A question for Athiests/Evolutionists. (re: How can one not belive in something greater than himself? et all)

I'm seconding what Asgara had to say.There have been difficult times when it would have been nice to be able to believe in a big helper. From those I think I can understand the inclination to want to believe.However, that just isn't the way I think. I require some better reason than my own desires. I am much too aware of the history of such ideas throughout the world. There simply isn't any reason to believe in such an idea and there are many to not believe.Some of the believers here demonstrate that they simply have no clue about what goes on inside my mind. They see themselves has having some special insight into the nature of a god and can't understand why I wouldn't see the same way even though they are just as uninterested in the idea of Jupitor or Thor as being a ruler of the universe or Apollo pulling the sun chriot across the skies. They distinguish, in some way between them. I do not.If you want something of an insight into how I think then try to consider your view of the idea of Apollo being the sun or Bachus being responsible for your wine. They are simply interesting anthropological ideas.

No, not any more than we might think anyone who believes in invisible, magic things is "mad" We've gotten used to this and understand that it doesn't usually qualify as a serious mental illness. It is something that is ingrained in our societies and, perhaps, in our genes.At the same time we do worry about what stops someone who believes in such things from thinking that those things are talking to them. From there we have people who are recognizably schitzophrenic thinking that the magic beings are telling them to blow things up and the like.At the same time I second (again) Asgara's comments on your behavior, ability to think and ability to read as well.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-19-2004 10:22 PM

I don't know for sure what you mean by amazing. I think perhaps you use the word when something is highly improbable.But highly improbable things happen every day. They don't happen as often as more probable things do of course but they happen.There are millions and billions of different opportunities for things (of all sorts) to happen everyday. Therefore even improbable things happen now and then.Isn't it amazing if you pick up the phone to call someone and a voice say "hello?" and it turns out to be the person you were going to call. You picked up the phone before it rang.It has happened a handfull of times to me. I suspect it has to everyone (by the time they are as old as I am anyway). But it's not "amazing"; it is exactly what I expect to happen.I phone some people 1,000's of times over a period of a decade or so. There is actually a fairly small window in a day when I might do that. The same applies the other way around. Therefore if we keep phoning over enough time it is bound to happen.There are about 30,000 (or 50?) people killed in car incidents in the US every year. I'm going to guess that that means more than 15,000 accidents a year. With that number of things happening some of them simple MUST produce some unlikely events. It would be "amazing" if they didn't.

There are a few who want to try to say that God doesn't exist and that they can prove it in some way. I call them "Dawkinists" since that is a stance of Richard Dawkins. That is an unnecessarily extreme postition in my view even though I'm not a believer.If someone doesn't back up what they claim (such as saying you are wrong) you are entitled to ask for details to support that claim. In fact, a job of the admins is to enforce that rule.To many, science and religion are separate and they don't have a problem with that. It is those who try to mix the two up (Dawkinists and literalists) that make things more difficult. However, there are those who will point out that if you describe some very specific details about a specific god then that can be shown to be wrong. The majority of those who do things that allow for the disproving of God are the so-called Christians who are literalists and try to put forth ideas that are basically not religious but rather scientific. (Some that do that are non-believers of course but the largest numbers are Christians like some that visit us here.)Try not to muddle the two concepts up and don't let anyone off easily if they try to say you are wrong about something. You should, of course, be couteous enough to read and understand any reasons they offer.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-27-2004 04:52 PM

I hope you will accept any suggestions that some of those who are less scattered make to help with that. It may not be me. Or at least shouldn't be.

I second what Schraf was being so gentle about.The book is not in anyway x rated, violent, degrading anyone or any other reason why I could think that should suggest a minor shouldn't read it.If there is any hint that ideas are the real problem then I'm not able to be so gentle. Such a thought would be appalling and ultimately self defeating. Tell me that isn't the nature of the issue.

Oh Schraf! You want to role play with me do you?he he he

I agree with you that the reason giving (suicide prevention) isn't a particulary convincing argument in favour of religion being an evolutionary advantage.In fact, while it might be a bit strong, I'd say "patently absurd" wasn't too far off the mark.Howver, that doesn't mean that I agree that religion doesn't have an evolutionary advantage.One reason is that an atheist would use is the prevalence of it. It seems to be so prevalent as to be "in-grained". Not very convincing and interpretation to a believer of course .The other reason is that there are some interesting (but only speculative) ideas about social advantages of religions. I'd say the question is open.