Darwin's God

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 6 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]401262[/snapback]</div>

I know plenty of liberals that do believe and plenty that don't. None exhibit the bigotry and hate that appears here.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 6 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]401267[/snapback]</div>

You know thats a true statement '

As I too know of plenty of god fearing liberals, that are nice as can be. and other that do not believe in god and they are just as nice..

Maybe its because they have more to life than the internet chat rooms and FHOP.. :lol:

<poke - poke>

Fine, Most liberals here in FHOP do not believe in deites...... Not all of them but most..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Mar 6 2007, 02:05 PM) [snapback]401210[/snapback]</div>

I'm what is called a "presuppositionalist" in theological circles, in that I believe that people either are "pre-wired" to believe in God or or not. My observation has been that those that do not believe in God tend to say that they have never believed, even though they may have been raised in a religious environment, while those that believe in God often will say that they cannot remember NOT believing in God. I'm in among those that have, as my earliest memory, an interest in god in some form, even though my family was entirely secular and I didn't see the inside of a church until I was five years old for a baptism ceremony, and was frustrated that my mother would not take me back or allow me to go to church with any neighbors.

Dawkin's research fascinates me. While for Dawkins it is comforting to disprove religion, his research does not meet that goal for presuppositionalist Calvinists who believe in theistic evolution. Rather it helps prove what we have been saying for a very long time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 6 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]401226[/snapback]</div>

There are plenty of reasons to "take it for the team" besides the belief in an afterlife. Most atheists have personal ethical systems that are similar to those of most religious people. Nearly everyone balances their own needs with other goals that are important to them, and lives neither entirely for themselves nor entirely for some greater good. Many thousands of atheist Americans have died fighting for their country, and it is disrespectful to them to suggest that atheists are not capable of self-sacrifice for what they see as a greater good.

I understand that your point was supposed to be negative toward religion, not toward atheism, but it plays into the misconception that strong ethics and self-sacrifice are not associated with atheism.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 6 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]401262[/snapback]</div>

Probably not the case. Something like 96% of the population believes in God in some form, and more than 4% of the population is liberal.

So while I would say that secularists are more likely to be liberal, I wouldn't say liberals are mostly non-believers. Based on 4% non-belief, the most you could say is the split is 50/46 (or something of that sort).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 6 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]401289[/snapback]</div>

As another data point, I was raised Christian, but was skeptical of it for as long as I can remember (I remember arguing with a Sunday school teacher when I was in 2nd or 3rd grade and giving up at that point on reasoning with her). I consider myself an atheist. Yet my brother, who was raised the same way, is a Christian.

 

That may be the case, but most of the liberals here in FHOP do not believe in deites...... Not all of them but most..

 

"belief was the default position for the human mind, something that took no cognitive effort at all."

I love this comment from this article. Does this description remind you of a specific fresneck we all love and know?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Mar 6 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]401281[/snapback]</div>

Not sure about that...why don't you take a poll? They may not be Christians, but I'd bet that most of us "liberals" on this board believe in some sort of deity, even if it's not totally defined.

You may be right, but there may be a surprise there...

 

dumbkow,

You ought to take a reading comprehension course... or two. Keep reading the article. Atheists don't have that preposterous belief, which is what the statement you bolded says. Anyhow, you're being ridiculous if you expect me to not be intolerant of bigotry, superstition, and shear myth.... but blatant distortions of reality and blasse accusations are in your character.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 6 2007, 07:41 PM) [snapback]401289[/snapback]</div>

The other thing that struck me while reading Dawkins and this article is that if the genepool is steering a course toward such hardwiring, then I guess it is entirely possible that believing in god increases one's chances of getting laid. No wonder 96% of the population say that they believe!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 6 2007, 08:29 PM) [snapback]401305[/snapback]</div>

Man LC what a great idea!!! Why dont you research all the different types/ names of the religions and make a poll?

Coming from a liberal, iwould think the OP would be less likely to be flamed by their counter parts..

 

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." --Stephen F. Roberts

 

Philosophical nonsense :lol:
Summary: [attachmentid=6811]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigdaddy @ Mar 6 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]401210[/snapback]</div>

I know a person that is researching this. They are looking at chemicals in the brain that increase with addiction. The hypothesis is that people that are spiritual will have higher amount of these chemicals.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 6 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]401226[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with this. I believe in secular morality. This means that I don't always do things that suit me all the time, I help other people, I try to be a good person and if that means that I "take it for the team" then that's fine with me. Why do I drive a friend to the airport at 5am in the morning? Is it because I want to go to heaven or because I want to be a good person. I could be sleeping at 5am but "I take it for the team". Society is built on this and I think religion is built on society. Without society, religion would never survive long. Just ask Zeus and the ancient Greeks.

On another note...
Why is it that when I see a little dancing banana, I know that the posts are going to take a turn for the worst? I have never see such narrow minded dibble in my life. Rather then making a thoughtful and meaningful response that would add to the discussion, it always turns into a personal statement. For someone that espouses to be Christian, they certainly do not act like it. There are plenty of times that I could have posted something that says, "I disagree and you are an idiot", but don't. And why? Because it doesn't add to the discussion. Rather, it adds to those that would post such things. If you don't have anything constructive to add then please do not post anything at all. Please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 04:47 PM) [snapback]401293[/snapback]</div>

I keep getting reinforcement like that from people, but then that does happen when you state something that will resonate with them. But it could be that because it resonates with certain people, I'm getting their feedback but not comments from others with dissimilar experiences. I don't know of any studies that have looked at a large sample of people in an unbiased manner to see if the capacity for belief is inborn or if people choose to believe or not based on other factors. But in our case, it seems to be that Dawkins' thesis may be right: some people are "wired" to have faith, but some are not.

Its also why I've never had the ability to "convince" someone that God exists. I simply don't know where to start, because its a presupposition I have ... God exists, and the only question is which religion best represents who or what God is. For those I've talked to who are plain atheists, the concept of God is wholly unnecessary, and seems like a irritating construct to have to reason around, rather than through. (I use the term "plain atheist" to indicate those who are without belief, and not the aggressive secularists that seem to operate from a position of almost un-righteous indignation about people of faith, like the late Ms. Ohair.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Mar 6 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]401446[/snapback]</div>

Good grief! How do you "Cherry Pick" a Wikipedia article? Look it up in the dictionary of your choice then. I stand by the accepted definition of Atheist above. The rest of what you say is nothing but spin and fertilizer.

Wildkow

 

People really misunderstood my previous post. I too believe in secular morality and see no difference in the level of morality among Christians, Jews, Islamics, or athiests. I also did NOT mean for my post to be negative toward religion. Religion does a LOT of good for people all over the world, wether left, right, or neither. I supposed, since this is FHOP, I should use the terms "damn dirty liberals", "religious wrong (right)", and "militant islam".
Religion is also a tool used by people for control. Of societies, children, and soldiers.

This discussion is supposed to be about the evolution of religion in the human brain, which occurred thousands to tens of thousands of years ago. My point about athiest societies was aimed at that time frame, not today. Think stone age.

Obviously it is a generalization as well. I do not think athiests can't be selfless. And yes athiests are in the military and is completely beside the point. Today's military has NOTHING to do with the evolution of religion in the human brain. Today's military is a career choice, not an unpaid duty to your local cave dwellers. And religious evolution has nothing to do with wether you personally will drive a freind to the airport.

If you want to discuss/debate evolution, you have to think in terms of when the evolution occurred. Evolution moves VERY slowly until a population crashes, then it speeds up as the species is forced to adapt.
Very little change happens in stable times.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 7 2007, 02:40 AM) [snapback]401505[/snapback]</div>

LOL, you're quite a funny guy! Instead of taking a couple of reading comprehension courses, I think you would benefit more from repeating school.

Stand by your statement all you want... that doesn't change your stupidity level.