Cyprus-Forum.com

[Chimera]

Organized complexity (matter) can emerge from simple beginings and evolve without the need for a creator (otherwise, back to who created the creator).

Recent studies have found the predominance of a genetic type who "needs to believe" (the types who still feel limbs when removed etc).

So, it's not a matter of choice to believe or otherwise, it as a matter of genetic pre-disposition making you amenable to belief without evidence.

The fact that religion has prevailed for so long was simply that those in power, recognised it for what it was...the tool to mobilise/brainwash the type of person as above who "needs to believe" and hence is easier to convince with any argument (except the one that god does not exist).

Lack of belief in religion usually meant death, which is why the types that prefer evidence-based arguments are in the minority.

[zan]

Organized complexity (matter) can emerge from simple beginings and evolve without the need for a creator (otherwise, back to who created the creator).

Recent studies have found the predominance of a genetic type who "needs to believe" (the types who still feel limbs when removed etc).

So, it's not a matter of choice to believe or otherwise, it as a matter of genetic pre-disposition making you amenable to belief without evidence.

The fact that religion has prevailed for so long was simply that those in power, recognised it for what it was...the tool to mobilise/brainwash the type of person as above who "needs to believe" and hence is easier to convince with any argument (except the one that god does not exist).

Lack of belief in religion usually meant death, which is why the types that prefer evidence-based arguments are in the minority.

F**CK me you can make sense after all GR.....

The usage of created in my post is as you have said here. The product of simple beginnings creating matter. It does not need a creator to apply.

[Chimera]

Organized complexity (matter) can emerge from simple beginings and evolve without the need for a creator (otherwise, back to who created the creator).

Recent studies have found the predominance of a genetic type who "needs to believe" (the types who still feel limbs when removed etc).

So, it's not a matter of choice to believe or otherwise, it as a matter of genetic pre-disposition making you amenable to belief without evidence.

The fact that religion has prevailed for so long was simply that those in power, recognised it for what it was...the tool to mobilise/brainwash the type of person as above who "needs to believe" and hence is easier to convince with any argument (except the one that god does not exist).

Lack of belief in religion usually meant death, which is why the types that prefer evidence-based arguments are in the minority.

F**CK me you can make sense after all GR.....

The usage of created in my post is as you have said here. The product of simple beginnings creating matter. It does not need a creator to apply.

Just Great!

One time I make so much undeniable good, clear sense and get praise from the hard-to-please Zanathustra, I lose the accolades to GetReal!

[zan]

Organized complexity (matter) can emerge from simple beginings and evolve without the need for a creator (otherwise, back to who created the creator).

Recent studies have found the predominance of a genetic type who "needs to believe" (the types who still feel limbs when removed etc).

So, it's not a matter of choice to believe or otherwise, it as a matter of genetic pre-disposition making you amenable to belief without evidence.

The fact that religion has prevailed for so long was simply that those in power, recognised it for what it was...the tool to mobilise/brainwash the type of person as above who "needs to believe" and hence is easier to convince with any argument (except the one that god does not exist).

Lack of belief in religion usually meant death, which is why the types that prefer evidence-based arguments are in the minority.

F**CK me you can make sense after all GR.....

The usage of created in my post is as you have said here. The product of simple beginnings creating matter. It does not need a creator to apply.

Just Great!

One time I make so much undeniable good, clear sense and get praise from the hard-to-please Zanathustra, I lose the accolades to GetReal!

Oh yeah! I forgot...He/You have gone to a party!!!



OH!...OH!....OH!......Nearly!!!!!

[Simon]

[quote]Again you are trying to explain things through the darkness that religion is. If we don't know then it must be something to do with religion. Religion takes over where science cannot explain. It has gone on throughout history and religion has been pushed back further and further. First the land and then the world and then the constellation and now the universe. Stevens Hawkings said that we do not need to know what was before the Big bang because what ever it was does not work in our physics. I don't NEED to know further than that. I understand that concept and it works. You are questioning that concept and therefore NEED an answer and religion works well in those circumstances.

I agree with you that religion comes from life and experiences but that does not justify the need. We can take out religion today and still function perfectly well. Take out science and we come to a stand still in time.

As I said I am not having a go at religion and those that want it can have it but I don't understand why they would. I also resent those that tell me that I am bad or not complete without it.[/quote]


Zan, I am not trying to explain anything in particular about religion, apart from your theory of the 'educated'. I was merely stating that science does not explain everything, especially with regards to matter, which you brought up. Religion is based on faith, science isn't. Therefore, if you believe that people could function without faith, then you are correct. I do not really see how that matters though. As I have said before, it is not a question of whether people can do without it, it is a question of what they choose to believe beyond the material universe. You seem to be unable to grasp this, for some reason. With regard to Stephen Hawking and Physics, if you do not need to know more than that, this is fine, however, others perhaps will want to know more than that. This I am afraid is the inquisitive human nature. I am questioning the concept of not needing to know more, however, I do not NEED religion for the answer; I choose to explore religion for the answer, there is a difference. If I did not believe religion provided an adequate answer, I would not believe it. Hence, this contradicts a 'need' which implies irrationality. It is a choice. In essence, I believe my approach is more open-minded that yours. People believe in its truth Zan, not because they 'need' to but because they 'want' to. Put it this way, I was speaking to a friend recently, who believes in God, and he said to me, that even if Science explained everything, he would still believe in God; because he does not believe due to a lack of knowledge of the Universe or anything else. He believes because of his inner feelings and experiences.

[Chimera]

(1)......it is not a question of whether people can do without it, it is a question of what they choose to believe beyond the material universe.
(2)......others perhaps will want to know more than that. This I am afraid is the inquisitive human nature.
(3)....If I did not believe religion provided an adequate answer, I would not believe it. Hence, this contradicts a 'need' which implies irrationality. It is a choice.
(4).....In essence, I believe my approach is more open-minded that yours.
(5).....even if Science explained everything, he would still believe in God; because he does not believe due to a lack of knowledge of the Universe or anything else. He believes because of his inner feelings and experiences.

Simon, my thoughts on what you have said, shortened to points above:

(1) When it comes to beliefs in faeries, gods etc, it is less about choice and more about convenience. You are settling by accepting long-held simplistic beliefs.
(2) The inquisitive human nature strives for true understanding such as that provided by evidence-based, falsifiable data.
(3) Needs are not always irrational. If you need insulin for diabetes, that is not irrational. If you need to believe in God, you are missing something which the belief fulfills.
(4) You have closed your mind off to difficult concepts that require rigorous justification and by accepting faith you think it fills a void.
(5) This is the sort of person that would not give up believing he could still feel a dismembered limb.

If God did not exist, we would have to invent Him.

[zan]

Again you are trying to explain things through the darkness that religion is. If we don't know then it must be something to do with religion. Religion takes over where science cannot explain. It has gone on throughout history and religion has been pushed back further and further. First the land and then the world and then the constellation and now the universe. Stevens Hawkings said that we do not need to know what was before the Big bang because what ever it was does not work in our physics. I don't NEED to know further than that. I understand that concept and it works. You are questioning that concept and therefore NEED an answer and religion works well in those circumstances.

I agree with you that religion comes from life and experiences but that does not justify the need. We can take out religion today and still function perfectly well. Take out science and we come to a stand still in time.

As I said I am not having a go at religion and those that want it can have it but I don't understand why they would. I also resent those that tell me that I am bad or not complete without it.

Zan, I am not trying to explain anything in particular about religion, apart from your theory of the 'educated'. I was merely stating that science does not explain everything, especially with regards to matter, which you brought up. Religion is based on faith, science isn't. Therefore, if you believe that people could function without faith, then you are correct. I do not really see how that matters though. As I have said before, it is not a question of whether people can do without it, it is a question of what they choose to believe beyond the material universe. You seem to be unable to grasp this, for some reason. With regard to Stephen Hawking and Physics, if you do not need to know more than that, this is fine, however, others perhaps will want to know more than that. This I am afraid is the inquisitive human nature. I am questioning the concept of not needing to know more, however, I do not NEED religion for the answer; I choose to explore religion for the answer, there is a difference. If I did not believe religion provided an adequate answer, I would not believe it. Hence, this contradicts a 'need' which implies irrationality. It is a choice. In essence, I believe my approach is more open-minded that yours. People believe in its truth Zan, not because they 'need' to but because they 'want' to. Put it this way, I was speaking to a friend recently, who believes in God, and he said to me, that even if Science explained everything, he would still believe in God; because he does not believe due to a lack of knowledge of the Universe or anything else. He believes because of his inner feelings and experiences.

I do understand what you are saying Simmon I did not mean to sound so flippant.

The point about Steven Hawking is that we can never understand what was before the big bang because it does not fit into our equations of physics and therefore does not matter. I can still wonder but understand that it is not understandable. We can never recreate it.

Now comes the part where I get into trouble.

A smoker will always give you the same argument about why they smoke and why they cannot give up and why, when they do give up for a short while their will power gives up and they start again. It is a symptom of partly genetics, as you have said, and how life experiences, as you have also said. The same educated people that write about their right to smoke and how this ban has taken away their right.

I hope you can put it into perspective with relation to what you have said above. Scientist know that smoking is bad for them and they know in detail. Are they all non smokers. I am not saying that religion is bad for you but it is to those that are fooled by evangelists. I am fed up with seeing people praying to something that is not there and the reasons they pray for. I can understand and even encourage those that are praying for loved ones..Who am I to deny them, but what about the footballer that prays in front of millions to be allowed to score a goal. Want or need?

[denizaksulu]

We need a Plato to answer this.

or.......

Religion benefitted mankind?????????? religion has been at the root all nearly all war since the year dot. Now the muslims wanna take over the world.........a real benefit. Not!

They benefit, dont they?

[Simon]

[quote]1) When it comes to beliefs in faeries, gods etc, it is less about choice and more about convenience. You are settling by accepting long-held simplistic beliefs. [/quote]

Sorry, but I disagree. It is about choice. If anything, it would be convenient not to believe. After all, you would not have to be baptized, go to Church, follow extremely strict principles of living etc etc. It is far more convenient not to believe and just allow science to explain everything.


(2) The inquisitive human nature strives for true understanding such as that provided by evidence-based, falsifiable data.

What you define as 'true understanding' may be different from another. Many religious people believe that their faith has an evidential basis. Evidence itself is subjective. What one person finds to be evidence, may not be what another considers to be evidence. True understanding, to the most open minded individuals, may come from Science or Religion, or both.

(3) Needs are not always irrational. If you need insulin for diabetes, that is not irrational. If you need to believe in God, you are missing something which the belief fulfills.

I am talking about a 'need' to believe in something that cannot be proven as fact. Completely different from insulin. Like I repeatedly have stated, belief does not necessarily come from a 'need' but is generally, from choice.

(4) You have closed your mind off to difficult concepts that require rigorous justification and by accepting faith you think it fills a void.

I have not closed my mind off from anything. I am in fact open to most possibilities, unlike those who cut their minds off from any possibility of 'God'.

(5) This is the sort of person that would not give up believing he could still feel a dismembered limb.

A dismembered limb is something that existed. Could that tell you something?

[quote]If God did not exist, we would have to invent Him.[/quote]

If he does exist, we wouldn't.

[Steve0505]

I've been monitoring the replies and thanks to Zan, Simon and Chimera for their informed and intelligent comments.

Someone once told me that we are the only species who can perceive our own death, therefore need something to believe in that makes our existence understandable. I don't know about that and would probably consider myself an un-believer, but last year I had a heart attack and suddenly found myself saying a little prayer in hospital, so I would never criticise or judge anybody who has the faith to believe unconditionally.

PS. thanks Southerner its noted.