I love religion!

[ghostlighter]

Sorry I didn't read through all the posts. I just read the first in the thread and it occured to me that Nietzsche has already proposed a solution to your problem, and he may explain why you are an atheist yet find religion significant. It is because you notice the cultural phenomenon of "belief" and have conjectured a "caloric fluid" --- power. Let me quote Zarathustra:

"Zarathustra saw many lands and many peoples: thus he discovered the good and evil of many peoples. And Zarathustra found no greater power on earth than good and evil.
"No people could live without first esteeming; but if they want to preserve themselves, then they must not esteem as thier neighbor esteems. Much that was good to one people was scorn and infamy to another: thus I found it. Much I found called evil here, and decked out with purple honors there. Never did one neighbor understand the other: ever was his soul amazed at the neighbor's delusion and wickedness.
"A tablet hangs over every people. Behold, it is the tablet of their overcomings; behold, it is the voice of their will to power.
"Praisworthy is whatever seems difficult to a people; whatever seems indispensible and difficult is called good; and whatever liberates even out of the deepest need, the rarest, the most difficult-- that they call holy.
Whatever makes them rule and triumph and shine to the awe and envy of their neighbors, that is to them the high, the first, the measure, the meaning of all things."

That explains religion in a vacuum. Hope this contributes to the discussion.

[Zagreus]

I think I read something on what you mean- it seems to me to fit very well with the idea that social evolution happened alongside biological evolution of the human brain. Idea being that as the religion "meme" was spreading it was probably upped the survival rate of communities in that groups which are "related" are more likely to aid each other. This comes back to the idea of altruism (or gene selfishness) which is actually helping others which have your gene survive. So groups with common belief systems may have tended to propagate better than those without. So perhaps that area of the brain which promotes or is involved with "being religious" became more potent over the generations since and redoubled the rate at which the religion "meme" spread. If this is the case, then religion should be something we can indeed "get away from" in that the meme is not biological- it's more like a program which is reaaally good at "occupying" a certain part of our brain hardware.

That's not Dawkins is it? It looks familiar to me, and sounds like something I read of his not so long ago. It's a good point whoever said it!

Whilst I'm sure that there is a social element in the development of religion, and it could indeed play a part in tribes' or groups' survival, I think there are probably other elements too. I actually think hallucinogens have a part to play as we see them in primitive tribe cultures, and there's no real reason that I'm aware of to consider our cultural ancestors to be that different. The general social construct could be as the theory you said suggests, but the initial trigger could be more substantial than merely a way to hold a community together.

Regarding the selfish gene bit, there are always exceptions to the rule, and that’s something that has begun to interest me lately. If religion is a survival issue, then why does celibacy come into it? Mother Teresa didn’t pass on her genes, yet her actions as a result of her religious beliefs helps the passing on of others’ genes; people she wasn’t even related to. Maybe on a human scale it’s just larger and we subconsciously look after our species rather than simply our genes? I think there are examples of altruism in apes too, but I’ll have to look into that.

---

First thing you’ve said that is interesting. You’re also wrong. Religion is an idea, a set of beliefs, a philosophy; it is not a thing that can do wrong in itself. People do bad things because they choose to do so – if they justify this due to religion, or their upbringing (religious or not), or anything else, it is them that is to blame, not the idea. Again, natural selection, via eugenics, did not cause the holocaust, regardless of whether someone claimed this to justify it.

Yes, and where do those beliefs live?

In people,no where else.

Take away the people and there is no religion.

Religion was created by people who use it to control other people.

And it is used as the ultimate get out of jail card, I did it in the name of God so it is ok.

And it is used repeatedly as an excuse not to think.

So yes I laugh at religion.

Yes I know, it is a strange thing to find on an atheist forum.

Someone who doesn't take religion seriously.

Take away people and there is no art, philosophy, literature, etc. either. Religion is just ideas and beliefs, nothing more. You might as well have a go at philosophy, or to an extent, economics, or some other theoretical belief system our species has come up with.

Religion isn’t simply there to control people, no matter how much you insist it is. Guru Nanak was not simply trying to control people; something more complex is involved, like social issues, thought, belief, and so on.

You say that people use it as an excuse not to think, but that’s the person’s flaw, not a theoretical construct’s problem.

You are very critical of theology, but yet you are repeating the same basic things over and over, and then ignoring the comments that disagree with you. You’ve even tried to ignore the dictionary and re-define what a religion is! You are essentially just trying to make things fit your world view regardless of the evidence that is presented, which is as bad as what you accuse fundamentalists of doing.

I'm not asking you to take religion seriously. I'm not actually asking you to do anything at all. I was simply stating that I think there is more to religion than I think many atheists give credit to. You are proving me right with every post.

---

Suffice to say that people of all religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky.

No they don't. Religion =/= Theism. To be technically accurate, no people of religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky; they believe in some form of a deity who exists non-temporally (whereas Santa is a magical human from the North Pole).

A large majority take the Bible literally, except for the bits that are metaphorical(how this distinction is arrived at is a mystery).

A large majority do not take the Bible literally. Christians make up less than a third of the global population (2.1 billion according to: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ). Most of these (approx 50%) are Catholic, who take very little of the Bible as literal. Indeed, the Roman Catholic church has been one of the few churches to actively support the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of the Big Bang as the best explanations of how everything came to be.

And BTW Buddhisam is not a religion as it does not subscribe to the idea of a supreme being.

The definition of a religion is not the same as the definition of theism. Religions are collections of beliefs and philosophical ideas that are used to help an adherent find meaning in their life's experiences. This meaning can come from belief in some sort of God, but, like Buddhism, it can also come from some sort of "ultimate truth".

If buddhism is a religion then the case could be made that Atheism is also a religion.

No, since atheism doesn't contain a collection of beliefs that lead an atheist to some sort of meaning, nor does it contain any "ultimate truths". Atheism is a disbelief, a "rejection" of a belief. Disbelieving in X does not mean you automatically believe in ¬X (or Y, or Z, etc).

An excellent post in my opinion. See Zen Badger? This is an example of well informed, which is why I said you are seeming to be ill informed so far. I hope you're not though, and start proving me wrong soon. Thanks for the comment Adrian, some interesting points in there.

[Zen Badger]

If your atheism denotes that "there is no god" is an absolute and "ultimate" truth, and that you get some form of meaning from that, then you are being religious.

I don't see how you can be agnostic and claim some ultimate truth about the existence of God though. The very point of being agnostic is to claim this knowledge is unknown or unknowable. If something is a truth, it is known by definition...

But I'm not talking about my views.

I'm merely speaking in the abstract, as how atheism could be seen as an ultimate truth.

---

Take away people and there is no art, philosophy, literature, etc. either. Religion is just ideas and beliefs, nothing more. You might as well have a go at philosophy, or to an extent, economics, or some other theoretical belief system our species has come up with.

Yes? and that disproves my original point how?
And I will have a go at philosphy. And especially economics.

Religion isn’t simply there to control people, no matter how much you insist it is. Guru Nanak was not simply trying to control people; something more complex is involved, like social issues, thought, belief, and so on.

Maybe not this particular person, but can you say the same about the Catholic church or Islam?
or any of the nutbag cults like the branch dividians or the Scientologists?

You say that people use it as an excuse not to think, but that’s the person’s flaw, not a theoretical construct’s problem.

You are very critical of theology, but yet you are repeating the same basic things over and over, and then ignoring the comments that disagree with you. You’ve even tried to ignore the dictionary and re-define what a religion is! You are essentially just trying to make things fit your world view regardless of the evidence that is presented, which is as bad as what you accuse fundamentalists of doing.

How have I tried to redefine religion? And I've yet to see any evidence presented, just your point
of view.And of course I'm critical of theology, what were you expecting?

I'm not asking you to take religion seriously. I'm not actually asking you to do anything at all. I was simply stating that I think there is more to religion than I think many atheists give credit to. You are proving me right with every post.

One question my friend.

If you think religion is wonderful, why are you an atheist?

[lukec]

That's not Dawkins is it? It looks familiar to me, and sounds like something I read of his not so long ago. It's a good point whoever said it!

Yes, I think it was Dawkins who coined the "meme" in name at least. What I was saying up there was just paraphrasing and consolidating the way I understood what he and others have explained.

Whilst I'm sure that there is a social element in the development of religion, and it could indeed play a part in tribes' or groups' survival, I think there are probably other elements too. I actually think hallucinogens have a part to play as we see them in primitive tribe cultures, and there's no real reason that I'm aware of to consider our cultural ancestors to be that different. The general social construct could be as the theory you said suggests, but the initial trigger could be more substantial than merely a way to hold a community together.

Interesting point to flesh out, that a trigger would probably be necessary. What exactly do you mean? In my mind I was just figuring that most "tribes" or cultures would just start with some form of animism, as it would've been their only explanation for things we take for simple- eg. movement of the sun, moon, and stars.

Regarding the selfish gene bit, there are always exceptions to the rule, and that’s something that has begun to interest me lately. If religion is a survival issue, then why does celibacy come into it? Mother Teresa didn’t pass on her genes, yet her actions as a result of her religious beliefs helps the passing on of others’ genes; people she wasn’t even related to. Maybe on a human scale it’s just larger and we subconsciously look after our species rather than simply our genes? I think there are examples of altruism in apes too, but I’ll have to look into that.

---

That's exactly the point of the Meme idea of religion- it's actually HIJACKED our sense of "same" or the part of human behavior which causes us to care more for those which are like us.

This, if you look at it from a gene's point of view, is an excellent evolutionary "strategy"- the gene which causes a family member to care for another would be passed on to many generations- think if apes had no tendency to care for their young. They do not bear enough young/litter for this to be an effective technique to have many surviving offspring. So religion as a meme has taken this sense of "caring" (which is actually just gene selfishness) . It's an idea gene- one which is very very good at spreading. I mean look at one of the central tenets of Jehova's Witness- you're not allowed into heaven unless you've converted a certain amount of people. Brilliant!!! How could that not spread?

This is explained fairly well in Selfish Gene- a book i strongly recommend you reading if you haven't. It's actually got many of the ideas we're talking about here, but Dawkins is a little bit better at explaining than I am . It also has many examples of "altruism" in the animal world (down to birds, antelope, etc) and explanations for them.

If you think religion is wonderful, why are you an atheist?

Probably for the same reason I am not a Jedi- no matter how much he wishes it were true he can't make it so. And I actually can see what he means. There are definitely some positive aspects to religion; it's kind of like the facebook before internet. The original social networking. Obviously not all church members are good people (nor are all atheists), but there are many church funded and spearheaded projects which do good.

[Lilith_86]

If you think religion is wonderful, why are you an atheist?

Probably for the same reason I am not a Jedi- no matter how much he wishes it were true he can't make it so. And I actually can see what he means. There are definitely some positive aspects to religion; it's kind of like the facebook before internet. The original social networking. Obviously not all church members are good people (nor are all atheists), but there are many church funded and spearheaded projects which do good.

Don't we all wish we were Jedi's? I sure as hell do. lol

---

Just found something interesting the topic of Buddhism and whether it actually is (or is not) an actual religion.
My current encyclopedia is a little out of date, so I'm assuming that the information has been changed, but according to Collier's Encyclopedia (copyrighted 1991 by MacMillan Educational Company - volume 4)...

Buddhism is the great oriental religion founded by Gautama Buddha, who lived and taught in India in the sixth century B.C.
All Buddhists trace their faith to the Buddha and revere his person.
Nearly all types of Buddhism include monastic orders whose members serve as teachers and clergy to the lay community. However, beyond these common features the numerous sects of modern Buddhism exhibit great variety in their belief and practices.
In it's oldest surviving form known as Theravada or Hinayana, Buddhism is primarily a spiritual philosophy and system of ethics. It places little or no emphasis on deities, teaching that the goal of the faithful is to achieve nirvana, a blissful state of insight and release from the bonds of the self, the world, and an endless round of births, deaths, and rebirth in successive lives. The state of spiritual perfection is achieved through the practice of humility, generosity, mercy, abstention from violence, and, above all self-control.
The latter forms of Buddhism, known as Mahayana, however often worship a pantheon of divine buddhas and future Buddhas. Some have elaborate hierarchies of demons as well. Several varieties of Mahayana Buddhism promise the worshiper a real paradise rather than a perfected spiritual state. Several sects stress faith more strongly than works. One sect seeks to induce in the believer a jarring, intuitive, non-rational insight into true reality. . .

And it continues with the history of Buddhism and the different types etc, but I thought that this extract was somewhat relevant and quite insightful.

[KichigaiNeko]

If you think religion is wonderful, why are you an atheist?

Probably for the same reason I am not a Jedi- no matter how much he wishes it were true he can't make it so. And I actually can see what he means. There are definitely some positive aspects to religion; it's kind of like the facebook before internet. The original social networking. Obviously not all church members are good people (nor are all atheists), but there are many church funded and spearheaded projects which do good.

Don't we all wish we were Jedi's? I sure as hell do. lol

---

Just found something interesting the topic of Buddhism and whether it actually is (or is not) an actual religion.
My current encyclopedia is a little out of date, so I'm assuming that the information has been changed, but according to Collier's Encyclopedia (copyrighted 1991 by MacMillan Educational Company - volume 4)...

Buddhism is the great oriental religion founded by Gautama Buddha, who lived and taught in India in the sixth century B.C.
All Buddhists trace their faith to the Buddha and revere his person.
Nearly all types of Buddhism include monastic orders whose members serve as teachers and clergy to the lay community. However, beyond these common features the numerous sects of modern Buddhism exhibit great variety in their belief and practices.
In it's oldest surviving form known as Theravada or Hinayana, Buddhism is primarily a spiritual philosophy and system of ethics. It places little or no emphasis on deities, teaching that the goal of the faithful is to achieve nirvana, a blissful state of insight and release from the bonds of the self, the world, and an endless round of births, deaths, and rebirth in successive lives. The state of spiritual perfection is achieved through the practice of humility, generosity, mercy, abstention from violence, and, above all self-control.
The latter forms of Buddhism, known as Mahayana, however often worship a pantheon of divine buddhas and future Buddhas. Some have elaborate hierarchies of demons as well. Several varieties of Mahayana Buddhism promise the worshiper a real paradise rather than a perfected spiritual state. Several sects stress faith more strongly than works. One sect seeks to induce in the believer a jarring, intuitive, non-rational insight into true reality. . .

And it continues with the history of Buddhism and the different types etc, but I thought that this extract was somewhat relevant and quite insightful.

And giving thanks to ones own talents is a good thing to!

[Zagreus]

I don't really think that the killing of a 6 month old foetus should have been used as a rhetorical question. The answer would depend on too many factors, and depending on what the situation and circumstances were, my personal answer would be 'yes.. i would kill a 6 month old foetus'.

I understand your point, but don't agree with the example used.

To be honest, that bit was simply off the top of my head way to try to show that religious attitudes towards masturbation aren’t quite as simple as ZB was saying. There are ethical issues for some people, and the idea centres around sanctity of life. I won’t bang on about this as you said you get the idea, but that’s all the comment was.

I said six months as you can abort in the UK up to about that time (23 weeks I believe), and I was just trying simply to demonstrate that there is no definite point where life starts, whether it’s a simple sperm cell or whether it’s a developed foetus.

I understand the issue you are raising and it’s a valid one. Personally I’m pro choice and would agree with you that under certain circumstances it might be morally right, but others would disagree. It’s still a matter of medical debate too, with some pioneering work being done trying to establish the point when anaesthetic should be used, depending on when pain receptors develop. Some argue it's not humane to abort after that time. It's a very complex issue, and I wasn't throwing it in there lightly.

---

Sorry I didn't read through all the posts. I just read the first in the thread and it occured to me that Nietzsche has already proposed a solution to your problem, and he may explain why you are an atheist yet find religion significant. It is because you notice the cultural phenomenon of "belief" and have conjectured a "caloric fluid" --- power. Let me quote Zarathustra:

That explains religion in a vacuum. Hope this contributes to the discussion.

Thanks for the reply. In all honesty I’ve never really studied Nietzsche, but I do have some books by him that I’ve not got around to reading properly yet. Birth of Tragedy is the only one I’ve really looked at.

To tell the truth, I’m not quite sure how to answer you. I don’t see my interest as a problem, and I don’t feel a conflict between finding something interesting and whether I believe it.

Are you basically saying I see religion as a cultural phenomenon, and am then viewing it as an outdated power? I’m not quite clear precisely what you are getting at, but I can see why you say that piece illustrates ‘religion in a vacuum’ (that could be a surrealist comedy sketch!)

[Tiberius]

If your atheism denotes that "there is no god" is an absolute and "ultimate" truth, and that you get some form of meaning from that, then you are being religious.

I don't see how you can be agnostic and claim some ultimate truth about the existence of God though. The very point of being agnostic is to claim this knowledge is unknown or unknowable. If something is a truth, it is known by definition...

But I'm not talking about my views.

I'm merely speaking in the abstract, as how atheism could be seen as an ultimate truth.

If some theist comes to you and argues how atheism could be seen as an ultimate truth, then you can easily argue the opposite, pointing out the err in their definition of the actual word. Atheism makes no truth claims. It doesn't even come close. Atheism isn't defined as "the view that there are no gods" but rather "the belief that there are no gods" (or "the disbelief in the existence of gods"). Theism likewise does not espouse an ultimate truth, but a belief in an ultimate truth. Theism no more says "God exists" than atheism says "God doesn't exist". It's all about belief.

[Zagreus]

Take away people and there is no art, philosophy, literature, etc. either. Religion is just ideas and beliefs, nothing more. You might as well have a go at philosophy, or to an extent, economics, or some other theoretical belief system our species has come up with.

Yes? and that disproves my original point how?
And I will have a go at philosphy. And especially economics.

Religion’s a theory and a belief system. It doesn’t do anything. You are taking the subject very literally and basing it on people’s actions; the only people you have cited so far are fundamentalists, and I have repeatedly said I am not really interested in their literalist views.

Religion can be regarded as an abstract construct, and a branch of philosophy. THAT is what I find interesting and am saying I love, not the ravings of some red neck whose mum is his sister.

My point was that it was a subject matter, not an actual thing. Having a go at philosophy is like shouting at thinking! You can have a go at philosophical ideas, and you can disagree with people’s economic views, but would you label geography in the way that you do religion? “Geography, you’re stupid” or “I laugh at geography.”

Religion isn’t simply there to control people, no matter how much you insist it is. Guru Nanak was not simply trying to control people; something more complex is involved, like social issues, thought, belief, and so on.

Maybe not this particular person, but can you say the same about the Catholic church or Islam?
or any of the nutbag cults like the branch dividians or the Scientologists?

Look, there’s a big difference between most religious people of significance, and the subsequent cults that developed after them. People, by and large, are herd animals and do not necessarily question what they are told. Many aren’t intelligent enough to grasp the ideas that are presented to them, and just do as they are told. That’s a problem with humanity, not some of the ideas our species has.

To put it into context, Jesus taught basic benevolence, not the guilt ridden dogma of the Catholic Church. Scholars have attempted to strip away these original ideas from the later bits that were added on. It is believed Mark was based upon an older text, usually named Q. This has all the stuff like ‘Love your enemies.’ The historical Jesus would have had a set of ideas that he taught. Over the years after, as the church developed, these ideas were built upon and often distorted, for various reasons. Theological developments, political ones, and so on. Some of this was also due to individual desires for power, money, and so on. The concept of Jesus being God is added in a little later, and later still the concept of hell develops. Eventually we have Christ’s words being hate yourself from the moment you are born, you naughty sinner, and don’t even think about touching that!

---

Humans have, for better or for worse, changed these original ideas. Many of these ideas, from the original ones, through the developments, to the ones we have ended up with, I find interesting. That does not mean I share their views, but I like to see what other people think.

The way you lump things together is to miss the detail and complexities involved. Region does not equal Islam, or Christianity. Yes, there are many people who might use their dogma to control others, but there are also many others who do not. It’s just a bit shit when the former get into power.

I’m not defending the actions of the people within the Catholic Church or Islam (far from it, I fundamentally disagree on many, many issues) but that does not mean I shouldn’t take an interest in their ideas or histories. The development of Catholicism is directly tied into the fabric of the history of Europe and elsewhere.

Nutbag cults are interesting too, as I am intrigued why some people believe such things. Scientology especially, seeing as I’ve heard that Hubbard said he was doing it for money! He was a sci fi writer for God’s sake! Even Aleister Crowley thought he was dodgy!!! I have a copy of Dianetics, but am yet to read it.

You say that people use it as an excuse not to think, but that’s the person’s flaw, not a theoretical construct’s problem.
[quote='Zagreus' pid='50114' dateline='1263429279']
You are very critical of theology, but yet you are repeating the same basic things over and over, and then ignoring the comments that disagree with you. You’ve even tried to ignore the dictionary and re-define what a religion is! You are essentially just trying to make things fit your world view regardless of the evidence that is presented, which is as bad as what you accuse fundamentalists of doing.

How have I tried to redefine religion? And I've yet to see any evidence presented, just your point
of view.And of course I'm critical of theology, what were you expecting?

You tried to redefine it by saying Buddhism isn’t a religion. That was a bit of a silly statement. Just because YOU equate religion with the belief of a big Santa in the sky, does not mean everyone else does. You can’t just make up a definition that is different to the one in the dictionary!

Being critical of theology is fine, if you are disagreeing with specific ideas. Saying you laugh at it because they think you shouldn’t have a wank is hardly insightful, is it? If we actually looked sensibly at some of the ideas I suspect we would agree, but the difference here is that I’m willing to look at other view points, not just dismiss tem outright as silly.

---

I'm not asking you to take religion seriously. I'm not actually asking you to do anything at all. I was simply stating that I think there is more to religion than I think many atheists give credit to. You are proving me right with every post.

---

One question my friend.

If you think religion is wonderful, why are you an atheist?

I don’t have to believe something is right to find it interesting. I have an imagination, and don’t take everything so literally.

If you are so dismissive of faith, why do you label yourself an atheist and hang around a religion section of an atheist forum?

Can I ask a bit of a personal question? Were you raised religiously? Strict Catholic or anything? I’m not meaning that one as a dig, I’m genuinely interested, as I’ve spoken to people before, and often the dislike of religion can stem from a religious background and the idea that you were fed lies.

I hated religion when I was a kid (even though I was raised atheist) and thought it a load of rubbish. Haven’t even got a GCSE in the subject. My interest developed when studying philosophy at college, and then blossomed when I was at university, as I still maintain religion can be viewed as a branch of philosophy. I say this only to explain my interest in it a little more.

---

Don't we all wish we were Jedi's? I sure as hell do. lol

---

According to the 2001 census, I am a Jedi.

I was also a very witty student at the time. How I laughed... There's only me and Oscar.

Just found something interesting the topic of Buddhism and whether it actually is (or is not) an actual religion.

And it continues with the history of Buddhism and the different types etc, but I thought that this extract was somewhat relevant and quite insightful.

Yep, it's definitely relevant, but I don't think we need to prove one of the six major religions is actually a religion. I don't think ZB thought that one out when he wrote it.

[Zagreus]

Yes, I think it was Dawkins who coined the "meme" in name at least. What I was saying up there was just paraphrasing and consolidating the way I understood what he and others have explained.

I just recogised the ideas from something I read of his, after someone on another forum wrote the same idea. It’s good, but I need to spend some time thinking about it properly, as I’m not sure I totally agree with it. To a degree though, it probably has some truth.

Whilst I'm sure that there is a social element in the development of religion, and it could indeed play a part in tribes' or groups' survival, I think there are probably other elements too. I actually think hallucinogens have a part to play as we see them in primitive tribe cultures, and there's no real reason that I'm aware of to consider our cultural ancestors to be that different. The general social construct could be as the theory you said suggests, but the initial trigger could be more substantial than merely a way to hold a community together.

Interesting point to flesh out, that a trigger would probably be necessary. What exactly do you mean? In my mind I was just figuring that most "tribes" or cultures would just start with some form of animism, as it would've been their only explanation for things we take for simple- eg. movement of the sun, moon, and stars.

See, even saying ‘some sort of animism’ requires an initial idea that there are souls in other things, and an idea of what a soul is. It’s also important to remember that our ancestors weren’t necessarily backwards cavemen terrified of the world. No one woke up one day and said, “right, that deer over there has a soul.” I’m not disagreeing with you here, merely emphasising that it probably was a little more complex. Having said that, humans are also as superstitious as they used to be, so you are right that these ideas probably started that way and developed.

There’s a couple of things that arise here; one being that most humans follow the pack, but we are the only species to also display genius. The trigger here could be the idea that one person in the tribe has an insight that he/she explains as a deity, then the others go along with the idea. (You could argue this is how Islam started out.)

Now, what would that experience be? If it’s biological, as I suspect it might be, then we have a cause. What came first, the numinous experience or the concept of deity? If people are having a certain experience, then they may explain it in the way that they can.

The second issue is one that mainstream thought seems to avoid, and that’s drugs. A shaman doesn’t come from nowhere. Naturally growing hallucinogens can cause experiences which can be regarded as religious in nature, but how would they be described before the concept of religion? I’m not convinced this could not have been the cause of some of the ideas, and then the others followed the idea, even though they had not necessarily had the same experience.

Is that making any sense? I can elaborate if you want, or we can move on. I’m not saying that’s right either, it’s just a possibility.

---

Regarding the selfish gene bit, there are always exceptions to the rule, and that’s something that has begun to interest me lately. If religion is a survival issue, then why does celibacy come into it? Mother Teresa didn’t pass on her genes, yet her actions as a result of her religious beliefs helps the passing on of others’ genes; people she wasn’t even related to. Maybe on a human scale it’s just larger and we subconsciously look after our species rather than simply our genes? I think there are examples of altruism in apes too, but I’ll have to look into that.

---

That's exactly the point of the Meme idea of religion- it's actually HIJACKED our sense of "same" or the part of human behavior which causes us to care more for those which are like us.

This, if you look at it from a gene's point of view, is an excellent evolutionary "strategy"- the gene which causes a family member to care for another would be passed on to many generations- think if apes had no tendency to care for their young. They do not bear enough young/litter for this to be an effective technique to have many surviving offspring. So religion as a meme has taken this sense of "caring" (which is actually just gene selfishness) . It's an idea gene- one which is very very good at spreading. I mean look at one of the central tenets of Jehova's Witness- you're not allowed into heaven unless you've converted a certain amount of people. Brilliant!!! How could that not spread?

It’s really difficult to explain stuff like that plus avoid the semantic trap of inferring genes are thinking and have a plan! You did well. The problem is that it still infers a plan of some sort. I’m not sure you can say it’s a strategy as such, more just the way things have panned out. Natural selection isn’t a strategy, it’s just the result of how things are.

I’m not disagreeing with you there, merely trying (badly) to elaborate a bit. I think that idea regarding religion is probably accurate to an extent. I don’t know enough about Jehovah Witness belief to know where the get x number of people into the faith and you can go to heaven, but it does sound suspiciously like a human device to get people to agree with you ideas.

On a slightly off tangent note, we do see that happening. Have you heard of Harun Yahya? He’s a famous Muslim creationist who apparently just blindly lies about evolution to get people to believe him. I’ve not read his stuff, but I’ve talked with Muslims who use his arguments, and they are just so flawed it’s amazing. It wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of religious ideas such as hell are not necessarily believed in by some people who espouse the ideas.

This is explained fairly well in Selfish Gene- a book i strongly recommend you reading if you haven't. It's actually got many of the ideas we're talking about here, but Dawkins is a little bit better at explaining than I am . It also has many examples of "altruism" in the animal world (down to birds, antelope, etc) and explanations for them.

I’ve not read it yet, but I might do on your recommendation. It’s only Dawkins’ literalist take on religion that bugs me, the stuff on biology he does is great from what I’ve seen and heard.

If you think religion is wonderful, why are you an atheist?

Probably for the same reason I am not a Jedi- no matter how much he wishes it were true he can't make it so. And I actually can see what he means. There are definitely some positive aspects to religion; it's kind of like the facebook before internet. The original social networking. Obviously not all church members are good people (nor are all atheists), but there are many church funded and spearheaded projects which do good.

Absolutely the opposite is actually the truth. I hope like hell I’m right and there is no God! If the Abrahamic God exists then I am in big trouble…