Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Magicjax

Your Road to Atheism?

217 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tiggs

Been there done that. Provided the precise sources a year or more ago in a similar thread. I am content to know I am right. ("and I am always right' .. prince humperdink... the princess bride) If you are really sure I am wrong, check out the new scientist for that period and read the articles, or continue believing as you please. :innocent:

After literally hours of scouring the internet (including the New Scientist website), I continue to affirm that you are over-claiming the actual results of those scientific studies.

I continue to claim that there is not a single scientific study in the history of the world that claims that children of the ages 2-4 years old construct their own Creator of the Universe as an explanation of "Magic".

From the article you linked:

Ultimately, discovering the true origins of something as complex as religion will be difficult. There is one experiment, however, that could go a long way to proving whether Boyer, Bloom and the rest are onto something profound. Ethical issues mean it won't be done any time soon, but that hasn't stopped people speculating about the outcome.

It goes something like this. Left to their own devices, children create their own "creole" languages using hard-wired linguistic brain circuits. A similar experiment would provide our best test of the innate religious inclinations of humans. Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.

Thought experiments don't count, Mr Walker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

There is also nothing natural about Theism, it was a weak attempt at explaining existence before we had more realistic and provable facts at hand.

This is a very misinformed and a common straw man.

As to extraterrestrial life. Even there there is no proof of its existence most scientists will tell you, there is an extremely high probability that it does exist. The evidence is in the logic and circumstance. To adopt a position that extra terrestrial life does not exist is to have a belief that is unsupported. it is not at all a neutral position. A neutral position is one of agnosticism. Atheists are not agnostics.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

Isn't the concept of spirits/supernatural ingrained in our DNA? Primitive man hears a bush move, doesn't see anything so he doesn't run. Gets eaten. Another man hears a bush move, doesn't see anything, but runs away anyway. He survives. Fear of invisible forces that are out to get us made us evolve this sense of the supernatural.

As for me. I grew up in a very strict catholic household. I was constantly told I was going to hell if I misbehaved; not only by my family, but the nuns in my catholic school. As a side note I'll say those nuns were some of the most evil creatures I've ever seen in my life. Their black shriveled hearts had no concept of empathy. Yelling at the top of their lungs with great anger right in front of my face of 7,8,9,10yo that I'm going to hell.

When I was little (4,5,6 yo) I would ask about the obvious problems like "if Adam and Eve only had boys, where did everyone else come from?", and get dismissive answers. The questions grew but the answers didn't get any better. At 7 I had my first existentialist crisis. In the lines of, "I came from my parents, they came from my grandparents, they came from my great grandparents...where does it end? .... oh, Adam and Eve. Where did they come from? God... Where did he come from? ..." and that was enough. I couldn't sleep for weeks and went into depression. I dealt with it by trying to forget the topic and avoid it at all cost.

At 12 I figured God must've spontaneously gotten created. But that lead to my second existentialist crisis. The topic open once again for inspection, the line of reasoning was the following: "I'll be good all my life and when I die, I'll go to heaven...and I'll be happy forever...forever...like a trillion years later I'll still be there...happy....a quadrillion years later I'll still be there....what if I can't stand existing anymore? How many quintillion years until there's just no more point to it? What is going to be worth living for a sixtillion years from now?" and at 12 I went into a more severe depression. I developed psychosomatic symptoms even. Once again I vowed to avoid the topic at all costs.

My older sister introduced me to atheism. I though she *had* to be wrong, but just knowing the possibility opened the door to all new lines of thinking. Funny enough, she is also the one that told me Santa Claus wasn't real. At the time I couldn't appreciate the parallel between the two. About Santa (when I was 7) my comeback to her was, "Oh yeah! Then who brings us the presents then, huh?" Burrrrrrn, I thought. Then she said, "Mom and Dad"...I stood there in shock for a while as I sorted the consequences in my head. About Religion (when I was 12) my great comeback was, "Oh yeah! Then what happens to our souls when we die, huh?" Burrrrrn, I thought. She said, "nothing. you just stop existing". Again, I stood there in shock for a looong time. Got a little depressed but ironically not as bad as the other episodes. It's no coincidence that my 7 and 12 episodes coincides with my sister revealing the social lies I was exposed to. I seeked her out for comfort through my depressive episodes.

At college I went into Physics partly to see if I could get a better understanding of some of these questions (besides one day building a time machine, off course). I also studied the human element, religions through history, a little bit of anthropology, etc. The greater my knowledge of our universe and ourselves, the smaller and smaller the world of the religious become...until I didn't think it was needed anymore. The science game - all conclusions must be based on evidence that is independently verifiable, reproducible, and predictive - became ingrained in me. I thought the pure atheist stance of "I believe there's nothing" betrays that, since it's a statement not based on evidence. In science we don't say "it doesn't exist", we say, "we don't have any evidence of that". So I relabeled myself agnostic.

The interesting thing is that when I finally let go of religion it was an incredibly freeing feeling. A huge weight off my shoulders. Things got simpler, more predictable, with real, satisfying answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

After literally hours of scouring the internet (including the New Scientist website), I continue to affirm that you are over-claiming the actual results of those scientific studies.

I continue to claim that there is not a single scientific study in the history of the world that claims that children of the ages 2-4 years old construct their own Creator of the Universe as an explanation of "Magic".

From the article you linked:

Ultimately, discovering the true origins of something as complex as religion will be difficult. There is one experiment, however, that could go a long way to proving whether Boyer, Bloom and the rest are onto something profound. Ethical issues mean it won't be done any time soon, but that hasn't stopped people speculating about the outcome.

It goes something like this. Left to their own devices, children create their own "creole" languages using hard-wired linguistic brain circuits. A similar experiment would provide our best test of the innate religious inclinations of humans. Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.

Thought experiments don't count, Mr Walker.

The original articles clearly stated that "even where children are not extenally exposed to concepts of god they create their own " To paraphrase.

The whole degbate was about why and how humans universally create god constructs (it had nothing to do withany reality of god other than that.) "Originally" (late 1900s early 2000s) as a result of the advances in genetics many scientists thought there must be a genetic" god spot' which caused this to occur, LAter resaeach countered that and found that it is all about the way humans think, and our use of thought/language. Unfortunately my work computer shut down as i was doing that post ther are manyother sites which expand on thos The original new scientist articles used to be available free online but I am not sure that they still are, as magazines seem to be moving to paid online subscriptions.

This is not "my " idea or concept. I am just reporting on what i read in a numdber of articles over 6 months or more. i dont even understnad why you are so resistant to it. It fits with other modern findings about the nature of human cognitive development, particularly in children, and the construction of human belief/disbelief. its not as if it adds any credence to the actual existence of god itjust explains why humans create/construct god.Tthis phenomenum has been known for a long time and IS the basis of much scientific experimentation/investigation I dont think any scientist in the field now believes or accepts that humans are simply taught the concept of god from outside sources.it is recognised to be something which develops individually in humans from the process of thought, as long as they are taught to speak and thus to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

They don't worship anything, Mr Walker. They claim to see things collectively that you and I don't see.

I am sorry but if they are afraid enough of an invisible entity in the sky to avoid it, then they 'worship" it. You are trtying to avoid my point. These people created/consrtructed, spontaneously a spiritual religious belief about spirits to explain what they observe. they modify their behaviour in repsonse to what they believe about those entities. That is what worship involves.

Unlike some, i am not fixated on christian or even western forms of belief. ALL humans create spiritual beliefs, and codify them into religious behaiours, Ie behaviour which is belief based. This tribe is NO diffeent to a pagan, a christian, jew, or gaean, in the basics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

After literally hours of scouring the internet (including the New Scientist website), I continue to affirm that you are over-claiming the actual results of those scientific studies.

I continue to claim that there is not a single scientific study in the history of the world that claims that children of the ages 2-4 years old construct their own Creator of the Universe as an explanation of "Magic".

From the article you linked:

Ultimately, discovering the true origins of something as complex as religion will be difficult. There is one experiment, however, that could go a long way to proving whether Boyer, Bloom and the rest are onto something profound. Ethical issues mean it won't be done any time soon, but that hasn't stopped people speculating about the outcome.

It goes something like this. Left to their own devices, children create their own "creole" languages using hard-wired linguistic brain circuits. A similar experiment would provide our best test of the innate religious inclinations of humans. Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.

Thought experiments don't count, Mr Walker.

After literally hours of scouring the internet (including the New Scientist website), I continue to affirm that you are over-claiming the actual results of those scientific studies.

I continue to claim that there is not a single scientific study in the history of the world that claims that children of the ages 2-4 years old construct their own Creator of the Universe as an explanation of "Magic".

From the article you linked:

Ultimately, discovering the true origins of something as complex as religion will be difficult. There is one experiment, however, that could go a long way to proving whether Boyer, Bloom and the rest are onto something profound. Ethical issues mean it won't be done any time soon, but that hasn't stopped people speculating about the outcome.

It goes something like this. Left to their own devices, children create their own "creole" languages using hard-wired linguistic brain circuits. A similar experiment would provide our best test of the innate religious inclinations of humans. Would a group of children raised in isolation spontaneously create their own religious beliefs? "I think the answer is yes," says Bloom.

Thought experiments don't count, Mr Walker.

Like you I am having trouble locating the articles online 9but i know they exist having read them in hard copy. You may have read this site which includes your last quote but I will extract this short paragrah to illustrate my point

http://neurowhoa.blo...reates-god.html

In

In similar experiments, Olivera Petrovich of the University of Oxford asked pre-school children about the origins of natural things such as plants and animals. She found they were seven times as likely to answer that they were made by god than made by people. These cognitive biases are so strong, says Petrovich, that children tend to spontaneously invent the concept of god without adult intervention: "They rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of god on the basis of this experience." Because of this, when children hear the claims of religion they seem to make perfect sense.

This is based on the experiments and observations i recall reading about, but there are other examples around the world. Note that BEFORE religion is introduced to a child, they have a cognitive bias to it, which tends to confirm its validity, but this bias is constructed within the childs mind without adult intervention. Other interesting extracts

experime

experiments on young children reveal this default state of the mind. Children as young as three readily attribute design and purpose to inanimate objects. When Deborah Kelemen of the University of Arizona in Tucson asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music", while rivers exist so boats have something to float on. "It was extraordinary to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds were 'for' a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion," says Kelemen.

Even so, relig

Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom. "All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away." Petrovich adds that even adults who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics are prone to supernatural thinking. Bering has seen this too. When one of his students carried out interviews with atheists, it became clear that they often tacitly attribute purpose to significant or traumatic moments in their lives, as if some agency were intervening to make it happen. "They don't completely exorcise the ghost of god - they just muzzle it," Bering says. The fact that trauma is so often responsible for these slips gives a clue as to why adults find it so difficult to jettison their innate belief in gods, Atran says. The problem is something he calls "the tragedy of cognition". Humans can anticipate future events, remember the past and conceive of how things could go wrong - including their own death, which is hard to deal with. "You've got to figure out a solution, otherwise you're overwhelmed," Atran says. When natural brain processes give us a get-out-of-jail card, we take it.

And my own particular favourite

so if

so if religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work, where does that leave god? All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods: as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it. It does, however, suggests that god isn't going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the "path of least resistance", says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.

Ps it looks as if thse articles were back in 2009. This site illustrates why it is now difficult to access them. You have to suicribe to the magazine

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

The original articles clearly stated that "even where children are not extenally exposed to concepts of god they create their own " To paraphrase.

The whole degbate was about why and how humans universally create god constructs (it had nothing to do withany reality of god other than that.) "Originally" (late 1900s early 2000s) as a result of the advances in genetics many scientists thought there must be a genetic" god spot' which caused this to occur, LAter resaeach countered that and found that it is all about the way humans think, and our use of thought/language. Unfortunately my work computer shut down as i was doing that post ther are manyother sites which expand on thos The original new scientist articles used to be available free online but I am not sure that they still are, as magazines seem to be moving to paid online subscriptions.

This is not "my " idea or concept. I am just reporting on what i read in a numdber of articles over 6 months or more. i dont even understnad why you are so resistant to it. It fits with other modern findings about the nature of human cognitive development, particularly in children, and the construction of human belief/disbelief. its not as if it adds any credence to the actual existence of god itjust explains why humans create/construct god.Tthis phenomenum has been known for a long time and IS the basis of much scientific experimentation/investigation I dont think any scientist in the field now believes or accepts that humans are simply taught the concept of god from outside sources.it is recognised to be something which develops individually in humans from the process of thought, as long as they are taught to speak and thus to think.

I'm resistant to it, as you put it, because you are describing the research in a way which is materially incorrect, and are still apparently intent on doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

I am sorry but if they are afraid enough of an invisible entity in the sky to avoid it, then they 'worship" it. You are trtying to avoid my point. These people created/consrtructed, spontaneously a spiritual religious belief about spirits to explain what they observe. they modify their behaviour in repsonse to what they believe about those entities. That is what worship involves.

Unlike some, i am not fixated on christian or even western forms of belief. ALL humans create spiritual beliefs, and codify them into religious behaiours, Ie behaviour which is belief based. This tribe is NO diffeent to a pagan, a christian, jew, or gaean, in the basics.

So - in your world - People who claim to have seen a ghost are actually worshiping that ghost?

* Bangs head slowly against the desk *

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

In similar experiments, Olivera Petrovich of the University of Oxford asked pre-school children about the origins of natural things such as plants and animals. She found they were seven times as likely to answer that they were made by god than made by people. These cognitive biases are so strong, says Petrovich, that children tend to spontaneously invent the concept of god without adult intervention: "They rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of god on the basis of this experience." Because of this, when children hear the claims of religion they seem to make perfect sense.

Right then. Now we're actually getting somewhere and I now at least understand why you've claimed what you've claimed.

Petrovitch is referring to two studies of children, one of Japanese children aged four to six, and another of 400 British children aged five to seven from seven different faiths.

The study shows children an object and gives them the choice of one of the following three answers:

  • People did it
  • God did it
  • Don’t know

The above study is clearly populated by children who have been previously exposed to the concept of God. On the basis that it includes the answer "God did it".

My claim is, and continues to be, that there is not a single scientific study in the history of the world that claims that children of the ages 2-4 years old construct their own Creator of the Universe as an explanation of "Magic".

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that if they've been previously exposed to the concept of a God and given an obviously rigged test showing things which have been designed by humans and things which are Natural, then they'll answer God for the non-designed items most of the time.

[because God forbid, you'd ask them if Nature did it].

Not so happy with the idea that they're literally creating their own branches of mythology before having the mental capacity required to be able to tie their own shoelaces, though.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

So - in your world - People who claim to have seen a ghost are actually worshiping that ghost?

* Bangs head slowly against the desk *

If their relationship with the ghost includes elements of behaviour based on beliefs about the ghost, then yes. For example, if they try to propitiate it, avoid it or not anger it, then they are worshipping it. In the same way early people worshipped trees rocks animals and /or the presumed spirits within those things. Given the article, as sourced, these people display a relationship with the spirits that is a form of worship.

Worship has a wide definition but basically involves physical responses, especially patterns of responses, or repeated responses, based on a belief in the presence or power of an entity. Ie once belief is transferred into action by a person the person is worshiping the object of belief. If i believe a rock is possessed of a powerful malignant entity, and i choose to walk around itm and not approach itm then I am worshipping that rock in my attitude and behaviour.

But the idea of worship is a distraction from the original point. Many humans recognise and construct gods without necessarily worshipping them, themselves Eg the god of mammon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apopo

I was a Christian once, I had some troubles with my life then. My sister gave me a Bible and I read it. I soon became a Christian after that, and believed in an existence of a God. Then I thought about it. If there was a God, then why was pain in this world? Why did people die from cancer then? What about the Inquisition? Everything started to contradict after I did research on the Bible and the verses. Wouldn't dinosaurs contradict the six thousand years concept?

That was when I started to doubt. I googled these problems up, surprise, many people had the same thoughts as me. I looked around in Christian sites, and it was like "God has a plan, and that he works in mysterious ways?"

It gave me no answer, and it only made me feel like talking to a wall after praying many times. I started to doubt, and finally I became an atheist. I now speak up more often, questioning things and that, which was a big contrast back when I was a Christian, where I could not doubt God.

I now freely admit that I'm an atheist, and that I do challenge some points with my Christian friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Right then. Now we're actually getting somewhere and I now at least understand why you've claimed what you've claimed.

Petrovitch is referring to two studies of children, one of Japanese children aged four to six, and another of 400 British children aged five to seven from seven different faiths.

The study shows children an object and gives them the choice of one of the following three answers:

  • People did it
  • God did it
  • Don’t know

The above study is clearly populated by children who have been previously exposed to the concept of God. On the basis that it includes the answer "God did it".

My claim is, and continues to be, that there is not a single scientific study in the history of the world that claims that children of the ages 2-4 years old construct their own Creator of the Universe as an explanation of "Magic".

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that if they've been previously exposed to the concept of a God and given an obviously rigged test showing things which have been designed by humans and things which are Natural, then they'll answer God for the non-designed items most of the time.

[because God forbid, you'd ask them if Nature did it].

Not so happy with the idea that they're literally creating their own branches of mythology before having the mental capacity required to be able to tie their own shoelaces, though.

Actually the article (as I read it) said tha tshe did these studies herself

In similar experiments, Olivera Petrovich of the University of Oxford asked pre-school children about the origins of natural things such as plants and animals. She found they were seven times as likely to answer that they were made by god than made by people. Thesecognitive biases are so strong, says Petrovich, that children tend to spontaneously invent the concept of god without adult intervention: "They rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of god on the basis of this experience." Because of this, when children hear the claims of religion they seem to make perfect sense.

She may have been also referencing other studies. I wil reiterate that in the new scientist articles, scientists from several studies made the claim ( repeated here by Petrovich) that children who had NOT been exposed to the concept of god, created such a conceptt themselves from within their own thought processes. It seems pretty clear, that this is also what Petrovich is claiming fromm withn her own observations given what i bolded of her own quoted words.

Again, i find it personally interesting, how and why you should hold such a strongly opposed pov. As well as the result of such observations, in terms of what we know about both cognitive debvelopment and the links between human thought and linguistic symbology, it makes logical sense. It also fits, and would help to explain, the findings in recent studies in the neurology, and evolved human sociology/psychology, behind why humans form beliefs and disbeliefs.

I go along with richard dawkins. Yes of course children are indoctrinated (or educated) into the beliefs of not just their parents but of their society. However, if children grew up with no parents (as long as they could develop language. Which is problematical) they would develop individual, and then group, constructs of god. That is the evidence not just of what has happened throughout human history, but of modern science in its study of children's cognitive development. Science is explaining not just the "physics" of it, but the how and why, in terms of language, symbology, thought patterns etc.

"I am thoroughly happy with believing that children are predisposed to believe in invisible gods - I always was," says Dawkins. "But I also find the indoctrination hypothesis plausible. The two influences could, and I suspect do, reinforce one another." He suggests that evolved gullibility converts a child's general predisposition to believe in god into a specific belief in the god (or gods) their parents worship.

ibid

Although modern reseach is indicating it is nothing quite as negative as "evolved gullibilty" It is actually a part of the evolved logic process of human thought, and how we solve problems without sufficient data. "Gullibilty" is a deliberately negative appelation, and therefore not entirely accurate because it is subjective.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

Mr Walker

To me belief in the supernatural is a human trait, therefore it must be in our DNA somewhere. The problem I see with these studies is that if the kids really knew nothing about the supernatural, they wouldn't be able to articulate what they think. So you give them choices and many of them might pick B for no good reason. The questions seem to pre-requisite a knowledge of God, and where did they get that? On the other hand, tell these kids to go down the dark hallway alone and open the big curtains at the end and you'll find a lot of them will be too afraid to do so. Afraid of an invisible ominous force that is all around us. I speculate that whatever brain function is making those things happen evolve into religious thoughts as individuals get older and try to explain it to themselves/others. Sounds like obvious traits you would evolve developing in a very hostile environment.

I argue that if you get a bunch of kids and show them the ominous curtains and ask what's behind the curtain: A) Your parents, B) A Dinosaur, C) Nothing. A lot of kids would answer B. When I was 4 and was asked that as I displayed fear of opening a curtain, that's what I answered.

Edited by ranrod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Tiggs

Explicit Atheism is the type where the atheist is aware of the possibility of the existence of at least one Deity. Implicit atheism is "Atheism by default", where the atheist is unaware of any possibility of there being a Deity.

I see no foundation for describing a cooperative unresponsive reply to a question about beliefs as being in any sense a negative reply. It is entirely possible for a person to have a belief and be unaware of it, especially if the person prefers different conceptual categories to organize their beliefs than the questioner does.

Q. In your opinion, is Barack Obama the first President whose last name ends in a vowel?

is for many Americans a hard question. Ironically, it can be made easier by asking two questions, the other being:

Q. In your opinion, did James Monroe precede Barack Obama as President?

This illustratess what is sometimes called the deductive closure problem. It is only one of the many ways that a person may hold an unambiguous commitement to a belief without being consciously aware of the content of the belief. Of course, Socrates knew that well, and used it to his advantage when debating many subjects, including religious beliefs.

The variety of human conceptions of "a deity" is wide. My current favorite is Carl Jung's report of a tribe that considered the rising of the sun and moon, not the bodies themselves, but their appearance on the horizon, as deities, and tribe members performed overt acts of worship to those events. It is perfectly obvious that a person whose actual credal state about some hypothetical realization of the divine was otherwise indistinguishable from the most ardent God squadder's could be designated an implicit atheist under your proposal. This would occur by somebody not adopting your concept of divinity, but knowing perfectly well what they worship.

This possibility has even been addressed by an ardent God squadder, Billy Graham, who famously remarked that any person "turning to the light they know" displays, to God's satisfaction, faith in the Christ. I see no evidence that the "default" condition of humanity is to be deprived of light, and as a Jungian, I believe the contrary on prioristic grounds.

I also see no basis to disparage Billy Graham's theory which recruits all ignorant neutrals to his cause and to acquiesce in an atheist doing the same for his cause. I also note that the evidentiary foundation for claiming adherents by default is identical in both cases.

Where is the harm in the modest admission that some people are inherently unclassifiable as one among theist, atheist and agnostic, and that the problem is deeper than can be solved by slapping adjectives on the root terms, to coin oxymorons and loaded phrases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

I was a Christian once, I had some troubles with my life then. My sister gave me a Bible and I read it. I soon became a Christian after that, and believed in an existence of a God.

Ok...you were a Christian... read a bible then later .........became a Chrsitian and started to beleivei n God... I...see ... ok then lol .....

Then I thought about it. If there was a God, then why was pain in this world? Why did people die from cancer then? What about the Inquisition? Everything started to contradict after I did research on the Bible and the verses. Wouldn't dinosaurs contradict the six thousand years concept?

Because it isnt utopia ..... unfortunately we on earth have to take the rough with the smooth.. Everything has an opposite.. I mean you could say why do people die? then you would have to run with the opposite ( remember everything has one ) and ask - Why are humans born? ... If you ask why do some die with cancer? you would then ask.. why are some full with health ? ... all opposite... And it is unfortunate there is much suffering..

I don't know if that is Gods plan.. if it is it is a bit whacked.... No one knows Gods plan...Yea Christians might think they do, but it is just a belief

I believe in God.. but I believe that with all the suffering and the good things combined.. it is the natural order of things..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

We're all born atheists so you could argue that you've just been on a trip and have now returned home.

My parents are atheist yet I've never been one.

I think your statement is incorrect. Scientists can show a difference exists between the brains of atheists and religious believers. I think you'll find those that believe in God score higher on the perception part of an IQ test than atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

Religion was never a big part of my family life growing up, my grandmother was devout however. I've always been on the fence with god, he might exist he might not. Whatever, I don't care but I recently got the view of disliking god if he did exist, I was raped multiple times by two different people and the only solice my devout grandmother gave me was 'well thats what you get for hanging around boys.' then proceeded to give me Christianity booklets about why I should love god and all that. I refuse to love a god that would allow such things to happen to me, and I don't deny his existence, but he will never have my love. I've been told it's part of his 'big plan' for me. I had to hold myself back from smacking someone out.

I hope you've not let your experiences effect your life.

99.9% of men dont go around raping women so I hope this hasnt made you hate men. Most family members would also be a bit more supportive than telling the victim it was there fault. Thats out of order and abuse in its own right.

I dont believe in Jesus or that God is some bearded old man wearing white robes. I also think Christainity is a very poor and demeaning faith which teaches people they're all sinners and its all their fault. There are religions out there which are a lot better and arent at odds with science either such as a Buddhism and Taoism.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ranrod

I hope you've not let your experiences effect your life.

99.9% of men dont go around raping women so I hope this hasnt made you hate men. Most family members would also be a bit more supportive than telling the victim it was there fault. Thats out of order and abuse in its own right.

I dont believe in Jesus or that God is some bearded old man wearing white robes. I also think Christainity is a very poor and demeaning faith which teaches people they're all sinners and its all their fault. There are religions out there which are a lot better and arent at odds with science either such as a Buddhism and Taoism.

Terrible. I really really don't understand at all the mindset of someone who would do that. Castrate them all.

Remember those individuals are horrible people, not to say all men are horrible. Religion is not to blame. God is not to blame. Those people enacted their free will in a vile way. People take solace in Religion because think the bad people will get their comeuppance when they meet their maker. I say that's too late. Have the law handle it. I'm agnostic btw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

I hope you've not let your experiences effect your life.

Rape, either done on a female or a male is sick and has been known to mess up peoples mids and pushed so many to suicide ...Other have needed counselling ... From reading her post, she sure could use someone to be there and at least listen to her..help her out

99.9% of men dont go around raping women so I hope this hasnt made you hate men.

This planet has over 7 billion people... Lets say 3.5 billion of them are males... you are saying that this world has gotten at least 3.5 million male rapists? As in right now, in present times? WAIT - ..Now imagine if you were to calculate that over time? The numbers would likely be a lot higher ... ( remember over time = over thousands of years ) I would say it would likely be a lot higher .. .But I see no real need to even bring up percentages .. and hope she doesn't hate men.. I would have just said... Sorry to hear that, hope one day you will be ok and someone is there for you <-- safer bet in my view .and related closer to what she was actually saying.................However I do not get why you felt she might hate men? She never said so ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Terrible. I really really don't understand at all the mindset of someone who would do that. Castrate them all.

Remember those individuals are horrible people, not to say all men are horrible. Religion is not to blame. God is not to blame. Those people enacted their free will in a vile way. People take solace in Religion because think the bad people will get their comeuppance when they meet their maker. I say that's too late. Have the law handle it. I'm agnostic btw.

Now you are talking.. Good post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

Rape, either done on a female or a male is sick and has been known to mess up peoples mids and pushed so many to suicide ...Other have needed counselling ... From reading her post, she sure could use someone to be there and at least listen to her..help her out

This planet has over 7 billion people... Lets say 3.5 billion of them are males... you are saying that this world has gotten at least 3.5 million male rapists? As in right now, in present times? WAIT - ..Now imagine if you were to calculate that over time? The numbers would likely be a lot higher ... ( remember over time = over thousands of years ) I would say it would likely be a lot higher .. .But I see no real need to even bring up percentages .. and hope she doesn't hate men.. I would have just said... Sorry to hear that, hope one day you will be ok and someone is there for you <-- safer bet in my view .and related closer to what she was actually saying.................However I do not get why you felt she might hate men? She never said so ..

Yes there are many sickos out there and not just rapists.

I dont know that she does hate men I said I hope she doesnt. Isnt it sad when people do these things to another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Yes there are many sickos out there and not just rapists.

I dont know that she does hate men I said I hope she doesnt. Isnt it sad when people do these things to another?

Yes very sad, but that's life.It has always been like that.. I feel sorry for anyone who has suffered rape...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Right Wing

Yes very sad, but that's life.It has always been like that.. I feel sorry for anyone who has suffered rape...

Same here except for criminal prisoners.

I hope they get raped lots lol

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

Same here except for criminal prisoners.

I hope they get raped lots lol

What you described above is - The punishment fitting the crime ..!!

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

Actually the article (as I read it) said tha tshe did these studies herself

My apologies. It wasn't my intent to claim that, but I can see how you may have read it that way.

She may have been also referencing other studies. I wil reiterate that in the new scientist articles, scientists from several studies made the claim ( repeated here by Petrovich) that children who had NOT been exposed to the concept of god, created such a conceptt themselves from within their own thought processes. It seems pretty clear, that this is also what Petrovich is claiming fromm withn her own observations given what i bolded of her own quoted words.

Again, i find it personally interesting, how and why you should hold such a strongly opposed pov.

Because, Mr Walker, Toddlers don't create Pantheons.

Simple as that.

I'd have thought that the word "rigged" in my last post would have given it away.

I see an obvious disconnect between Petrovich's experiment and the conclusions that she claims that they represent.

Edited by Tiggs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.