A new study of religion and what, if any, biological/evolutional components it has is being conducted over the next few years:


In 2007, the European Commission awarded a consortium of 9 European academic partners approximately 2 million Euros to fund a 3-year international programme of research entitled Explaining Religion. The research, which is and funded within the Commission's New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) programme, will be coordinated by Professor Harvey Whitehouse. The proposed project is large-scale and ambitious in scope and will integrate the world's leading centres for psychological, biological, anthropological, and historical research on religion to develop a highly integrated programme of research on the cognitive foundations of religious thinking and behaviour.

Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford (http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/research/cam/projects/explaining_religion/)

Here's a pretty lengthy article about the findings of the study so far and studies which are relevant to the project:

The science of religion | Where angels no longer fear to tread | Economist.com (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666)

What do you think this study will find? There is mention of there being a "God button" in the brain; do you think they will find it? Do you think it exists? If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion? Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration? How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?

Personally I think this is fascinating and I'm eager to see the results. It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not. That being said, I think if a "God button" were found in the brain, it would have little effect on the truly faithful.

I'm looking for the opinion of anyone and everyone, so please, all are welcome to comment.

Here's a pretty lengthy article about the findings of the study so far and studies which are relevant to the project:

The science of religion | Where angels no longer fear to tread | Economist.com (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666)

This is interesting,but do you not think that it is such a waste of money too,to spend that amount of money? And to prove what?
That there is no Almighty?And when they have the results,what will it help them with?
Surely even after knowing what happens among the faithful as a group or individual(mentally or otherwise),it will continue to happen as long as we are alive.
Is it not better that such money be spent on funding for research on cures of physical ailments?




What do you think this study will find? There is mention of there being a "God button" in the brain; do you think they will find it? Do you think it exists? If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion? Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration? How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?

I'm looking for the opinion of anyone and everyone, so please, all are welcome to comment.

"God Button" as they hope to find I do not think exists,but maybe there is a part of the brain of everyone that has a connection to the Almighty.This connection may or may not be seen in the tests they are conducting for their research.

They may also not find what they are exactly looking for;-that humans evolved into belief.

The research is good for those of you who do want religion to be proven as a man made thing,but the results at the end just might disappoint ,it could turn out to be inconclusive.


Thanks for the link Jill,I will keep looking into it as they proceed.

I found this excerpt of the article interesting too.

"Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story."

I will not be surprised that at the end of the study, some of those who do the research for this project turn to belief even if they are not believers now.:)



.

Ought to be interesting. Whitehouse is a cultural anthropologist. I Googled him and he appears to be an Oxford don. When you think about it, it is a bit surprising that a study like this hasn't been done before. Religiosity is definitely a widespread human trait. From an anthropological point of view, we really don't know much about it. It will be interesting to hear what they learn. I don't see the biology angle, though. That might be media hype. When one writes an article like this one, they are probably trying to get people stirred up.

Obviously, this study has serious potential for that!

This is interesting,but do you not think that it is such a waste of money too,to spend that amount of money? And to prove what?
That there is no Almighty?And when they have the results,what will it help them with?
Surely even after knowing what happens among the faithful as a group or individual(mentally or otherwise),it will continue to happen as long as we are alive.
Is it not better that such money be spent on funding for research on cures of physical ailments?

I don't think this would disprove god, all it could do is show that people are predisposed to belief or not, that there is a part of the brain which causes these sorts of thoughts. It doesn't prove religion wrong, but certainly could lead more to think of a diest approach; it's harder to say "My religion is right" when there is the same biological mechanism in all theists that tells them the same thing. Who knows, maybe this will be the key to unity among theists - maybe if they see they are all the same on the inside when they think about religion, they will have more respect for one another.

I think the money is well spent because it's further exploring the human brain, something we really know little about. And as far as dollar amounts go for research, this is minimal.


They may also not find what they are exactly looking for;-that humans evolved into belief.

The research is good for those of you who do want religion to be proven as a man made thing,but the results at the end just might disappoint ,it could turn out to be inconclusive.

True, it could be inconclusive, but there will still likely be knowledge gained about how the mind works. That's valuable information. And again, this doesn't really prove religion is man made, only that faith/belief and the feelings associated with it are biological. To me that doesn't disprove god - couldn't god have "made" us that way?


I found this excerpt of the article interesting too.

"Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story."

I will not be surprised that at the end of the study, some of those who do the research for this project turn to belief even if they are not believers now.:)

I saw that too, but it didn't come as a surprise to me. Since theists think their belief is rational, it comes as no surprise when they read about their belief the part of the brain which shows rational thought lights up. Likewise, when the control group (non-theists) listen to it, it means nothing to them, it's not going to cause them to think, so the rational part stays dark. It would be more surprising to me if the same part of the brain lit up in BOTH groups!

Thanks for your comments, firmbeliever! :)

That being said, I think if a "God button" were found in the brain, it would have little effect on the truly faithful.

The scientists will just claim the results they set out to look for regardless of the actual results. That's how science works, right? :rolleyes:

The scientists will just claim the results they set out to look for regardless of the actual results. That's how science works, right? :rolleyes:

Well you would know, Mr. Science Expert! :D

all it could do is show that people are predisposed to belief or not, that there is a part of the brain which causes these sorts of thoughts.

Hmmmm,now that would be part of what I believe... that everyone has that knowledge in them when they are born.:)To believe or not to believe.
I am just not sure this knowledge will be visible in these tests,maybe there is a trigger (incident or experience) which makes a person incline towards belief,but until then lies dormant within.


It doesn't prove religion wrong, but certainly could lead more to think of a diest approach; it's harder to say "My religion is right" when there is the same biological mechanism in all theists that tells them the same thing. Who knows, maybe this will be the key to unity among theists - maybe if they see they are all the same on the inside when they think about religion, they will have more respect for one another.

I think the money is well spent because it's further exploring the human brain, something we really know little about. And as far as dollar amounts go for research, this is minimal.

It may not be trying to prove religion wrong,but they are also talking about "evolution of religion"(sorry can't quote the article as I can't seem to load the page right at the moment).Evolution of religion is not something I believe in... (you know that topic all too well me thinks;))
And they are also looking into the economic aspects of religion that a group follows one path only because it involves certain benefits.It might be true for some,but not all believers.

Do you really think that all theists will get on the same platform after such a study?:)That will be a tough job for anyone to do.



True, it could be inconclusive, but there will still likely be knowledge gained about how the mind works. That's valuable information. And again, this doesn't really prove religion is man made, only that faith/belief and the feelings associated with it are biological. To me that doesn't disprove god - couldn't god have "made" us that way?
This is as you said an interesting research into the mostly unknown human brain and knowledge gained will be good for something.
Maybe the study will help people with psycholgical problems.

Yes the Almighty could have made us in a way that makes us feel different when we are following the True path.

But then some are inclined to follow misguided paths too,now that would be an interesting study. To study followers of the same religion,but different sects and to compare them using these tests,as each of them will be thinking they are following the true path.

I also do wonder that those who are more truly faithful in their beliefs in following it to to a T,will there be a difference between them and those who just follow the basics or just mouth the word religion but are not really affected by what they follow.

Would such a difference show up in these tests?


It would be more surprising to me if the same part of the brain lit up in BOTH groups!
Now that would be something for sure.
I am very interested in the results of further similar tests.

I am just not sure this knowledge will be visible in these tests,maybe there is a trigger (incident or experience) which makes a person incline towards belief,but until then lies dormant within.

That would be interesting indeed; though, like you, I'm usure of how it would be tested for, or if it could be tested for.


It may not be trying to prove religion wrong,but they are also talking about "evolution of religion"(sorry can't quote the article as I can't seem to load the page right at the moment).Evolution of religion is not something I believe in... (you know that topic all too well me thinks;))
And they are also looking into the economic aspects of religion that a group follows one path only because it involves certain benefits.It might be true for some,but not all believers.

What I got from the article is that they are theorizing that religion has a use in evolution, so yes, one must believe in evolution for that to be so. And I know, that's not part of your belief system, but it's interesting!


Do you really think that all theists will get on the same platform after such a study?:)That will be a tough job for anyone to do.

I don't know, I suppose it's possible. If every theist in the world has the same part of their brain light up in the same way when they pray or read from their holy book, or think about their religion, I would think that would make some people more likely to accept (or at least respect) others. It would be a concrete unifying trait; not the love of god (because theists will argue others worship the "wrong" god, and love is subjective), but a physical reaction present in all believers. I think that's pretty powerful, myself. Then again, there are wacko theists out there who will come up with a reason that your brain lighting up is fake, while theirs is real! So maybe not...


But then some are inclined to follow misguided paths too,now that would be an interesting study. To study followers of the same religion,but different sects and to compare them using these tests,as each of them will be thinking they are following the true path.

I also do wonder that those who are more truly faithful in their beliefs in following it to to a T,will there be a difference between them and those who just follow the basics or just mouth the word religion but are not really affected by what they follow.

Would such a difference show up in these tests?

I agree, all of that would be fascinating. Do the people who carry out violence in the name of their religion light up in a different way than those who follow scripture word-for-word? Do the casual religious people still light up, or do they light in a different way? I guess the only way those sorts of things would show up is if it can be established there is one part of the brain that lights up when religion is mentioned; if that's proven, other aspects can be evaluated.

But that raises the question - if there is a "god spot" that lights up when reading your holy book, what happens if it's removed? If an electrode is stuck into it? If an electrode is stuck into the spot on a non-believer?

Hmmm, I always thought that God chose you and was not in your brain but in your heart, we are taught in the Bible that we are prone to evil and by his grace we are saved.

Well not the long posts with a lot of links, my opinon, God is not a object to be studied, but someone to be believed in. Man in his wisdom will never find God, he is only found if you are actually looking to find him.

It is a waste of tax payers dollars for a study that will not effect the belief or disbelief of anyone.

well not the long posts with alot of links, my opinon, God is not a object to be studied, but someone to be beleived in. Man in his wisdom will never find God, he is only found if you are actually looking to find him.

It is a waste of tax payers dollars for a study that will not effect the beleif or disbelief of anyone.

From the sounds of it, you didn't read the articles I posted. If you had, perhaps you would realize it's not a study to disprove god, or to find god.

And how do you know it won't have an effect on anyone's belief? Especially if you didn't read the article or the following posts made?

Jill,
Could you do me a favour and link me to another site where I can read on new developments of this research project.
The Economist takes ages to load and sometimes it times out and I haven't been able to access it in a while now.

Thank you

firmbeliever, here's a link to the Oxford site, the school which is conduting the research:

Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford (http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/research/cam/projects/)

From there you can click on each of the aspects of the project and see what they hope to prove and/or study. I haven't seen much about their findings so far; my guess is it will be released at the end of the study, but if there are updates, they should be on this site. If you go to the link I provided, and click on "News and Events" then on "Recent Publications", there are a few summaries of books on the subject; if there are any further publications as the study goes on, you should find them there.

The Economist article shows us studies that:

- faith is RATIONAL - Dr Azari's pet scan study
- religious communes last longer than secular ones.
- the group with the belief in the 'supernatural' are less likely to cheat



"behaviour that promotes the group over the individual. That is the opposite of Darwinism as conventionally understood. But it might be explained by an idea that most Darwinians dropped in the 1960s—group selection.

The idea that evolution can work by the differential survival of entire groups of organisms, rather than just of individuals, was rejected because it is mathematically implausible."




The whole question is that people have to THINK about what benefits their own and their own group's survival. These are then codified or passed from generation to generation, and changed to suit survival.

Which brings up the whole nature [ genetic, and thus subject to natural selection ] versus nurture [ behavior, which is harder to quantify as heretible ] debate.

Jilleanleab.

Thanks - that was a good read.


YouTube - Evolution of Dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg)

Its long , but NOW THAT IS EVOLUTION :D

firmbeliever, here's a link to the Oxford site, the school which is conduting the research:

Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford (http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/research/cam/projects/)

From there you can click on each of the aspects of the project and see what they hope to prove and/or study. I haven't seen much about their findings so far; my guess is it will be released at the end of the study, but if there are updates, they should be on this site. If you go to the link I provided, and click on "News and Events" then on "Recent Publications", there are a few summaries of books on the subject; if there are any further publications as the study goes on, you should find them there.

Thanks for the link.

I agree with Firmbeliever
What would it prove and if they 'prove' it of course it is going to be biased to some degree.
I thought they did say that something was proven about God and the brain already.
AOL Search results for "god and the brain" (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=tbff50ab&query=god+and+the+brain)

I agree with you too about it being pre-determined [It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.] in a sense --(but not destined since we do have free will.

A new study of religion ...

1-What do you think this study will find? There's mention of a "God button" in the brain;
2-Do you think they will find it?
3-Do you think it exists?
4-If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion?
5-Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration?
6-How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?
7-It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.

I'm looking for the opinion of anyone and everyone, so please, all are welcome to comment.
There is nothing really NEW to this Economist article. Similar reports have been done many times before.
The link to the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford failed.
But if they have excess funds, why would they not do another study? Personally I have better targets for that money, anyway!

Replies :
1-What do you think this study will find?
That the biggest part of humanity has a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life.
.
2-Do you think they will find it?
As indicated under point 1 we already know the reply to that question. Nothing new to be found.
You did not specify what you mean with it. That puts a bias on this entire topic.
If you intended it to mean "a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life" I agree.
.
3-Do you think Do you think it exists? exists?
As indicated under point 1 we already know the reply to that question. Nothing new to be found.
It all depends on what one means with "it". That puts a bias on this entire topic.
If you intended it to mean "a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life" I agree.
.
4-If If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion? is found, would that change your opinion of religion?
As indicated under point 1 we already know the reply to that question. Nothing new to be found.
It all depends on what one means with "it". That puts a bias on this entire topic.
If you intended it to mean "a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life" there is no reason to change my personal view, as that outcome is already known for many years.
.
5-Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration?
Personally I don't need this research. But if certain people like to research that, why not?
.
6-How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?
Nothing really new. The main parameter seems always the personal bias towards the drawn conclusion. Logical with metaphysical research, specially with unclear standards - as your own 7 partly unclear questions already confirmed!
.
7-It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.
.
Incorrect. The relevant part of the question should be faith in what? Not if people are born with faith - without clearly specifying what sort of faith is meant, as my replies to your questions 2, 3, and 4 already clearly showed. The selection into having faith in "whatever" results from upbringing, education, and (in some cases even) brainwashing, and not from some build-in failure or preset of human self-confidence.
:rolleyes:

The Economist article shows us studies that:

- faith is RATIONAL - Dr Azari's pet scan study
- religious communes last longer than secular ones.
- the group with the belief in the 'supernatural' are less likely to cheat

I'm not sure the study shows faith is rational - sure, it lights up the rational part of the brain, but as I said to fb, that makes sense. People thinking about their religion think it's rational, it stands to reason that part would light up. I'd like to see further study done to that regard; do conspiracy nuts light up in the rational part of their brain when thinking about their specific conspiracy? For example, if someone believes aliens are sending radio waves through space to read our thoughts (REALLY believes this, I mean), when they think about, or read about, or talk about such things, does the rational part of their brain light up? I think it might. I'm only putting out a hypothisys here, of course, but I don't think the one study mentioned in the article "proves" faith is rational. I think it might demonstrate that rationale is subjective, at least, in the way our brains respond to it.

But yes, the article does indicate religious communities last longer, and really, I'm not surprised by that either. People in a religious community have at the very least, one SOLID thing to unite them - ALWAYS. And, in most cases, it's something very, very important to them.

I think the study with the belief in the supernatural and cheating is a little skewed, or at least, was not reported well in the article. Of the people who cheated, how many were theists? How many atheists? It doesn't say. So, do people who believe in the supernatural only abstain from cheating when they are reminded of their belief in the supernatural? From the way it's reported in the article, it sort of seems that way. Now, if there had been control groups done with all members of the same faith (or no faith), and people had performed consistently, I think the study would have a bit more merit. Maybe it was done this way and the article didn't reflect it, but there's no way to know based on the info we have.


Jilleanleab.

Thanks - that was a good read.

Glad you enjoyed it! :)



YouTube - Evolution of Dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg)

Its long , but NOW THAT IS EVOLUTION :D

Oh my! :D

I thought they did say that something was proven about God and the brain already.
AOL Search results for "god and the brain" (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=tbff50ab&query=god+and+the+brain)

I heard about that study a while ago, and I thought of it when I read this article. I'll have to read up on some of the links you provided, as I don't remember much. I do remember there was the ability to evoke a religious experience through a seizure, thus, indicating there might be a "god button" or "god spot" or whatever you want to call it.


I agree with you too about it being pre-determined [It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.] in a sense --(but not destined since we do have free will.

I think we have a different idea about it being pre-determined, but yeah, we're still on the same basic page. :)

You did not specify what you mean with it. That puts a bias on this entire topic.

Had you read my post more carefully, you would realize by "it" I mean a "god button" in the brain, hence the semi-colon in the sentence, not a period. Care to adjust your replies? Care to read my sig again? :rolleyes:


7-It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.
.
Incorrect. The relevant part of the question should be faith in what? Not if people are born with faith - without clearly specifying what sort of faith is meant, as my replies to your questions 2, 3, and 4 already clearly showed. The selection into having faith in "whatever" results from upbringing, education, and (in some cases even) brainwashing, and not from some build-in failure or preset of human self-confidence.
:rolleyes:

Ok, my turn, INCORRECT! Not that this was the original intent of my post but... how can you, someone who says you can't believe disagree with this? It is my opinion people are born with the capacity of faith or not. One is born with the ability to entrust in a supernatural being, or they are not. I was not born with this ability. Like you have stated in other threads, I cannot believe, it just doesn't work - goes against every fiber of my being. However, there are people for whom it seems to come naturally, people who feel incomplete, even unsafe without belief in a supernatural being. Those people, it is my opinion, must have been born with that capacity to "let go" (read: faith). Those who cannot "let go", were not. So in sum, people are born with faith or not.

Jillean

You are correct, the rational centers of the brain would light up if you believe, or gave much thought to Psalm 23 as they tested. And it would not light up if it wasn't worth your time.


It would be interesting to see if you followed a group of people that did not have any strong religious or faith based ties, and at the beginning do the same Dr Azari study, and Pet scan their brains. They should all have very similar responses.

If it was feasible, folllow them for say 5 years, and hopefully/ perhaps some will be "saved," --- compare their pet scan before and after, with those who did not change.


If there was a significant change in the pet scan, in these rational centers of the brain and excluding any confounding factors, before and after saving faith, and between the control group and those that now believed then this would be evidence of this:

2 Corinthians 5: 17 " the old has gone and the new has come."

Had you read my post more carefully, you would realize by "it" I mean a "god button" in the brain, hence the semi-colon in the sentence, not a period.
INCORRECT : the point of your post should not "to be realized": it should be CLEAR to all!
Posting of words like "it" without stating clearly what you mean with that deliberately lacks the clarity of what you really state.
.


Ok, my turn, INCORRECT! Not that this was the original intent of my post but... how can you, someone who says you can't believe disagree with this?

Your original point was : "It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not".
.
My reaction to that was :
Incorrect. The relevant part of the question should be faith in what? Not if people are born with faith - without clearly specifying what sort of faith is meant, as my replies to your questions 2, 3, and 4 already clearly showed. The selection into having faith in "whatever" results from upbringing, education, and (in some cases even) brainwashing, and not from some build-in failure or preset of human self-confidence.
.
Let I be very clear about your reaction :
INCORRECT : The relevant part of your question should for sure have been "faith in what"? And not if people are born with faith or not, without specifying faith in what. As you stated it, it was like "it rains or it does not rain". Totally useless as point of consideration.
.


It is my opinion people are born with the capacity of faith or not. One is born with the ability to entrust in a supernatural being, or they are not. I was not born with this ability.
That is YOUR OPINION. Fine. But as you lack any support for that opinion I see that you now added the word "capacity". What a clincher! In that case we are also all born with the "capacity" to become mass-murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, etc. etc. etc. What a clincher!
.

Like you have stated in other threads, "I cannot believe, it just doesn't work - goes against every fiber of my being".
But that does not confirm that I was BORN with that "capacity". It could just as well result from experiences during growing up, i.e. by influences from outside! So YOUR OPINION is still based on quicksand!
.

However, there are people for whom it seems to come naturally, people who feel incomplete, even unsafe without belief in a supernatural being. Those people, it is my opinion, must have been born with that capacity to "let go" (read: faith). Those who cannot "let go", were not. So in sum, people are born with faith or not.
That may SEEM so. But is it so? And again : you meant "faith in a deity". I wonder why you have such a problem to be open and clear about that.
:rolleyes:

INCORRECT : the point of your post should not "to be realized": it should be CLEAR to all!
Posting of words like "it" without stating clearly what you mean with that deliberately lacks the clarity of what you really state.

It appears it was only unclear to you, who did not read the post carefully enough to see the punctuation. So again, I will direct you to my sig.


Your original point was : "It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not".

Actually, my original point in making the post was to inform others about the study being conducted, this remark was secondary, and was not intended to be the subject of the thread. You've just taken it and run with it. So please, do not tell me what my original point was, when I'm the one who made the post!


That is YOUR OPINION. Fine. But as you lack any support for that opinion I see that you now added the word "capacity". What a clincher! In that case we are also all born with the "capacity" to become mass-murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, etc. etc. etc. What a clincher!

Again, since the statement was not the original point of the post, I saw no reason to elaborate on the statement and explain it. Once you cherry-picked it from the post, I explained it. I did not add the word "capacity" just for you, and in fact, there are other places on this board where I have posted the very same thing (should you require proof that I'm not changing my words just for you). So no, no clincher.


But that does not confirm that I was BORN with that "capacity". It could just as well result from experiences during growing up, i.e. by influences from outside! So YOUR OPINION is still based on quicksand!

And did I not acknowledge that outside influence could have an effect? I think I did. And did I ever say this was something other than MY OPINION. I did not. You don't like my opinion, fine, but just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean I can't have it, and doesn't mean it is "based on quicksand". Again, this study could confirm my opinion, if there is a "god spot" found in the brain of every human and if it is determined there is a biological/evolutionary background to religion.


That may SEEM so. But is it so? And again : you meant "faith in a deity". I wonder why you have such a problem to be open and clear about that.
:rolleyes:

I wonder why you have such a problem with reading comprehension? Of course I meant faith in a deity, which is why I said, "one is born with the capacity to entrust in a supernatural being" and "... unsafe without the belief in a supernatural being." Does it not "count" since I didn't say "deity"?

Is there a reason you are so angry? A reason you are trying to pick a fight here? I mean, I actually stuck to your demand someone say something is what they BELIEVE (my opinion) and here you are b!tching and moaning because I expressed my opinion, and called it my opinion.

Is there a reason you are so angry? A reason you are trying to pick a fight here?
I am not angry. Nor do I try to pick a fight. That are just empty allegations to get out of this all.
If we are unclear about the true meaning of what we post, what is the use of posting here in the first place?
That is why I zoomed in on your posts in this topic, as I found them to be deliberately unclear.
As far as your own position to religion is concerned, that is your prerogative to maintain and support.
But do that at least CLEARLY and HONESTLY !
:rolleyes:

I have deceived no one, and it's not my fault or my problem that you had difficulty understanding my post. You appear to be the only one having such difficulties; that says more about you than it does me.

And again, my position on religion was not the topic of this post; when you made it the topic I explained it clearly and honestly.

If my posts don't live up to your "standards", feel free to add me to your "ignore" list.

I do not understand Crede's saying it has to be an 'in what' because if an athest COULD believe in an 'in what' then why don't they believe in anything?
You either believe in something or you don't believe in anything so I think that makes the 'in what' totally irrelevant so I have to agree with Jillianleab on this one.

As far as the predetermined I believe we have free will BUT that God knew what we were going to choose before the beginning of time because he knows the beginning to the end. I can understand what you are saying about either you have the ability or it is not there.

Thanks, N0help; I'm glad I make sense to someone! :D

If my posts don't live up to your "standards", feel free to add me to your "ignore" list.
I have no reason to do that. But I may add your name to my private ignoramus list here.
:D

You either believe in something or you don't believe in anything so I think that makes the 'in what' totally irrelevant so I have to agree with Jillianleab on this one.

?? Can't you believe in some things and not in others? I believe in God. I just don't believe in religion.


As far as the predetermined I believe we have free will BUT that God knew what we were going to choose before the beginning of time because he knows the beginning to the end. I can understand what you are saying about either you have the ability or it is not there.

How about a God that set this world in motion and then got interested in other things? He/she gave us some ideas of the way things ought to go and left us alone. He/she came back a couple of thousand years later and basically said... You got it wrong, here's a course correction. We didn't listen (very well) to that information, either. Maybe at this point, we're on our own.

... You either believe in something or you don't believe in anything ...

What is that for logic? Of course on a religious discussion board that "something" refers to a belief in religion. But that does not say that a person who lacks a belief in religion has no other beliefs...
:rolleyes:

I have no reason to do that. But I may add your name to my private ignoramus list here.
:D

Golly, you have such a knack for being polite... what with the name-calling and all...

Golly, you have such a knack for being polite... what with the name-calling and all...
Name calling? I just replied to your reaction in an approach and with text similar to yours!
;)

By calling me ignorant?

Whatever. This thread needs to get back on topic before it gets closed. Anything more you want to say to me on the matter can be addressed in PM.

By calling me ignorant?

Whatever. This thread needs to get back on topic before it gets closed. Anything more you want to say to me on the matter can be addressed in PM.
Why did you suggest that I call you ignorant?
And I agree : Anything more you want to say to me on the matter can be addressed in PM.
;)

That's Good, those people who dought in the bible and even in God can think.

Jill,

I can't seem to link to the site at the moment and would love to know if there has been an update.
Thanks

But I may add your name to my private ignoramus list here.

Golly, you have such a knack for being polite... what with the name-calling and all..

Why did you suggest that I call you ignorant?

Ummm, I suppose you are considering adding her name to the ignoramus list because you believe she is NOT ignorant?

Sometimes (often) your logic astounds me Credo! And I do not mean that in a flattering way.

P.S. I am honored to know I must be on the top end of your ignoramus list.
(Still haven't answered me about why you find it so intriguing to have 10 yrs of little old me on a hard disc).

What is that for logic? Of course on a religious discussion board that "something" refers to a belief in religion. But that does not say that a person who lacks a belief in religion has no other beliefs ....
:rolleyes:

You are the one who always insists you do not believe in anything.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Maybe going sailing, or love for your wife, but in the spiritual realm sense NO you have never claimed to have a belief in anything and have argued with Sassy continuously over that fact.

FB, I haven't seen/heard any updates either. It's apparently a three-year project, so we may not see any updates until the research is over.

You are the one who always insists you do not believe in anything
Not true. I do not believe in deities. So I have no religious beliefs. It is as simple as that.

But of course I have beliefs in other fields.
I believe that Obama makes a better President than the George Bush copy version 3.
I believe that social behavior is more important than capitalistic wealth accumulation.
I believe that it is wrong to allow anyone to kill other people against their will.
I believe that our - mainly western - human greed has most probably caused an onset to total extinction of almost all (if not all) life on earth.

:rolleyes:

·

You have to be losing something in translation!!
How in the world do you get me claiming you believe in deities out of

You are the one who always insists you do not believe in anything

Did I ever say you did believe in deities?

N0!

You are the one who always insists you do not believe in anythin
Not true. I do not believe in deities. I never have used "anything" in that respect.

If you would take more time to read and process what I post you would not repeat so much nonsense again and again.

:rolleyes:

·

I will chalk it up to your lost in translation then
Because according to english language if you are saying my statement is wrong

You are the one who always insists you do not believe in anything

To make my statement right it would become

You are the one who always insists you do believe in (anything-[something])

I will chalk it up to your lost in translation then because according to english language if you are saying my statement is wrong You are the one who always insists you do not believe in anything to make my statement right it would become
You are the one who always insists you do believe in (anything-[something])
I NEVER have stated that I do not believe in anything !

WHY DON'T YOU PROVE ME WRONG ?

You know you can't, isn't it, Linda dear ?

:D

·

I asked you to say what you think as far as how you believe the earth came into being
THAT was the question and you keep answering with stuff like

I NEVER have stated that I do not believe in anything !

So you can not answer the question or you choose not to answer so why go on that I am saying you said stuff that I never said you said.

Hey guys - keep the fighting in your own thread. If you have nothing to add to this one except banal bickering GET OUT.

Hey guys - keep the fighting in your own thread. If you have nothing to add to this one except banal bickering GET OUT.
Fair comment : apologies hereby offered, Jilian !

.

N0help4u : let's continue this - if you want - in another topic here (there is no evolution directory !)

.