? So, by that logic you shouldn't be concerned if someone calls your belief 'illogical'. Because it IS, lol. (I wouldn't be offended if someone said "I don't have any faith in your logic", LOL, I'd tell them "Good, you shouldn't". So, want to believe in teapots orbiting Jupiter, go ahead, no harm done. But if you want to tell children in schools that its okay for them to believe in this teapot after we have sent probes to Jupiter & have found NO EVIDENCE for said teapot? You better believe I will fight that. You don't seem to recognize that logic can supplant belief. But belief never supplants logic. Why is that?

Many effects thought to be due to 'magic' or 'the gods' in the past (e.g. electricity) are now understood w/o having to resort to a 'higher power'. But there are those who would adhere to their beliefs DESPITE strong evidence to the contrary & would use appeals to faith to justify acts that are otherwise irrational. You bet I want to understand what makes them act this way & that I'd like them to realize their error.

'Not all ideas are created equal'; surely you must agree with this. Similarly consider, 'Not all beliefs are created equal'. It is the irrational ones that fly in the face of substantial amounts of proven facts that I take issue with. Particularly when they are proposed as 'equally contributing' to things like a school science curriculum. Or when they are used to justify violence merely to protect their own belief system.

Okay, I agree with you on "conflicting" believes. The beliefs that have been proven as false, yet people still continue to believe. There is something wrong with mental processes of a person who believes the earth is carried on the back of a giant tortoise. I agree with you on that.

My main point of argument is beliefs which haven't been proven or disproven either way. Like the existance of God (Concept of God itself being subject to variability) of which noone has any certainty or proof either way. You have to admit that this is a little bit different to flying spoons. If you don't believe it it's okay, but don't call someone crazy if they do believe in the concept of God either through Religion or as a philosophical concept they developed on their own. They are entitled to have hope and belief in what hasn't been proven without being discriminated against.

[Only-virgins]

Which one is the culture that does not believe in any spiritual and supernatural beings? I want to know.

Ancient China for one. Are you claiming there are none? that was just one off the top of my head.

Do you believe that all faith should be abandoned OV? Do you believe there's no purpose to have faith or there's absolutely no purpose to believe in something? (Anything)

You are trying to be clever by including the word "anything". I answer your question with a "yes" but before you answer note that Reasoning an assumption through reason is not faith. I believe somethings might/will happen because if "PAST REPRESENTS THE FUTURE" it will happen again. Like pressing the gas petal in a car or getting the news paper in the morning.

Source (Dictionary) Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:

Same word, yet #1 and #2 are completely different meanings. Be careful Mish...not to assuming I mean the wrong one. I assume the faith we are talking about includes "supernatural beings". Otherwise I do have faith, faith in myself. I can have faith in myself and be an atheist...or a logical human being as I like to call it from now on.


By the way, I think it was Richard Dawkins who said it perfectly: "Supernatural beings and gods are a religion, Atheism and ethics is a philosophy". Perfectly said by him and nothing else needs to be said. Though you will make up some excuse in your head, of course, to try and make yourself feel better.

I still wonder why the faithful take their kids to the hospitals and doctor's and not just walk into the church and ask for help there...I mean if they know the meaning of life and the way the universe was created they should help your kid far more there. At the end of the day, everyone knows what the truth is...some just have a hard time accepting it.

I agree with one thing with you Mish though, we will never rid humanity off religion because that would take getting rid of stupidity first ... and that is a pretty tough task to begin with.

It just makes one disinterested in trying to explain further.

Yea. no kidding. I think I might be done here. He will always try and say something even if it makes little sense. I just heard a debate for example on a news cast in Baltimore where a woman claimed that religion is to be thanked for the medical advances we have had. How do you argue against a claim like that? haha...it is so ridiculous it is hard to refute...and definitely hard to keep a straight face. I would like to thank you for some of the posts, they are what I think sometimes and I have a heard time putting my thinking down on paper and pen...my weak point really.

[Mish]

Ancient China for one. Are you claiming there are none? that was just one off the top of my head.

The Gods and Goddesses of China

[url]http://www.scns.com/earthen/other/seanachaidh/godchina.html[/url]

Ancient Chinese Mythology - Gods - Goddesses - Folklore

[url]http://www.crystalinks.com/chinamythology.html[/url]

You are trying to be clever by including the word "anything". I answer your question with a "yes" but before you answer note that Reasoning an assumption through reason is not faith. I believe somethings might/will happen because if "PAST REPRESENTS THE FUTURE" it will happen again. Like pressing the gas petal in a car or getting the news paper in the morning.

Source (Dictionary) Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:

Same word, yet #1 and #2 are completely different meanings. Be careful Mish...not to assuming I mean the wrong one. I assume the faith we are talking about includes "supernatural beings". Otherwise I do have faith, faith in myself. I can have faith in myself and be an atheist...or a logical human being as I like to call it from now on.

Okay OV

At least you don't believe ALL faith is bad. That's encouraging. I just have one thing to say. It's logical that if you respect faith in assumption through reason and respect faith in yourself to respect faith of others as well.

[IndiReloaded]

Okay OV

At least you don't believe ALL faith is bad. That's encouraging.

Noone here has said that. Not even our Prince of Atheism, Dawkins himself, ever said this, lol. Just that not all belief is created equal & some is downright harmful.

Mish, I would say now is the time you might want to get a copy of 'Why we believe what we believe’, in addition to the other books I mentioned. It provides an interesting explanation for why (some) humans seem to need faith. There is some evidence that we are actually hardwired for it (sorry OV). Tho, personally, I think its more that 'need to find SOME explanation' you mentioned earlier, Mish. Whatever, just keep in mind humans are also hardwired to kill each other under certain circumstances. So ‘hardwired’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘good’.

There are also some interesting studies where humans were made to feel a ‘presence’ (some likened it to a religious experience) when their temporal lobes were subjected to a strong magnetic field. Others have used brain imaging to look at the brains of those who are meditating.

For OV: there lots of clinical data bemoaning the fact that schizophrenia (or other mental illness) is misdiagnosed, or diagnosed late in those who are very religious. Usually b/c the idiots they seek guidance from aren’t medical experts & they view the hapless person’s problems as a religious issue (rather than a medical one).

You may not like it, Mish, that I hypothesize that strong religious belief looks a lot like insanity but you can’t argue that its testable. You’re safe for a while tho, b/c the ppl who look at these questions aren’t regarded as very PC. Its hard to get funding for, and needs to be snuck in under the guise of ‘other research’.

Here’s a couple names, you’ll have to go to medline & look up the ‘related articles’ to find what’s been done more recently.

Michael Persinger (he’s Canadian, sorry, we’re like that…) is the dude who did the temporal lobe studies. He also did a study on violence of the sort I suggested. You’ll have to search for it. The other fellow (who wrote that book) is Andy Newberg. Keep in mind they both have their agendas. You might be interested to know that Persinger tested Dawkins a while back to see if his method could cause Dick to ‘find God’. It didn’t work, lol.

[Only-virgins]

The Gods and Goddesses of China

[url]http://www.scns.com/earthen/other/seanachaidh/godchina.html[/url]

Ancient Chinese Mythology - Gods - Goddesses - Folklore

[url]http://www.crystalinks.com/chinamythology.html[/url]

Oh come on. You know well that Buddhists have no gods, it is a way of life. The Japanese of Iga prefecture in the 1600-1800 had no religion but rather just a way of life specially through martial arts . China is large and has had many different styles of life and civilizations.

Okay OV

At least you don't believe ALL faith is bad. That's encouraging. I just have one thing to say. It's logical that if you respect faith in assumption through reason and respect faith in yourself to respect faith of others as well.

Mish, if I didn't respect your opinion than I wouldn't have even given you the time of day to debate. By debating alone I give respect to your thoughts and ideas. I ignore completely foolish people I don't respect. I hope you take this debate as a friendly thing. I don't go around burning churches and chasing Jehovah witnesses with a pitch fork(man, how I would want too though lol) but I say no thanks when offered their beliefs. Don't get the wrong idea of me.

Noone here has said that. Not even our Prince of Atheism, Dawkins himself, ever said this, lol. Just that not all belief is created equal & some is downright harmful.

Mish, I would say now is the time you might want to get a copy of 'Why we believe what we believe’, in addition to the other books I mentioned. It provides an interesting explanation for why (some) humans seem to need faith. There is some evidence that we are actually hardwired for it (sorry OV). Tho, personally, I think its more that 'need to find SOME explanation' you mentioned earlier, Mish. Whatever, just keep in mind humans are also hardwired to kill each other under certain circumstances. So ‘hardwired’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘good’.

There are also some interesting studies where humans were made to feel a ‘presence’ (some likened it to a religious experience) when their temporal lobes were subjected to a strong magnetic field. Others have used brain imaging to look at the brains of those who are meditating.

For OV: there lots of clinical data bemoaning the fact that schizophrenia (or other mental illness) is misdiagnosed, or diagnosed late in those who are very religious. Usually b/c the idiots they seek guidance from aren’t medical experts & they view the hapless person’s problems as a religious issue (rather than a medical one).

You may not like it, Mish, that I hypothesize that strong religious belief looks a lot like insanity but you can’t argue that its testable. You’re safe for a while tho, b/c the ppl who look at these questions aren’t regarded as very PC. Its hard to get funding for, and needs to be snuck in under the guise of ‘other research’.

Here’s a couple names, you’ll have to go to medline & look up the ‘related articles’ to find what’s been done more recently.

Michael Persinger (he’s Canadian, sorry, we’re like that…) is the dude who did the temporal lobe studies. He also did a study on violence of the sort I suggested. You’ll have to search for it. The other fellow (who wrote that book) is Andy Newberg. Keep in mind they both have their agendas. You might be interested to know that Persinger tested Dawkins a while back to see if his method could cause Dick to ‘find God’. It didn’t work, lol.

That is interesting stuff. I didn't even know Schizo is such common problem. On another note, I listened to a debate that Dawkins participated in a long time ago...A theist came before home to say a few things about "Why religion must exist" when Dawkins came up to the stage to promote his book he chose rather to completely shred the guy to pieces. I felt almost embarrassed for the theologist because Dawkins completely ripped him a new one.

I wouldn't doubt that maybe we are hardwired a bit to have some form of belief because we are hardwired to have a culture as well and religion may have been a good stepping stone for that. In-fact that only make me feel good that I have such control over my own mind that I can break away from such a thing. I just don't like being called atheist in a derogatory fashion and as if I was part of some religion of my own to rid the world of religion...that is all.

[Mish]

Oh come on. You know well that Buddhists have no gods, it is a way of life. The Japanese of Iga prefecture in the 1600-1800 had no religion but rather just a way of life specially through martial arts . China is large and has had many different styles of life and civilizations.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism[/url]

Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Gautama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. In one of major branch of Mahayana Buddhism theololgy (yoga school) there is the notion of the Buddha as the omnipresent, omniscient, liberative essence of Reality, and the idea of the Buddhas as generators of vast "pure land", "Buddha lands" or Buddha Paradises, in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period[/url]

Edo Period is a division of Japanese history running from 1603 to 1868

Buddhism and Shinto (Kami can be used to describe just one god or as a collective term for the many gods that are a central part of worship in Japan) were both still important in Tokugawa Japan. Buddhism, combined with neo-Confucianism, provided standards of social behavior. Although not as powerful politically as it had been in the past, Buddhism was espoused by the upper classes. Proscriptions against Christianity benefited Buddhism in 1640 when the bakufu ordered everyone to register at a temple. The rigid separation of Tokugawa society into han, villages, wards, and households helped reaffirm local Shinto attachments. Shinto provided spiritual support to the political order and was an important tie between the individual and the community. Shinto also helped preserve a sense of national identity.

China was large and had many styles of life and civilizations, each of which had some sort of Religion, belief or culture based on theistic principles as well.

Mish, if I didn't respect your opinion than I wouldn't have even given you the time of day to debate. By debating alone I give respect to your thoughts and ideas. I ignore completely foolish people I don't respect. I hope you take this debate as a friendly thing. I don't go around burning churches and chasing Jehovah witnesses with a pitch fork(man, how I would want too though lol) but I say no thanks when offered their beliefs. Don't get the wrong idea of me.

Good

I take this debate as a friendly thing ofcourse

I listened to a debate that Dawkins participated in a long time ago...A theist came before home to say a few things about "Why religion must exist" when Dawkins came up to the stage to promote his book he chose rather to completely shred the guy to pieces. I felt almost embarrassed for the theologist because Dawkins completely ripped him a new one.

Do you have a link to that debate? I'd like to read it.