Not too sure about this, I think religion stems from when proto humans began to form language & communities. I think religion was the glue needed to keep the different families together in a collective.
That proto-religion evolved into more complex concepts and the first from of law. It's only when people became capable of expanding their knowledge and civilisation to such an extent that you could have people doing nothing but 'think' that education and real laws came into place. Religion however stayed in place as a glue for the whole community.
This need for religion and faith could be genetic and would explain fundamentalists/fanatics and even conspiracy theorists. As for people going from religion to atheism (or vice versa), I don't think those people had any "real faith" to begin with, but rather went with the flow of their community.
I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable.
I suspect that you actually do put belief in something that's unprovable, but that you simply don't realize that you are doing so. For example, do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe? If so, then what proof do you have that such might be the case?
No, I don't believe that. I accept that the scientific method is the best method we know so far. I don't put a belief or faith in a method. You are comparing a method of work with religion which, to be honest, is above silly.
Many people would answer that it can be proved using the scientific method,
The scientific method is based around the concept of falsification.
but those same people scoff when shown a claim by the bible that the bible is reliable, and call it circular reasoning.
The bible isn't a methodology. The bible is a literal (or philosophical) text. Two completely different entities. The bible uses it's own authority to validate itself as fact (or philosophy) while the scientific method is just that. A method.
Ultimately, you're left with an infinite regress of reasons supporting reasons, which to my mind is more difficult to put faith in than the existence of god.
I don't have any faith. The questions "where do we come from", "why do we exist" and various others are fun topics to discuss, but they do not influence my world view. I don't need faith in a god (or in science) in order to consolidate reality with my own thoughts.
For instance, I accept the concept of evolution as being the correct theory to explain how we as a species came to be, however, if tomorrow it turns out to be completely wrong and that there's a completely different mechanism at work, that will not alter my world view. (It would however, be a very fascinating discovery)
On the other hand, suppose you're skeptical about the scientific method.
The method is simple. If you do not grasp it then you have a serious intellectual deficiency. I can explain the method in 3 lines:
Make observation: Apple falls from tree
Make a hypotheses: something attracts the apple and causes it to fall
Perform experiments to confirm the hypothesis.
You can be skeptical of any given theory, but nothing is stopping you from validating it yourself. Even so, the correctness of a theory does not enter my world view, a theory (in science) is a tool, not a philosophy.
Ask yourself whether skepticism is the correct way to approach knowledge of the universe.
I do not believe anything at face value. When I read an article that makes a certain claim, I might accept that claim as usefull knowledge, but it doesn't alter my world view.
Shouldn't one be skeptical of such a belief?
One should think for himself.
One must either accept and operate on the assumption that skepticism is the appropriate opinion to hold, or that it's not. One must accept one of those beliefs on faith, as it were.
No. One must only accept one of these on faith. The other one, science, is a combination of a methodology and a set of observations and theories about those observations. You possess a mind of your own to think about and validate said methodology and theories.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that 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."
Mr. Roberts' claim proves too much. Let me show you why using analogy with mathematics, as I'm particularly fond of mathematics. Let's suppose I believe that there exists precisely one even prime, and
I still think it's basic genetics. I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable. Sure, I can suspend disbelief during a movie and all, but my whole life? Unfathomable.
It would actually be kind of ironic if evolution was the cause for the existence of religion I guess.
The best quote I ever heard was this one: Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that 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."
I quit watching TV altogether ages ago, too much commercials for shit I don't want and far too few things actually worth watching. I'll buy/download the things I want to watch and I'll watch when where & how I want.
The Yinlips also has a rather iffy build quality and a lot *LESS* power then the PS Vita. (And yes, I *own* a Yinlips, nifty little gadget despite it's flaws).
I have pets and I rarely get sick. I also skip on flu shots. I understand the need for vaccination though if you are in the danger-zone or vaccination for particularity nasty buggers, but the average flu? Nah.
This little bugger however, doesn't look like the common cold or flu, it's a nastier, so I would consider vaccination of this depending on just how virulent/lethal it is.
Funny that: "College students whose musical preferences are alternative, rock or heavy metal actually obtain higher IQ test scores on average, particularly on questions where abstraction is required (Walker & Kreiner, 2006)."
Why would someone which we were unique?! That would be a horrible waste of space then, this universe & all. This need of some people to have a maker... I've never understood it and I'll never will, it defies logic. Let's not discuss this further, I don't want to start a holy, err, flame war here;)
Why do I get the feeling you're one of them Christians? Why must we always assume that if there is intelligent life out there that it would inevitably come visit us? The sheer size of the universe boggles our minds, who knows, maybe FTL travel really is impossible.
You could have a point, if all planets formed at the same time. Since we can stars that are older then ours it's likely there there are also planets older then ours and hence possible lifeforms.
Slashdot Mirror
Not too sure about this, I think religion stems from when proto humans began to form language & communities. I think religion was the glue needed to keep the different families together in a collective.
That proto-religion evolved into more complex concepts and the first from of law. It's only when people became capable of expanding their knowledge and civilisation to such an extent that you could have people doing nothing but 'think' that education and real laws came into place. Religion however stayed in place as a glue for the whole community.
This need for religion and faith could be genetic and would explain fundamentalists/fanatics and even conspiracy theorists. As for people going from religion to atheism (or vice versa), I don't think those people had any "real faith" to begin with, but rather went with the flow of their community.
I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable.
I suspect that you actually do put belief in something that's unprovable, but that you simply don't realize that you are doing so. For example, do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe? If so, then what proof do you have that such might be the case?
No, I don't believe that. I accept that the scientific method is the best method we know so far. I don't put a belief or faith in a method. You are comparing a method of work with religion which, to be honest, is above silly.
Many people would answer that it can be proved using the scientific method,
The scientific method is based around the concept of falsification.
but those same people scoff when shown a claim by the bible that the bible is reliable, and call it circular reasoning.
The bible isn't a methodology. The bible is a literal (or philosophical) text. Two completely different entities. The bible uses it's own authority to validate itself as fact (or philosophy) while the scientific method is just that. A method.
Ultimately, you're left with an infinite regress of reasons supporting reasons, which to my mind is more difficult to put faith in than the existence of god.
I don't have any faith. The questions "where do we come from", "why do we exist" and various others are fun topics to discuss, but they do not influence my world view. I don't need faith in a god (or in science) in order to consolidate reality with my own thoughts. For instance, I accept the concept of evolution as being the correct theory to explain how we as a species came to be, however, if tomorrow it turns out to be completely wrong and that there's a completely different mechanism at work, that will not alter my world view. (It would however, be a very fascinating discovery)
On the other hand, suppose you're skeptical about the scientific method.
The method is simple. If you do not grasp it then you have a serious intellectual deficiency. I can explain the method in 3 lines:
Make observation: Apple falls from tree
Make a hypotheses: something attracts the apple and causes it to fall
Perform experiments to confirm the hypothesis.
You can be skeptical of any given theory, but nothing is stopping you from validating it yourself. Even so, the correctness of a theory does not enter my world view, a theory (in science) is a tool, not a philosophy.
Ask yourself whether skepticism is the correct way to approach knowledge of the universe.
I do not believe anything at face value. When I read an article that makes a certain claim, I might accept that claim as usefull knowledge, but it doesn't alter my world view.
Shouldn't one be skeptical of such a belief?
One should think for himself.
One must either accept and operate on the assumption that skepticism is the appropriate opinion to hold, or that it's not. One must accept one of those beliefs on faith, as it were.
No. One must only accept one of these on faith. The other one, science, is a combination of a methodology and a set of observations and theories about those observations. You possess a mind of your own to think about and validate said methodology and theories.
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that 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."
Mr. Roberts' claim proves too much. Let me show you why using analogy with mathematics, as I'm particularly fond of mathematics. Let's suppose I believe that there exists precisely one even prime, and
Yoyu forgot the part where he becomes a zombie
Scientific religion? What the hell is that?!
I still think it's basic genetics. I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable. Sure, I can suspend disbelief during a movie and all, but my whole life? Unfathomable.
It would actually be kind of ironic if evolution was the cause for the existence of religion I guess.
The best quote I ever heard was this one:
Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that 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."
Atheism is mainstream in Europe. Christianity is steadily declining. However, due to migration, islam is on the rise and we all know how that goes....
What the hell are you talking about? I live in Belgium and I can access the bay with no issue at all!
The only thing that is blocked is resolving the old DNS names.
It's from Fukushima, It's already nuked
And Belgium. I hate Karel De Gucht with a passion :(
I quit watching TV altogether ages ago, too much commercials for shit I don't want and far too few things actually worth watching. I'll buy/download the things I want to watch and I'll watch when where & how I want.
The Yinlips also has a rather iffy build quality and a lot *LESS* power then the PS Vita. (And yes, I *own* a Yinlips, nifty little gadget despite it's flaws).
Meh
I have pets and I rarely get sick. I also skip on flu shots. I understand the need for vaccination though if you are in the danger-zone or vaccination for particularity nasty buggers, but the average flu? Nah.
This little bugger however, doesn't look like the common cold or flu, it's a nastier, so I would consider vaccination of this depending on just how virulent/lethal it is.
I'm not going to breed. Are you?
I'm not old you insensitive clod!
The fact that the average judge can't grasp technology aids them a lot too. The judge probably thinks policing their service is feasible.
The Chinese eat just about anything
Funny that: "College students whose musical preferences are alternative, rock or heavy metal actually obtain higher IQ test scores on average, particularly on questions where abstraction is required (Walker & Kreiner, 2006)."
I will I will, sooner or later ;)
Why would someone which we were unique?! That would be a horrible waste of space then, this universe & all. This need of some people to have a maker... I've never understood it and I'll never will, it defies logic. Let's not discuss this further, I don't want to start a holy, err, flame war here ;)
Argh! "Since we can see stars..."
This happens way to much lately....
Why do I get the feeling you're one of them Christians? Why must we always assume that if there is intelligent life out there that it would inevitably come visit us? The sheer size of the universe boggles our minds, who knows, maybe FTL travel really is impossible.
You could have a point, if all planets formed at the same time. Since we can stars that are older then ours it's likely there there are also planets older then ours and hence possible lifeforms.
I remember those VCR's, I used to program those for my parents when I was 7
It's not about kids, it's about control (and media rights)