Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[varelse]

I know it's legal.

It's not complicated- you simply made a reductio ad absurdum. Nothing in the discussion suggested KG supported homicide in the name of her faith.

You know you're out there when I'm defending someone named koshergirl against your asinine ridiculousness in a thread where she basically claimed science proved all babies were born Jews

 

[PratchettFan]

I know it's legal.

It's not complicated- you simply made a reductio ad absurdum. Nothing in the discussion suggested KG supported homicide in the name of her faith.

You know you're out there when I'm defending someone named koshergirl against your asinine ridiculousness in a thread where she basically claimed science proved all babies were born Jews

I never said she supported homicide in the name of her faith. I assumed she did not. You are the one who brought that into the discussion. I was responding to her flat statement that the government should keep its hands off of religious practices. I was questioning her sincerity on that. Or perhaps just pointing out the lack of rational thought behind the statement.

Every example I gave was an actual, current religious practice. I made up none of it. So how exactly does that reduce her statement to the absurd? I'll agree it took it to its logical conclusion. But absurd? I think not.

 

[Underhill]

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

I'm not claiming everything the church did was bad, or good. I'm saying it isn't true that the church invariably means good things for society.

Roman culture may not have been perfect, but it was the best at the time. And they were certainly not christian. China, Egypt, and Greece are other examples.

If I had to pick one thing that led to cultural success it would be the idea of universal rule of law. Which is not exclusive to christians. China had a strong legal structure over a thousand years before modern christianity was spreading through Europe. And Chinese standards of living, while hard to compare directly, seem as high, and probably higher, than Europe for at least 500 years and probably twice that long.

I'll agree with that. No human group invariably means good things for society. People are people no matter what.

I'm not sure what you mean by the universal rule of law. We've had that ever since the first guy was big enough to force his wishes on the rest of the clan.

No we really haven't at least not in the modern sense. Prior to 500BCE it was a rare thing. But what I am saying is that as society has placed greater importance on a just system of laws, and equal and fair enforcement of those laws, we have seen societies all over the world blossom and grow.

I've traveled all over the planet and my hypothesis seems supportable today as well. Looking at places like Africa, where the standard of living is low, much of the problem is a lack of legal authority. Theft and corruption is all too often rampant. So business is loath to go there and even local business struggles to thrive. What government there is struggles to enforce anything due to lack of funds, so it's a self perpetuating problem.

There are exceptions, war and population density obviously play huge rolls too, but in general I think it's a fair statement to make.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would disagree with this. I think the church had quite a bit to do with improving europe after the fall of Rome. It had a lot to do with the birth of modern science. During the dark ages, monastaries were the primary source of keeping libraries and learning going. The first universities were created by the church. The father of modern genetics, mendel, was a monk. Modern hospitals came out of the church. Druing that time art, architecture, engineering, etc. made progress because the church financed and encouraged it.

It is a myth that religion is in conflict with science. What we see as science today owes its existence to religion.

There are exceptions of course. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for his scientific views--he was subsequently reinstated posthumously with apologies by the Church. In 2000, Pope John Paul II formally apologized to all scientists and others that has been erroneously mischaracterized by well intended but misinformed Church heirarchy over the centures.

But you are correct that Christian influences enhanced the arts, great architecture, enduring music, and knowledge in all things including scientific research in the great educational institutions built mostly by the Church. Even in America, 106 of the first 108 colleges were started by Christian groups. In 1860, 229 of 246 colleges in America had been founded by Christian denominations. And despite all the errors, all the injustices, all the things the Church got wrong over more than 2,000 years, no religion has had more profound and positive influence on the world, most especailly this country, than has Christianity.

And I still deeply believe that every human is born with an instinctive sense of God, by whatever name God is called, from the very beginning.

I concur. There is no good side or bad side in this. Religion and science are both human endeavors, and you will find good and bad in any human endeavor. There is much which one could point to in science which has been not nice at all, and much in religion. But it is not because either science or religion is inherently good or bad. It is because people are.

I see no problem with your belief. I don't share it, but that is fine. I have my own beliefs. My feeling on that is that in the absence of any information, it is all a blind guess. So you go with the guess which feels right to you. That's not at all scientific, but science isn't everything.

There is an element of faith/supposition in the concepts of course. Those who have never experienced a thing are far more likely to doubt it than those who do experience it. Those of us who have a relationship with the living Christ, who have experienced the living God, have much less problem believing than do those who have not. Those who have an open mind on the subject may never be Christians as Christianity is defined or believers in a personal God--think Einstein--but may nevertheless be convinced that there is some force in the universe more powerful and intelligent than the sum total of knowledge and ability of all of humankind.

It is that force in the universe that Einstein came to believe in that I believe is also known by young children who, without preconceived notions, are able to detect and understand it better than more jaded adults can do. And again, this is my deducted rationale for why every single culture, without exception, in the human race have developed religion/religious concepts.

 

[koshergrl]

I've read your posts and I don't buy your claim here. But let's find out.

There are some religious practices today, in the United States, which involve animal sacrifice. Should the government keep its hands off of that?
There are some religions which involve polygamy. Should the government keep its hands off of that? It depends on whether or not they are breaking the law. If they are stealing other people's animals, then no, the government has the right to intervene. If they are participating in cruelty to animals, which is illegal, then yes, the law should stop it. Otherwise, no, the government has no right to intervene.

There are religions today which still burn witchs. Should the government keep its hands off of that? If it actually happened, then yes, because it is murder. We had due process here. But of course you're lying. There are no religions in this country that burn witches. If witches are being burned, it's in other countries where human rights violations take place regularly, and my guess is they are already theocracies..most likely muslim ones.


There are religious practices that involve the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of children, forced sex, forced marriage. All kinds of things fall under the category of religious practice. Are they hands off for the government?

Nope, because those are illegal practices.

So thanks for the illogical fallacies and straw men which have nothing to do with anything. I've never proposed that human rights violations, theft, or anything else illegal be allowed because it falls under the umbrella of religious freedom. Religious freedom exists to the point that the exercise of it violates the rights of other people. At least in this country. And I've never maintained that it should be extended beyond that. We have the right to freedom of speech, and we have freedom of religion. We do not have the right to hurt others. Sorry you don't understand that. And we don't have a right to be sheltered from ideas we don't like.

Ahh. So animal sacrifice is fine as long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

Sheesh. These fundie whackjobs are a danger to themselves and those around them.

Yeah, you moron. It's called religious freedom. If someone wants to twist the head off a chicken and sprinkle blood around the room, I could give a shit.

Do you eat chicken?

 

[Hollie]

Nope, because those are illegal practices.

So thanks for the illogical fallacies and straw men which have nothing to do with anything. I've never proposed that human rights violations, theft, or anything else illegal be allowed because it falls under the umbrella of religious freedom. Religious freedom exists to the point that the exercise of it violates the rights of other people. At least in this country. And I've never maintained that it should be extended beyond that. We have the right to freedom of speech, and we have freedom of religion. We do not have the right to hurt others. Sorry you don't understand that. And we don't have a right to be sheltered from ideas we don't like.

Ahh. So animal sacrifice is fine as long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

Sheesh. These fundie whackjobs are a danger to themselves and those around them.

Yeah, you moron. It's called religious freedom. If someone wants to twist the head off a chicken and sprinkle blood around the room, I could give a shit.

Do you eat chicken?

The religiously insane - lovely, lovely folks.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, because those who stand for religious freedom are "religiously insane".

Do you propose raids on kitchens where Santeria ceremoniesa are being held? Round up those Caribbeans and throw their asses in jail! Or better yet...KILL them! How dare they kill chickens!

 

[koshergrl]

Quick, ppl...send lists of the names of those Wiccans you know to Hollie so she can march in on ceremonial slaughter rituals and mow those crazies down!

You do realize that Jews practice a form of ritualistic slaughter....LOCK THEM UP! CRAZY RELIGIOUS FUNDIES MUST BE STOPPED!!!

Don't even get me started on spiritual Native hunting practices...HORRORS....IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!

Hollie you've finally surpassed TM in the combination ignorance/lunacy department. Congratulations. You are now officially the stupidest and most ridiculous poster at usmb.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, because those who stand for religious freedom are "religiously insane".

Do you propose raids on kitchens where Santeria ceremoniesa are being held? Round up those Caribbeans and throw their asses in jail! Or better yet...KILL them! How dare they kill chickens!

I thought so. Your religious practices involve plunging large needles into dolls fashioned into the likeness of humans.

Do you smear blood by dipping chickens feet?

 

[koshergrl]

For Hollie. With love.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, because those who stand for religious freedom are "religiously insane".

Do you propose raids on kitchens where Santeria ceremoniesa are being held? Round up those Caribbeans and throw their asses in jail! Or better yet...KILL them! How dare they kill chickens!

I thought so. Your religious practices involve plunging large needles into dolls fashioned into the likeness of humans.

Do you smear blood by dipping chickens feet?

No, I don't. But I fully support the right of others to do whatever stupid thing they like, provided they aren't hurting anyone when they do it.

And I think it says something about me that I actually knew that those practices exist....I'm not sure you did, until just this moment. It's hard to tell, when you consistently exhibit collossal stupidity. Just when I think you can't possibly say anything less intelligent than your last comment, you surprise me..

 

[Hollie]

For Hollie. With love.

I suppose it's a Christian thing to ridicule those with physical ailments.

Your self-hate is a pathology.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sigh. M.D. Rawlings, thank you for a thought provoking and interesting thread. I wish more had been interested in the topic. But for now, I simply am not in the mood for yet another food fight/insult fest and will unsubscribe.

Ya'll have fun and a good weekend.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, because those who stand for religious freedom are "religiously insane".

Do you propose raids on kitchens where Santeria ceremoniesa are being held? Round up those Caribbeans and throw their asses in jail! Or better yet...KILL them! How dare they kill chickens!

I thought so. Your religious practices involve plunging large needles into dolls fashioned into the likeness of humans.

Do you smear blood by dipping chickens feet?

No, I don't. But I fully support the right of others to do whatever stupid thing they like, provided they aren't hurting anyone when they do it.

And I think it says something about me that I actually knew that those practices exist....I'm not sure you did, until just this moment. It's hard to tell, when you consistently exhibit collossal stupidity. Just when I think you can't possibly say anything less intelligent than your last comment, you surprise me..

When you're plunging large needles into dolls, do you mutilate yourself and tell people it was an accident?

 

[koshergrl]

For Hollie. With love.

I suppose it's a Christian thing to ridicule those with physical ailments.

Your self-hate is a pathology.

I'm not ridiculing people with physical ailments, I'm ridiculing you.

I see no evidence of physical ailment in that picture...more evidence of your bigotry. It's a picture of a little girl. Apparently you are not only bigoted against Christians, and the educated...but you have a thing against young blond female children, too. Do you support sex-based abortion, perhaps?

Shocker.

 

[newpolitics]

Children naturally gravitate towards faith in the supernatural. There is a God gene.

There is no Atheism gene. Atheism is not a *natural* belief; it is natural to look for a deity. Atheism, however, has to be indoctrinated and is unnatural to the human mind.

Which pretty much blows their claim that children on an island would never believe in God.

Hamer also theorizes that not only does the God gene move humans towards accepting the concept of a deity; he also argues that it increases our chance for success and survival.

That a belief in god(s) facilitates social cohesion and hence survivability is evidence that god is likely man-made.

Er, no, it isn't. I would love you to bore me with your reasoning on that, which flies in the face of what every single researcher has stated...wait, no I wouldn't.

What research are you talking about? And what does this research conclude? Please don't say gods existence, because I will just have to laugh. Again, the research cited in the OP does nothing to prove the existence of god. My argument was, admittedly, a weak argument for the non-existence of god, but it is no weaker than the argument that god does exist because babies are predisposed for theistic belief, which is why I stated it. If you are trying to conclude that god exists because babies are predisdosed to believe, then it is just as likely that god doesn't exist because religious thought is evolutionarily adpative.

My reasoning and evidence are as follows: The mere concept of a god suffices to draw people together. Our cognitive biases take care of the rest in supplying "evidence" of these beings existence throughout history. It was an evolutionary advantage, plain and simple. It is one more thing that would bind a group of religious hunter-gathers together, over that of an atheistic hunter-gather group, were one to ever exist. Therefore, you would expect humans to be predisposed to cognitive biases that allow such belief, and hence, the tighter social cohesion of that group. Specifically, a shared belief in something unchanging, eternal, and all-powerful is perfect for controlling a population by supplying incentives for moral behavior through the spectre of a punishing demon or a rewarding deity, which unlike the constantly changin world, is totally dependable. Amidst ever changing variables (seasons, day/night, climate, DEATH), the proposed existence of such a being would have understandly allowed greater existential comfort for every human prior to the modern scientific era. Nothing can be concluded definietively from either argument, however, being that we have an actual plausible cause for evolved theistic belief, the total lack of evidence for any gods, and the moral degradation of those who do believe, all signs point to god being simply a concept that humans have unwittingly found useful.

The fact that religious belief was advantageous for humans is not arguable. That is a fact. However, logically, this fact can do nothing to prove or disprove god's actual existence. So, we are no further along than we were before the OP. What this does do though, is create a clear picture of why religious thought was created, and lends further credence to the non-existence of god, in my opinion, given that it was man-made. I can not prove this though, and I won't pretend to.

 

[koshergrl]

Who said it did?

The entire premise is that our minds are made to seek a supernatural explanation for the unexplained, and we are at our best when we adhere to Christianity.

You morons are the ones who insist that saying such a thing is an attempt to *prove* the existence of God. It isn't. It simply supports that which we've maintained all along....having made us in his image, and having formed us to adore him, it makes perfect sense that our brains would be so constructed.

 

[Hollie]

Who said it did?

The entire premise is that our minds are made to seek a supernatural explanation for the unexplained, and we are at our best when we adhere to Christianity.

You morons are the ones who insist that saying such a thing is an attempt to *prove* the existence of God. It isn't. It simply supports that which we've maintained all along....having made us in his image, and having formed us to adore him, it makes perfect sense that our brains would be so constructed.

There is no such "premise" except as held by those who believe in fundie spirit worlds.

 

[varelse]

Ahh. So animal sacrifice is fine as long as it doesn't hurt the animal.

Sheesh. These fundie whackjobs are a danger to themselves and those around them.

Yeah, you moron. It's called religious freedom. If someone wants to twist the head off a chicken and sprinkle blood around the room, I could give a shit.

Do you eat chicken?

The religiously insane - lovely, lovely folks.

Are you an ethical vegitarian?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpbtBgLfl90"]Live Fast Die Young - the life of a meat chicken - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfVBsTBNsg0"]Tortured By Tyson - YouTube[/ame]

How is it any more cruel to cut their neck with a knife for religious reasons?

 

[varelse]

I know it's legal.

It's not complicated- you simply made a reductio ad absurdum. Nothing in the discussion suggested KG supported homicide in the name of her faith.

You know you're out there when I'm defending someone named koshergirl against your asinine ridiculousness in a thread where she basically claimed science proved all babies were born Jews

I never said she supported homicide in the name of her faith. I assumed she did not. You are the one who brought that into the discussion. I was responding to her flat statement that the government should keep its hands off of religious practices. I was questioning her sincerity on that. Or perhaps just pointing out the lack of rational thought behind the statement.

Every example I gave was an actual, current religious practice. I made up none of it. So how exactly does that reduce her statement to the absurd? I'll agree it took it to its logical conclusion. But absurd? I think not.

You implied she was okay with witch burnings and sexual slavery in the name of religion. It was a reductio ad absurdum that simply made you look like a shill.