deleted in protest to really poor moderation

I don't think so. It's possible though I guess, but then what about atheists? I can't defy my genetics to be taller, so I would think the same would be true for anything else.

I don't think so. It's possible though I guess, but then what about atheists? I can't defy my genetics to be taller, so I would think the same would be true for anything else.

having the predisposition to be violent does not make you violent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/14/ngod14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/14/ixnewstop.html

"'God gene' discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory
By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 14/11/2004)



Religious belief is determined by a person's genetic make-up according to a study by a leading scientist.

After comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist has concluded that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.

His findings were criticised last night by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a "god gene" and say that the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith - that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain's electrical impulses.

Dr Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in America, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe. The higher their score, the greater a person's ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Dr Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene, VMAT2.

Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief.

Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect on belief. Dr Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "god gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality than others.

"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."

Further more cocaine use may result in lack of functionality of this God gene and thus cause a loss of faith!

I wonder how many atheists had faith and lost it after using cocaine rather too much?

"Impairment and Dysfunction
Cocaine users display a marked reduction in VMAT2 immunoreactivity. Suffers of cocaine-induced mood disorders displayed a significant loss of VMAT2 immunoreactivity, this might reflect damage to striatal dopamine fibers. These neuronal changes could play a role in causing disordered mood and motivational processes in more severely addicted users."

What's the original article?

What's the original article?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesicular_monoamine_transporter

"References
^ K.Y. Little et al. (2003). Am J Psychiatry 160, 47-55. Loss of Striatal Vesicular Monoamine Transporter Protein (VMAT2) in Human Cocaine Users
[edit]
Further reading
Kilbourne, M.R. (1997) In Vivo Radiotracers for Vesicular Neurotransmitter Transporters. Nuclear Medicine & Biology, Vol.24, pp.615-619.
Weihe, E. and Eiden, L.E. (2000) Chemical neuroanatomy of the vesicular amine transporter. FASEB J, Vol.14, pp.2435-2449. "

The god article.

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/RESEARCH/basic/biochem/hamer.htm

Not sure, but this is the dude who allegedly found the gene

this is his book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385500580/103-3573025-0659857?v=glance&n=283155

He is definitely gay and a theist.

He is definitely gay and a theist.

I wonder if he used cocaine also?

Anyone disagree re this God gene?

Why choose between athiest and thiest? What about those... like me... that are in the middle?

Anyone disagree re this God gene?

Yes. No causal relationship shown.

There is no "god gene". People are just naturally naive, especially when they are indoctrinated with a certain ideology (religion) since day 1.

Yes. No causal relationship shown.

Ok so if MVAT2 not God gene then what?

Perhaps the god gene is infact the parent /respect/obedience gene?

Based on the study, the Dr asked questions regarding faith and noted MVAT2 prevelance in theists, maybe he made the wrong diagnosis of the results.

Do theists display more love and respect and desire to obey their parents than atheists? Do they in general 'obide' more to authority and ritualistic behaviours? It is likely afterall that theists possess traits in common other than merely a belief in a deity.

Same for atheists

Are atheists not just oppose to idea of god but less resectful to parents and other authority figures? Or not less respectful just less likely to 'obide' by rules and dogma.

I haven't read the link but believe theres is a square hole in the brain that can only be filled with a religion peg as it were. This of course would imply it is a product of evolution and thus passed on genetically.
It's the only logical conclusion for reasons I cant be bothered to go im to.

I haven't read the link but believe theres is a square hole in the brain that can only be filled with a religion peg as it were. This of course would imply it is a product of evolution and thus passed on genetically.
It's the only logical conclusion for reason I cant be bothered to go im to.


Are you aware of the following:

Baby thinks it is omnipotent when born, finds out this is not so, considers parent omnipotent, finds out this is not so....scary prosepect huh! Defenceless in world where no one can guarrantee your safety! Desire for omnipotent presence there from birth is great, so when idea of God presented, it is welcomed. For some fortunate humans, it also becomes apparant that this a reality not just a fantasy, but this is not the case for all. Perhaps the presence/absence of MVAT2 is the reason for that difference in knowing God or just desiring God and giving up all together and becoming atheist.

The evolutuon of faith v the evolution of man, do we have a predisposition to seek a higher power, is there a genetic trait that predisposes the quest for a faith.

Is there a God gene?A “GOD gene”?!!!!!!
Huh?!

Is this for real?

Does anyone formulate opinions and questions with some idea about what they are talking about and possessing definitions for the terms they use or are you all merely spewing out random thoughts with no cohesion and even less analysis?

Are the only one’s left here now teenagers or are you all just adolescent minds?

Does anyone formulate opinions and questions with some idea about what they are talking about and possessing definitions for the terms they use ?

poll vote by Satyr = "I haven't read the links so have no opinion and should be castrated"

Indeed you should

However it is hard to castrate someone who has no balls

Baby thinks it is omnipotent when born, finds out this is not so, considers parent omnipotent, finds out this is not so....scary prosepect huh! Defenceless in world where no one can guarrantee your safety! Desire for omnipotent presence there from birth is great, so when idea of God presented, it is welcomed.
That doesn't mean belief in a deity is genetic. That just means that a lot people are stupid.

Ok so if MVAT2 not God gene then what?

Why do mice have the same gene?

Why do mice have the same gene?

I already said here that this gene may not be specifically god gene but relates to certain traits that may make one more susceptible to 'faith'. Is the MVAt2 gene the same in mice as in humans or does it differ in size/function etc. Why is it absent in some humans?

That doesn't mean belief in a deity is genetic. That just means that a lot people are stupid.


indeed a lot of people as most of worlds population are theists, maybe you are the stupid one, afterall intolerance and stupidity do go hand in hand.

I already said here that this gene may not be specifically god gene but relates to certain traits that may make one more susceptible to 'faith'. Is the MVAt2 gene the same in mice as in humans or does it differ in size/function etc. Why is it absent in some humans?

The gene is related to getting high the natural way. It functions the same in humans and mice. Most research on this gene is done in mice.

The whole idea about mentioning that Mice have this gene is that the idea of a god gene is ridiculous. As I have stated in the other thread. It's not that some people have this gene and others don't. It's merely that some seem to have more of the protein. If there was a 'god' gene that it would be the regulatory genes that regulated the expression of MVAT2, and not MVAT2 itself.

indeed a lot of people as most of worlds population are theists, maybe you are the stupid one, afterall intolerance and stupidity do go hand in hand.
Are you calling me intolerant?
I am simply saying that there isn't a gene that makes people believe in a god. People are just naive and tend to believe things just because they sound nice, even if they have no evidence.
And saying that god exists simply because a lot of people believe in it fallacious, by the Ad Populam Logical Fallacy. No matter how many believe a lie, it's still a lie.

Are you calling me intolerant?
I am simply saying that there isn't a gene that makes people believe in a god. People are just naive and tend to believe things just because they sound nice, even if they have no evidence.
And saying that god exists simply because a lot of people believe in it fallacious, by the Ad Populam Logical Fallacy. No matter how many believe a lie, it's still a lie.



your belief in the non eixtsance of God is no more evidence based than my belief in god, thus who is lying?

However, there is no evidence for god's existence, thus the logical assumption is that it does not exist.

However, there is no evidence for god's existence, thus the logical assumption is that it does not exist.

God may not be evident to you, but he is to me.

However, there is no evidence for god's existence, thus the logical assumption is that it does not exist.
Wrong, the logical assumption is that you cannot determine whether it exists. You're jumping to a conclusion in the same manner that a theist would. Using pure logic, agnosticism is more reasonable than either position. Hence, the leap of faith required to be either a theist or a strong atheist.

God may not be evident to you, but he is to me.

No he isn't. If he would be evident to you he would be evident to hapsburg. You carry the illusion that god is evident to you.

No he isn't. If he would be evident to you he would be evident to hapsburg. You carry the illusion that god is evident to you.
What's your favorite color? Seriously?

yellreen

No he isn't. If he would be evident to you he would be evident to hapsburg. You carry the illusion that god is evident to you.


As I said before, why do you especially an atheist presume God is evident to everyone? Maybe he is exclusive.

God is evident to me. This you cannot dispute as you are not me, do not know me. Thus your 'illusion' comment made in absence of any proof to the contrary is worthless. I could say that your belief that your wife loves you is an illusion, it is not real and neither is the love you imagine your child has for you. Just becuase I have not felt or seen your wifes love for you does not mean it does exist for you.


In fact, Love is a thing we cannot see and cannot prove the existance of so in fact it could be described as an illusion in every scenario could it not. The love you think you receive is NONE existant. You may think you feel it but that's just an illusion. You are nothing but cold cells that respond to stimuli, your life has no meaning, you are born to reproduce and then to die and fertilise the soil. Bleuh, poo to that.

Meanwhile
I think it is quite possible God is not part of everyones existance. Controversial but as we know so little of such things there is no reason to decide that God is one and one for all.

I could say that your belief that your wife loves you is an illusion, it is not real and neither is the love you imagine your child has for you. Just becuase I have not felt or seen your wifes love for you does not mean it does exist for you.

You can see these things actually. And measure them.

You can see these things actually. And measure them.

can you see and measure love? What does it look like? How can it be measured?

facial expressions and gifts of self or other won't cut it as a scientific reply.

Love has a biological basis, whatever you may think. You can formulate a hypothesis and test it. You can quantify and qualify it. You cannot do that with God. Or the feeling that god is evident.

You can explain it biologically of course like the guy is trying to do with the god gene why some people have the need for religious feelings and feel stronger religious feelings than average. That isn't linked to a real concept though. Love is. Love is a biological tool used to cement bonds. religion is a byproduct of other processes.

Love has a biological basis, whatever you may think. You can formulate a hypothesis and test it. You can quantify and qualify it. You cannot do that with God. Or the feeling that god is evident.

.

you do not know what I man when say God is evident to me, thus again you cannot dismiss what I say. You simply have no proof to the contrary. One man may find a dinosaur bone and then have it disintigrate in his hands before any other living being see's it. Does this mean it never existed, it was an illusion? Your lack of experience with God does not imply lack thereof for me.

yellreen
Oh, you must be delusional. Blue is obviously the best color there is.

Love has a biological basis, whatever you may think. You can formulate a hypothesis and test it. You can quantify and qualify it. You cannot do that with God. Or the feeling that god is evident.

You can explain it biologically of course like the guy is trying to do with the god gene why some people have the need for religious feelings and feel stronger religious feelings than average. That isn't linked to a real concept though. Love is. Love is a biological tool used to cement bonds. religion is a byproduct of other processes.
No, you are examining the behavioral patterns that accompany love, or the chemical reactions that produce it, but you are not measuring the experience of love. You can't measure experiences, only things associated with them. The only experiences that you can know of are your own.

you do not know what I man when say God is evident to me, thus again you cannot dismiss what I say. You simply have no proof to the contrary. One man may find a dinosaur bone and then have it disintigrate in his hands before any other living being see's it. Does this mean it never existed, it was an illusion? Your lack of experience with God does not imply lack thereof for me.
This is a strange kind of thinking that really befuddles us atheists.

This is a strange kind of thinking that really befuddles us atheists.

indeed you should be befuddled

God is real in my world, may not be in yours,

let's look at what we think we know:
We (humans) ALL share the same space (that being the world as we know it)

Do we ALL share the same experience of it?

Of are some shared and some not so.......... some shared with the few and some shared with the many?

The "gene" is called FEAR!!!!

The "gene" is called FEAR!!!!

actually the gene is associated with pleasure, maybe you should try reading up about the gene before posting

There may be a gene that make it easier to believe in God, not because it is a "god gene" but because it controls mood in such a way that it is easier to take in.

That is not to say that only those with that gene can believe in God, it is not to say either that Jesus must have had that gene.

As it is with all things everything matters, from the minimal to the grand, as such a gene may play a part, but environment and spiritual ability a much greater part.

We shouldn't forget about the mind and the power of subjective experiance, that we are free to go the way we want, equally we shouldn't make genes superiour to us, genes do not have the property of making people choose, they may in part influence the choice but the matter is up to us.

Also, I belive the genes have a more general function, they do not determine a persons sexuality, belief or whatever, they only regulate different areas and it is then easier to choose one way instead of another. For example, it was said in the link that the "god gene" controlled the mood somehow, then it could be read between the lines that the mood was regulated in such a way that it was easier to believe in God with that gene functioning.

However, if you have a "atheist gene" (if such a gene exists) but want to believe in God then you would be able, since the choice you make in life must be superiour to the genes and the "atheist gene" would in time have nothing to say to counteract that choice, since your life argues against it and the gene isn't superiour to you.

actually the gene is associated with pleasure, maybe you should try reading up about the gene before posting
Pleasure is a negative concept.
It denotes the absence of suffering.
Suffering being life.

Life is matter becoming animated and therefore more efficiently stable. It is a strategy towards the unattainable absolute.
Consciousness is animated matter becoming aware of its own lack and of the universe’s flux; feeling it as need.
Entropy is perceived by the mind as need, as it struggles to maintain its cohesion in an environment that appropriates its parts and deteriorates its energies.

Need, left unsatisfied, grows in intensity and is called suffering and then pain or despair or whatever.
Suffering is life and life suffering since life is that which is in constant need.
Pleasure is a momentary state where a living organism is distracted away from its own suffering/need by temporarily alleviating the symptoms.
The need never goes away it simply lowers in intensity making it indistinguishable behind other needs that take its place in front of consciousness’s awareness.
But the temporary lapse of conscious focus in between the alleviation of one need and the emergence of another as the dominating one, is felt as a momentary escape from the conscious awareness of living – ergo pleasure.

Pleasure is the ephemeral conscious apprehension of non-existence, right before a new need returns the mind to its original purpose: The efficient fulfillment of need.

Belief in God is no more genetic than the belief in ghosts.
It’s the reaction to the apprehension of the human condition - a method of coping with the Nothingness and the responsibility of being an individual.

Belief in the supernatural is the natural method the obtuse and cowardly use to cope with the uncertainty of existence and the indifference of a universe they cannot comprehend nor accept.

There is no genetic predisposition for believing in god.
What there is is a mind facing the unknown and trying to cope with the anxiety by inventing an absolute that will save it from its predicament and offer it a meaning and a purpose for its suffering - for its living.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

again if you read the topic you'd know this theory was fiercely rejected by theists and was dreamed up by an atheist

furthermore it is only supernatural if you do not naturally experience it, thus your perception of supernatural is not mine.

indeed you should be befuddled
As I indeed am.

God is real in my world, may not be in yours,
Uh oh. You have your own world. I see where this is leading...

let's look at what we think we know:
We (humans) ALL share the same space (that being the world as we know it)
Ok. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

Do we ALL share the same experience of it?
Of course not.

[Or] are some shared and some not so.......... some shared with the few and some shared with the many?
Look, there's this guideline that I and most of the atheists I know follow. If someone claims that an experience is only valid within the confines of their own mind (it's subjective, in other words), then we say "it's all in your head". You may have heard this phrase before. To those of you who follow these internal ideas, we say "it's all in your head". Now don't take offence at this because, as you've made perfectly clear, yours is a subjective experience of goddiness (godness? or godessness?). So to you I say, with all due respect, "it's all in your head".

Now, for us atheist types, we generally don't ascribe things that are "all in your head" to the working of the actual universe. We use some things called observation, logic, and testing to see if the things we're thinking about really exist. If there's no way to use these nifty tools on an idea, we may still keep the idea and play with it "in our heads" because it's fun. But we usually stop short of converting these fun but untestable ideas into fuill-blown lifelong belief systems.

Now you may call us silly for not simply accepting our own internal ruminations as facts and basing life philosophies on them, but this is a character flaw that we atheists must live with. So please, have a bit of pity for us. We can't help using our common sense and observational skills to reach simple truths about the universe.

Give generously to the "Wake Up The Atheists From Their Reality Based Paradigm" foundation. The fewer of us there are, the quicker we can all get back to the good old days of animal sacrifices, unfounded accusations of heresy (with the associated burning and torture), mindless conformance to arbitrary rules, and submission to those with the direct line to... whichever is the correct deity.

Thanks for your time.

God is evident to me. This you cannot dispute as you are not me, do not know me.

No, god is not evident to you, however your delusions on this topic are evident to us. If god was 'evident' at all, we would all know about it.

[quote]Just becuase I have not felt or seen your wifes love for you does not mean it does exist for you.[/qoute]

So, the feelings of one person towards another somehow quantifies your delusions?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

again if you read the topic you'd know this theory was fiercely rejected by theists and was dreamed up by an atheistWhat do I care what dumb-ass atheist dreamed up?

I speak for myself and nobody else, and nobody speaks for me.

furthermore it is only supernatural if you do not naturally experience it, thus your perception of supernatural is not mine.I don’t believe anything is supernatural if it is perceivable.

Supernatural is a term given to what goes against our conceptions of what is natural.

Where there is ignorance thee is magic.
Where there is fear there is superstition and groveling before the unknown possible.

Man stands naked before the void and sees himself as empty and fragile and incomplete.

He then weaves garments to cover his distress and nothingness and calls the mantle ‘I’ or ‘God’ or ‘ideal’ or ‘hope’.

It is a distinctly feminine attribute to be attracted to an authority, to a father figure, to a leader.

When a man looks into the void he says: “I will fill it.”, “I will conquer it.”, “I will know it.”, “I will dominate it.”, “I will overcome it”……”I will…..”

When a woman does she says: “I willingly grovel before it.”, “I willingly placate it.”, “I will worship it.”, “I willingly surrender to its mystery.”, “I willingly accept my ignorance before it.”, “I willingly submit to it.”, “I willingly belong.” ….”I willingly….”

Watch how man has become feminine.
See then plead before death and the unknown, trembling in their ignorance, fantasizing about a better after-life and a special privileged existence.

you do not know what I man when say God is evident to me, thus again you cannot dismiss what I say. You simply have no proof to the contrary. One man may find a dinosaur bone and then have it disintigrate in his hands before any other living being see's it. Does this mean it never existed, it was an illusion? Your lack of experience with God does not imply lack thereof for me.

You don't tell us what evident entails so god exists?

The fossil bone is actually real. You are grasping at straws. You keep coming up with bad analogies in the hope your illusions are real.

You don't tell us what evident entails so god exists?

The fossil bone is actually real. You are grasping at straws. You keep coming up with bad analogies in the hope your illusions are real.


The fossil is only real to the one man who experienced it, there is nothing left to demonstrate to anyone else he is not just telling lies. Other fossils exist sure, but his?

I'll say it again, your lack of experience with God , the fact he is absent in your life, does not mean he is absent in mine. You are unaware of an interfering presence, this is your short sightedness. I am not short sighted. This is the only difference.

Many religious people base their belief in God on what they have been taught. I do not. I base it 100% on my own experience. Hence I have no religion, I am tolerant of them but I do not support them, I do not hold with what they preach or their ideas of how the world came about. My idea of God is based on the knowledge that there IS an interfering force in my life.

For all I know we each have an individual god and yours may just be considerably lazier than mine, I have no idea how the 'system' works. No one can presume to know what God is is, one God, many Gods, what form they/it takes, what it's purpose is. The limit/lack of limits of power.

This interefernce may not be so for everyone or others may just rely on fortunate or misfortunate coincidences a little too easily. Mountains are there to be climbed beucase the rewards at the top are great.

I don't know why terrible unspeakable things happen to some underserving people, I cannot know. Maybe there are some who are meant to be taught the lessons so that WE can save the rest, not God?

Imagine A Doctor with a million patients, he cannot treat them all himself, so he must teach some to assist him. While he is teaching the few to assist the many, the many keeps growing, so the situation gets out of control , but it does not mean that the Doctor stops teaching or trying to encourage greater numbers of people to help themsleves and each other.

When atheists let go of the 'God' that has been preached about in religion, maybe they can examine their own lives more closely to see where the real God fits into it. This applies to theists too actually. Believing in God through a series of indoctrinated beliefs is not the same of recognising God in your life.

Why don't you sit in quiet contemplation and look over your own life. Look at those things that you have wished for and came to you in unusual circumstance. Look at the sufferring you went through but the lesson you learned at the end of it and how it benefited you or others.

You accept you are loved by your wife and child, accepting you are loved by an unseen force..why so hard? There is a resource you are not tapping by your lack of recognition.

I think you should have a hard look at the research you quoted and come maybe to the conclusion that you have a high immunoreactivity to MVAT2, which means that you are suspectible to 'religious' experiences.

I don't have to reflect on my life. I'm not a dumbass robot who just started to think about his life after being told by ToR. There is absolutely nothing in my life that indicates a divine authority.

The only reason strange things happen to me (people ask me why these things never happen to them) is because I let them happen. That's life. Nothing more.

In conclusion: you have a physiological characteristic that makes you think you know the truth. Just accept what you are (an animal) and take back control of your brain. Or not.

But don't lecture anyone with your vague shit on god.

Back it up either by argument or 'evidence' that is evident.

The fossil might disintegrate btw but the dust can still be collected. The dust is real. Moreover, there are more of these fossils that do not disintegrate. Moreover fossils do not disintegrate. If they are brittle they are photographed before excavation. If a fossil would disintegrate by touch it actually isn't a fossil.

in other words: analogies suck if they are your only evidence that is evident.

I think you should have a hard look at the research you quoted and come maybe to the conclusion that you have a high immunoreactivity to MVAT2, which means that you are suspectible to 'religious' experiences.

I don't have to reflect on my life. I'm not a dumbass robot who just started to think about his life after being told by ToR. There is absolutely nothing in my life that indicates a divine authority.

The only reason strange things happen to me (people ask me why these things never happen to them) is because I let them happen. That's life. Nothing more.

In conclusion: you have a physiological characteristic that makes you think you know the truth. Just accept what you are (an animal) and take back control of your brain. Or not.

But don't lecture anyone with your vague shit on god.

Back it up either by argument or 'evidence' that is evident.

The fossil might disintegrate btw but the dust can still be collected. The dust is real. Moreover, there are more of these fossils that do not disintegrate. Moreover fossils do not disintegrate. If they are brittle they are photographed before excavation. If a fossil would disintegrate by touch it actually isn't a fossil.

in other words: analogies suck if they are your only evidence that is evident.


Spurious I don't actually believe the existance of a God gene, I think life from birth is what predisposes people to the 'need' for an ominpotent being.

I have not had a religious experience. That is not what I refer to. Everything you say is based on your understanding of God from a religion based perspective, thus none of it actually applies to me. I have said my understanding of god is not based on anything taught thus my experience and religious belief is likely to differ.

Meanwhile re your snotty attack at my lack of evdience, where is yours?
Your 'evidence' is that you have had no experience of it, well my evidence is that I have. If this form of 'evidence' is good enough for you, then it is also good enough for me.

I do not need to take control of my brain, there is nothing wrong with my brain. Your ad hom implication that there is demonstrates your absence of argument re the point.

re your accustaion I am lecturing people with my vague shit on god. :) Show me the lecture. I saw a reply from me to your post, nothing more. Who is 'seeing things' now?

You don't like the reply, well this is your opinion and it's yours to have. Just as my opinion is mine to have. I am not going to accuse you of speaking for the masses or to the masses though, I see it as it is, dialogue between two people, nothing more than that. So no need for you to get all defensive and pissy.

I am not lecturing you to believe in god, I don't really care who does and who does not. It HAS zero impact on my life, thus is not my concern. Why would it be? I have never understood why the religious feel the need to spread the word. It's a personal thing. The only reason I suggested you consider the events of your life, so you can learn to identify when this interference manifests and how, was so you could then utilize it to your own benefit.

I have been told in this forum (in past) that I have no right to believe in god that I am stupid, a retard, a dumbass for doing so and yet all the evidence of my life suggests I am not a dumbass, a retard, stupid. Rather the people so quick to fire off these insults are. So while you are telling me NOT to tell you what I believe in (even though you implied a desire to know) don't try to 'INSULT' me into believing what you believe in/or lack thereof.

I am not a sheep. I will not follow, neither will I be bullied.

I have nothing to prove, only a desire for stimulating dialogue.

I see this has run its course.

I don't need evidence for the existence of god. I never claimed I had any. That was you.

I don't need evidence for the existence of god. I never claimed I had any. That was you.

I said God was 'evident' in my life. There is a difference.

I said I am aware of an interfering presence.

I do not offer my personal experience as evidence to the world as if I could do so in such a way as to withstand scientific scrutiny I'd be a multi bazziliionaire!

Regardless, believe or don't believe it's no concern of mine.

Yes we might have a God gene. It's called consciousness.

The more self awareness you have, the closer you are to God. If you are self aware, and you love yourself, and we assume based on ancient text that God is love, then yes God would be a guiding force in our evolution as a species. Very few people mate with those they hate.

My belief is rather simple. God is consciousness. Consciousness is the first force in the universe, above matter, and before the big bang. Thus we control the universe simply by injecting our consciousness into matter.

My belief is rather simple. God is consciousness. Consciousness is the first force in the universe, above matter, and before the big bang. Thus we control the universe simply by injecting our consciousness into matter.

interesting

My belief is rather simple. God is consciousness. Consciousness is the first force in the universe, above matter, and before the big bang. Thus we control the universe simply by injecting our consciousness into matter.
Do you believe in psychic phoenomena? I've read that a lot of psychics take this position toward God.

I believe in science. The fact that we can solve the universe with our minds shows we created the universe in the first place, otherwise we would be controlled instead of being the controllers. You can choose to believe that universe controls us like machines, or we control it. Which do you prefer?

My opinion on athiests is that athiests do not want there to be a God, they psychologically prefer a random universe. I say to them, that randomness is the God of athiests, while order is the God of thiests. Most athiests do believe in science and if there are laws of the universe, regardless of what idea or theory for how these laws got there, the fact is that order exists in the universe, and only consciousness as far as we know can design.

So yes I'm endorsing intelligent design through intelligent selection. I'm saying we control our genetics, our evolution, our environment, our past, present and future is decided by us, our thoughts manifest, record, recreate, and discover. You are the hand of God if you choose to believe you are, and you are a machine/robot if you choose to believe you are, but the fact that you are self aware and conscious should be enough proof.

I'm enlightened. I do not consider myself psychic. A lot of people simply don't fully use their mind, this does not make anyone psychic. If you think about something in enough detail you can predict the future. You can predict mans future as you can predict weather patterns. Based on our current evolutionary track, we arent yet self aware as a species. We do not recognize ourselves as fully human, as we treat the poor among us as less than human and the rich among us as human. We do not recognize all races as equal, we can't even recognize both genders as equal. We are very good at selecting physically beautiful mates and having lots of physically beautiful yet crazy babies. Physical beauty does not improve your chances of survival. At best physical beauty helps you have more babies, but survival as a species has nothing to do with being a baby machine, or a chick magnet. Evolution is about intelligent selection.

Genetics, and evolution are our script, given to us by God, through our conscious selection. We chose our own script to our demise. So don't be surprised if we destroy ourselves and wipe ourselves out. We as a species, arent aware, even if every individual has self awareness we seem to have no group awareness. People who have group awareness appear pychic, or like prophets, but all they are doing is taking a snapshot of the global mind sphere or noosphere, reading their history books, and tracking the genetic script. According to our genes, we are already dead unless we get smart about who we mate with. Currently, people mate for the most ridiculous reasons that has nothing to do with evolution. Person X has money. Person Y has nice breasts. Person Z looks like I do. Genetic diversity is being wasted, and genetic diversity is important in the same way it matters in capitalism. When you invest in your species, if you put all your money into one pot, and that pot fails, you fail, and humans are putting all their eggs into one basket. We are evolving based on wealth, race, and appearances. Intelligence is usually ignored, conscience is usually ignored, creativity is usually ignored. If you look at the tools our specific species needs to survive, beauty and wealth arent at the top of the list. Are we supposed to beautify ourselves away from extinction? Are we supposed to buy ourselves a new earth? I think you see my point.

Each of you are self aware, and the majority of you are intelligent. This means you have some responsibility, and the higher you are up on the ladder of wealth and beauty the more responsbility you have to your neighbors. I do not mean financial responsbility, I mean the responsbility to protect your species from extinction. You cannot expect people living in poverty, or poor college students to help, but if you are wealthy and physically attractive, you can choose any mate as a partner, be very precise with whom you choose.

good contribution Timetraveller and nicely put.

good contribution Timetraveller and nicely put.
Oh yes. Brilliant. The future of our species is in the hands of the smart and pretty. Why oh why did I take those electives in anthropology and evolutionary biology? What a waste of time. TimeTraveller apparently has it nailed.

Woo woos unite.

Oh and ToR, I...

shit. forget it. no one cares.

Time Traveller, great postings in all threads. Hope you stick around.

Oh and ToR, I...

shit. forget it. no one cares.


C'mon supe spit it out.

Time Traveller, great postings in all threads. Hope you stick around.
No, they're not great posts. They're a bunch of specious spoutings with no value. You all want to hear this kind of crap, but when it comes to reality you get upset.

I'm enlightened. I do not consider myself psychic. A lot of people simply don't fully use their mind, this does not make anyone psychic.

Gibberish? What does this mean?

If you think about something in enough detail you can predict the future. You can predict mans future as you can predict weather patterns.

You can? Please, favor us with some weather predictions that are of any value one week hence, then we'll talk about predicting the future of humanity.

Based on our current evolutionary track, we arent yet self aware as a species. We do not recognize ourselves as fully human...

Uh, by definition we are human.

as we treat the poor among us as less than human and the rich among us as human. We do not recognize all races as equal, we can't even recognize both genders as equal.

All defininng traits of humanity. Are you talking about aliens, or people. This is what we currently are.

We are very good at selecting physically beautiful mates and having lots of physically beautiful yet crazy babies.

Wha?

Physical beauty does not improve your chances of survival.
Uh, dead wrong.

At best physical beauty helps you have more babies, but survival as a species has nothing to do with being a baby machine, or a chick magnet. Evolution is about intelligent selection.

This is completely uninformed or just plain stupid. Don't make statements about a subject you clearly learned from saturday morning cartoons. Evolution is exactly about NON-intelligent selection. Natural selection is not a conscious "effort" on the part of species, unless...

Genetics, and evolution are our script, given to us by God, through our conscious selection.

Got lots of evidence to back this up eh?

We chose our own script to our demise. So don't be surprised if we destroy ourselves and wipe ourselves out. We as a species, arent aware, even if every individual has self awareness we seem to have no group awareness.

Oh, so you're leaning toward the hive mind approach, huh? Ants and bees are pretty good at that. Not for me, thanks.

People who have group awareness appear pychic, or like prophets, but all they are doing is taking a snapshot of the global mind sphere or noosphere, reading their history books, and tracking the genetic script.

Wow, that is soooo cool (sounding).

According to our genes, we are already dead unless we get smart about who we mate with.

WTF?

Currently, people mate for the most ridiculous reasons that has nothing to do with evolution. Person X has money. Person Y has nice breasts. Person Z looks like I do. Genetic diversity is being wasted, and genetic diversity is important in the same way it matters in capitalism. When you invest in your species, if you put all your money into one pot, and that pot fails, you fail, and humans are putting all their eggs into one basket. We are evolving based on wealth, race, and appearances. Intelligence is usually ignored, conscience is usually ignored, creativity is usually ignored. If you look at the tools our specific species needs to survive, beauty and wealth arent at the top of the list. Are we supposed to beautify ourselves away from extinction? Are we supposed to buy ourselves a new earth? I think you see my point.
Why yes, yes I do. You are advocating a form of intelligent breeding approach. Of course you are. Let's come up with a way to convince the people to be more selective about whom they breed with in an effort to improve the species. Wait, that sounds a lot like...

Each of you are self aware, and the majority of you are intelligent.
Why, thank you kind sir/maam.

This means you have some responsibility, and the higher you are up on the ladder of wealth and beauty the more responsbility you have to your neighbors. I do not mean financial responsbility, I mean the responsbility to protect your species from extinction. You cannot expect people living in poverty, or poor college students to help,

Why, of course not. We wouldn't want to breed with them.

but if you are wealthy and physically attractive, you can choose any mate as a partner, be very precise with whom you choose.
Yes, mein Furrer... I mean Heil!... No, I mean... what's my point here?

So yea, sam and ToR. Great, thoughtful, well informed posts. If that's what you like, then please put me on ignore. Or better yet, click the "nazi eugenics" selection option in your user preferences area.

good contribution Timetraveller and nicely put.
WTFAYT?

Time Traveller, great postings in all threads. Hope you stick around.
Wait, he's got more somewhere? Oh boy...

I believe in science.
Nice try, bub. Sounds good until you actually read your posts.

The fact that we can solve the universe with our minds shows we created the universe in the first place

It does? Brilliant. Fucking brilliant.

, otherwise we would be controlled instead of being the controllers. You can choose to believe that universe controls us like machines, or we control it. Which do you prefer?
Uh, I prefer harmonious coexistence with the universe, thank you.

My opinion on athiests is that athiests do not want there to be a God, they psychologically prefer a random universe. I say to them, that randomness is the God of athiests, while order is the God of thiests.

What? How could you be any more backward or wrong? Theists posit a god that can do ANYTHING which puts your "order" in the trash heap. Atheists actually understand the concept of order in the natural world as interpreted by science. Sheesh.

Most athiests do believe in science and if there are laws of the universe, regardless of what idea or theory for how these laws got there, the fact is that order exists in the universe, and only consciousness as far as we know can design.
Again, quite brilliant.

The universe was designed, because it must have had a creator, and only consciousness can design, therefore, it was designed...

So yes I'm endorsing intelligent design through intelligent selection.
Stay the fuck away from me bub.

I'm saying we control our genetics, our evolution, our environment, our past, present and future is decided by us, our thoughts manifest, record, recreate, and discover.
Gibberwhatits?

You are the hand of God if you choose to believe you are, and you are a machine/robot if you choose to believe you are [not?], but the fact that you are self aware and conscious should be enough proof.
Amen. I fixed your paragraph for you by the way.

And enough proof that I'm not a robot? Or that I am the hand of god? I think the fact that I am self aware and conscious allows me to see beyond ancient superstition toward a future where real (as opposed to pseudo) logic prevails in the larger sphere of human endeavor.

interesting
God damn it to hell. Now I know why the world is in the shape its in.

God damn it to hell. Now I know why the world is in the shape its in.


aw Super, ;) what's up chuck? Your posts are interesting tooooooooo.

I never said I agreed with the beautiful selection thingy, I just found the alternate view interesting. Does that imply agreement? No

I don't agree AT ALL, that we all are only breeding with attractive (on outside) people as if that were so there would be a lot of single non beauty queens and hunks etc, and there are not. Thus that is clearly just untrue. I don't consider anyone ugly myself, AT ALL! Attractiveness comes in many forms. But deffinately there are as many alleged non attractive people breeding as alleged attractive. Are all scientists single and not breeding? I don't think so.

Feeling better now Super?

catch ya later

I've been challeneged so I'm going to give a proper response. I'm going to make the simple case. You can choose to believe it, or you can watch as the movie of our collective future unfolds. The script is already written in our genes.


And enough proof that I'm not a robot? Or that I am the hand of god? I think the fact that I am self aware and conscious allows me to see beyond ancient superstition toward a future where real (as opposed to pseudo) logic prevails in the larger sphere of human endeavor.

So you are an existentialist. God is dead right? I know how you think, and I know your type. I respect your beliefs, but I disagree. Superstition and emotion had nothing to do with what I said. The state of our species proves what I said. I rely on pure logic, there is no emotion to it at all. It's cause and effect, the basic law of all logical intercourse. I spoke in evolution, the way we script ourselves genetically. It is a scientific fact that most of the evolution taking place right now is "appearance" based. Personalities are exactly as they have been thousands of years ago.


Also I'm not german, and eugenics are not endorsed by me personally, but because the world has chosen eugenics, it explains what I said. Humanity has chosen eugenics over evolution. Humanity has chosen evolution of the physical appearance over survival.

You want evidence? A beautiful face and body, does not increase the ability of your species to survive if your species is not self aware, and is self destructive. You can argue all you want over how the species is aware of itself, but the simply fact is, most people do not view the poor as human. Just because you say you do, does not mean the majority of wealthy people do. Most people do not view humanity as their family, and do not protect their species. I'm not say you must be like bees here, but the bees, roaches and ants survive for so long and through everything because they are a higher level of consciousness. They have species level awareness, and they work only to protect their species and their DNA. They do not care about anything else. Humans work as much to protect their species as to destroy it, and in most cases work more to destroy it than to protect it.

So yea, sam and ToR. Great, thoughtful, well informed posts. If that's what you like, then please put me on ignore. Or better yet, click the "nazi eugenics" selection option in your user preferences area.

I like how you assume everything has something to do with the Nazi's. I never mentioned the Nazi's in any of my posts. I spoke of intelligent selection, I did not speak of the Nazi's. I did not say that focusing on beauty was the most important, and I never endorsed eugenics. I think you are just trying to throw words and phrases into the debate in a desperate attempt at using jedi mind control tricks. I'm not stupid, I know what framing is, and I know what you are trying to do. Do not insult my intelligence by throwing random words that have nothing to do with what I said into the debate. The debate is simply, will humanity go extinct based on the current genetic path it is on? It has nothing to do with "race". I don't believe in race, that was invented. It has nothing to do with beauty, because beauty is just a mating tool. It has nothing to do with wealth because you cannot buy a new earth as I've said before. It's simple, are we genetically self destructing? Do we genetically hate our species? Do we want to die out?

It's not going to matter how beautiful or ugly we look, none of it will ever matter because the self destructive nature will eventually lead to self destruction. It's this way by design. An individual that does not follow the law of self preservation eventually dies. A species that does not follow the law of self preservation eventually dies. If you want to imagine the human species, imagine a man and a woman, both with guns pointed at their heads, standing side by side so both bullets pass right through both their heads. Thats our state of existance at this time. We made a conscious decision to invent the gun, to invent the story and excuses to use it, and now it's a decision about if we want to pull the trigger or not.

Consciousness decides the fate of species, evolution, etc. So here are some questions for you, since you wanted to debate.

1. Do you recognize all of humanity as a member of your family?

2. Do you care about of humanity and about the future of humanity?

I don't really care what your ideology is, or if you believe in a God or in science, you should know that the future is being erased as we speak. It's your job to protect your future self, in the present. The here and now is how you protect tomorrow, if you want there to be a tomorrow, and if you don't care, then sit back and do nothing, and eventually time will run out.

The way evolution works is, in order for humans to evolve to the next level and survive, humans must achieve a species level awareness. If you hate your brother or your sister, you ultimately hate yourself. It is clear? A species that hates itself, eventually destroys itself. Is that clear? Self destruction is the suicide button, the way to erase the future.

So once again I'm not saying you have to become like an ant or a bee. All you have to do is make a decision on if you care about your future or not. If you care about your future, and about yourself, then you at least need to care about your DNA. Your DNA is the script to your future, and if something is wrong in the present, it's due to the mating habits of the past. Based on the mating habits of the past, humans are physically beautiful and good at war against themselves. Now, back away from this and view this as God would view it, and you can see that humans are making a conscious decision, and creating their own script to their own movie. It only takes one weapon to wipe out all life on earth.

If you really want statistics, study some insects or some more evolved lifeforms than ourselves. Insects will survive whatever we do because thats all they want to do. So argue all you want about the hive mentality, but the only reasons humans survived this long is because of the tribal mentality.

Just in case you want some URL's to do some research or track some of my research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

http://www.noosphere.cc/noosphere.html

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

http://www.holography.ru/files/univhoe.htm
Key Quote The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
Key Quote #2 This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

http://www.personalityresearch.org/bg.html

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/15/between-power-and-beauty-a-man/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385312113/104-2655409-2435166?redirect=true&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.peterussell.com/Weaver/WeaverScience.html

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMIN.HTML

There are more links, but the essensce of it all is that spirituality is important in science, as long as that spirituality is based on science. A rational concept of God can be a good thing for a scientist. Einstien himself said God did not play dice. I tend to agree.

Thought Experiment #1 What if the universe only exists in our collective minds? How do you co-exist with something which exists only because of consciousness being aware of it?

I'm enlightened.

It's always nice for a poster to prepare everyone for what they're about to devulge.

I do not consider myself psychic.

No one considers you psychic, because no one is psychic. Psychotic, perhaps.

A lot of people simply don't fully use their mind, this does not make anyone psychic.

By fully utilizing ones faculties usually means one thinks critically and comes to the conclusion that psychics, or those who claim to be psychics, are woo-woos.

If you think about something in enough detail you can predict the future. You can predict mans future as you can predict weather patterns.

I'm assuming you're talking about researching and predicting based on that research as opposed to sitting around dreaming up nonsense?

Physical beauty does not improve your chances of survival. At best physical beauty helps you have more babies

You just contradicted yourself.

but survival as a species has nothing to do with being a baby machine, or a chick magnet. Evolution is about intelligent selection.

Is this where we get to the 'enlightend' parts?

Genetics, and evolution are our script, given to us by God, through our conscious selection. We chose our own script to our demise. So don't be surprised if we destroy ourselves and wipe ourselves out.

I would agree that anything to do with gods and religion would see us wiping ourselves out.

We as a species, arent aware, even if every individual has self awareness we seem to have no group awareness. People who have group awareness appear pychic, or like prophets, but all they are doing is taking a snapshot of the global mind sphere or noosphere, reading their history books, and tracking the genetic script.

Actually, it's just a group think mentality and it has nothing to do with awareness and more to do with sheep being led to the slaughter.

According to our genes, we are already dead unless we get smart about who we mate with. Currently, people mate for the most ridiculous reasons that has nothing to do with evolution.

That's like saying scientists test observations not for want of learning something but instead for want of following the scientific method.

Person X has money. Person Y has nice breasts. Person Z looks like I do. Genetic diversity is being wasted, and genetic diversity is important in the same way it matters in capitalism. When you invest in your species, if you put all your money into one pot, and that pot fails, you fail, and humans are putting all their eggs into one basket. We are evolving based on wealth, race, and appearances. Intelligence is usually ignored, conscience is usually ignored, creativity is usually ignored. If you look at the tools our specific species needs to survive, beauty and wealth arent at the top of the list. Are we supposed to beautify ourselves away from extinction? Are we supposed to buy ourselves a new earth? I think you see my point.

No, I don't. Genetic diversity will occur regardless. Unless of course, if you live in the Ozarks and marry your sister.

Each of you are self aware, and the majority of you are intelligent.

No, most here follow group think mentality, as you'll see with whoever compliments your posts and agrees with you.

This means you have some responsibility, and the higher you are up on the ladder of wealth and beauty the more responsbility you have to your neighbors. I do not mean financial responsbility, I mean the responsbility to protect your species from extinction.

Horsepucky! Responsibility comes from acknowledging your own actions, not bleating about gods and religion and intelligent selection.

You cannot expect people living in poverty, or poor college students to help, but if you are wealthy and physically attractive, you can choose any mate as a partner, be very precise with whom you choose.

Hilarious! The Monarchy in Britian salutes you!

good contribution Timetraveller and nicely put.

Time Traveller, great postings in all threads. Hope you stick around.

You see, the sheep are already following. Baaaaaa.

It is possible to entertain a thought without accepting it, (Q).

Its called secularism.

The state of our species proves what I said. I rely on pure logic, there is no emotion to it at all. It's cause and effect, the basic law of all logical intercourse. I spoke in evolution, the way we script ourselves genetically. It is a scientific fact that most of the evolution taking place right now is "appearance" based. Personalities are exactly as they have been thousands of years ago.
You don't know what you're talking about. Even your time scales (thousands of years) belie the fact that you have no idea of the workings of evolution. It is a scientific fact that no one knows just what influences are are driving our evolution today and what traits may be beneficial or harmful in our evolutionary future. And how do you think beauty evolved in the first place? Read a book.

Also I'm not german, and eugenics are not endorsed by me personally, but because the world has chosen eugenics, it explains what I said. Humanity has chosen eugenics over evolution. Humanity has chosen evolution of the physical appearance over survival.
Please stop. You are speaking with someone who knows a fair bit of actual evolutionary science. Stop claiming things you know nothing about.

Now, I really did read the rest of your post, but it is not worthy of dissection. I suggest you go to the library and learn some modern evolutionary theory before continuing to publicly display your ignorance. Bye.

Just in case you want some URL's to do some research or track some of my research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

http://www.noosphere.cc/noosphere.html

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

http://www.holography.ru/files/univhoe.htm
Key Quote The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
Key Quote #2 This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

http://www.personalityresearch.org/bg.html

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/03/15/between-power-and-beauty-a-man/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385312113/104-2655409-2435166?redirect=true&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.peterussell.com/Weaver/WeaverScience.html

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMIN.HTML

There are more links, but the essensce of it all is that spirituality is important in science, as long as that spirituality is based on science. A rational concept of God can be a good thing for a scientist. Einstien himself said God did not play dice. I tend to agree.

Thought Experiment #1 What if the universe only exists in our collective minds? How do you co-exist with something which exists only because of consciousness being aware of it?

Please, please stop. You are like a pack rat that gathers sutff because it looks shiny, but has no idea what the stuff is for. You are stringing together random ideas of mysticism, spirituality, science, and pseudoscience and deriving "important" truths from them. Most of what you posted is nothing but speculation. A good scientist will acknowledge that, while trying to use the tools of science to verify the validity of his ideas. Your two links on behavioral genetics seem good. Have you bothered to read them?

I never said I agreed with the beautiful selection thingy, I just found the alternate view interesting. Does that imply agreement? No

Feeling better now Super?

A little. Not much. But a little.

It is possible to entertain a thought without accepting it, (Q).

Its called secularism.

I have entertained.

You on the other hand accept fairy tales and fantasies and things that go bump in the night.

I've yet to see you actually accept anything but.

It's called delusion.

I have entertained.

Could have fooled me.

You on the other hand accept fairy tales and fantasies and things that go bump in the night.


Bla bla bla


I've yet to see you actually accept anything but.


Who died and made you god?


It's called delusion.


Nope, its called faith.
aka, an alternate view.

Just cos you don't have it, don't mean it ain't there.

I have entertained.

You on the other hand accept fairy tales and fantasies and things that go bump in the night.

I've yet to see you actually accept anything but.

It's called delusion.

I crown you Ad Hom king, when you have no argument, all you do is try to make the poster look inferior. But you are so transparent all you do is make yourself look inferior.

Time Traveller, you made a post a while back and bolded me and sam



So yea, sam and ToR. Great, thoughtful, well informed posts. If that's what you like, then please put me on ignore. Or better yet, click the "nazi eugenics" selection option in your user preferences area.

.


Now as me and sam were sincerely supporting your interesting contribution (I disagreed with beauty breeding thing is all)

good contribution Timetraveller and nicely put.

Time Traveller, great postings in all threads. Hope you stick around.


I am shocked that you suggested we put you on 'ignore'.

Despite your 'enlightenment' you completely misread our posts and misinterpretted the message? I am agog, I have nothing to say except how did you get it so wrong????

ToR, you once again make a complete ass of yourself by putting "Ad Hominem Police" into your avatar when you start a post (in another thread) with:

"Get a fucking life"

Of course, I "look" inferior to you, as you constantly tell us how "special" you are.

I'm super, thanks for asking.

ToR, you once again make a complete ass of yourself by putting "Ad Hominem Police" into your avatar when you start a post (in another thread) with:

"Get a fucking life"

Of course, I "look" inferior to you, as you constantly tell us how "special" you are.

I'm super, thanks for asking.

get a 'fucking life' is not Ad Hom, look up the meaning in Wikipedia before telling me I'm an ass with more Ad Homs! Hilarious :D

unless you consider that I am suggesting posters lack of a life makes his point less valid?

Which I wasn't, his point was valid and I addressed it in detail, the get a life comment was advice. :)

What the hell happened to this thread? I thought the point was to demonstrate god is just a figment of the mind, and a significant factor is due to genetic predisposition to believe?
Thor if you are a believer in god, this sort of study would be backing up you being delusional not backing up that god is real.

Time Traveller, you made a post a while back and bolded me and sam




now as me and sam were supporting your interesting contribution (I disagreed with beauty breeding thing is all) yet you suggested we put you on 'ignore'. Thus despite your 'enlightenment' you completley misread our posts and misinterpretted the message? I am agog, I have nothing to say except how did you get it so wrong????
Uh ToR? That was a quote from me that he was responding to. He didn't attribute it apparently.

What the hell happened to this thread? I thought the point was to demonstrate god is just a figment of the mind, and a significant factor is due to genetic predisposition to believe?
Thor if you are a believer in god, this sort of study would be backing up you being delusional not backing up that god is real.

:)

I believe we (most) have a predisposition to 'need' an omnipotent being. hence the creation of religion and 'God'. I like the idea of an omnipotent being looking after us but not so much I believe and follow religion with nothing being apparrant to me personally.

You think a predisposition to god is proof of no god? I actually see it rather the opposite way. How does God allow us to know of him if we cannot see/hear/touch him?

Re the predisposition for 'faith', a window into self that allows us to 'see' what cannot be seen. Maybe it's the 'love' gene, who knows the evidence re the gene isn't convincing. More work needed in this area.

Uh ToR? That was a quote from me that he was responding to. He didn't attribute it apparently.

He said, Sam and Tor...for ignore! Naming names!

That was a quote from supe's post

That was a quote from supe's post

I found it under Time travellers name?

So he copied from Sup and then..............ah, well that's bloomin' confusing!

enlightenment requires good editing skills! :mad:

I need to go back now then and reread in context of Sup moaning!

A little. Not much. But a little.

you're funny, temperamental cuddly wuddly wabbit

you're funny, temperamental cuddly wuddly wabbit

Yes isn't he chweet? :)

I found it under Time travellers name?

So he copied from Sup and then..............ah, well that's bloomin' confusing!

enlightenment requires good editing skills! :mad:
Apparently not so enlightened eh?

you're funny, temperamental cuddly wuddly wabbit

Yes isn't he chweet?


Oh brother...

Oh brother...

We may be woo-woos but we have good taste :)

:)

I believe we (most) have a predisposition to 'need' an omnipotent being. hence the creation of religion and 'God'. I like the idea of an omnipotent being looking after us but not so much I believe and follow religion with nothing being apparrant to me personally.

You think a predisposition to god is proof of no god? I actually see it rather the opposite way. How does God allow us to know of him if we cannot see/hear/touch him?

Re the predisposition for 'faith', a window into self that allows us to 'see' what cannot be seen. Maybe it's the 'love' gene, who knows the evidence re the gene isn't convincing. More work needed in this area.
:) OK each to his/her own. I would most definately say it would back up god beind delusional myself. Yes obviously it doesn't disprove god but would you not say evidence that alcoholics seeing pink elephants is a delusion brought on by alcohol is pretty strong (if not decisive) evidence against pink elephants being real?

We may be woo-woos but we have good taste :)
Now you're embarrassing me. Quit it you sillies. :o

Im super jealous. :(

Im super jealous. :(
It's ok planckster. My post count is way bigger than yours. It's all these women think about. Hussies.

:) OK each to his/her own. I would most definately say it would back up god beind delusional myself. Yes obviously it doesn't disprove god but would you not say evidence that alcoholics seeing pink elephants is a delusion brought on by alcohol is pretty strong (if not decisive) evidence against pink elephants being real?


If god created man, do you not think he may while wishing to remain mostly anonymous, have a slight ego, that may require him to program us to 'seek' him out, or to 'know' him in a manner that makes sense to us?

Alcoholics hallucinating is not same as being born with a predisposition to see pink elephants?

It's ok planckster. My post count is way bigger than yours. It's all these women think about. Hussies.

All this sweet talk will go to my head! :o

It's ok planckster. My post count is way bigger than yours. It's all these women think about. Hussies.

lol

indeed bigger is always better, although an enquiring mind is attractive too and humouring the God squad is a well known aphrodisiac.

Wow @ this thread topic.

I would assume the curiosity of man, self-awareness, and being unable to explain how things work would be -obvious- as to the reason why we have 'God'.... not a gene.... wow.

(Q) "Actually, it's just a group think mentality and it has nothing to do with awareness and more to do with sheep being led to the slaughter."
With no group think there is no science. At some point we all agree on reality, thus we always have group think. Group think itself is not bad, as science can just as easily lead to our slaughter without religion.

superluminal
"
Please, please stop. You are like a pack rat that gathers sutff because it looks shiny, but has no idea what the stuff is for. You are stringing together random ideas of mysticism, spirituality, science, and pseudoscience and deriving "important" truths from them. Most of what you posted is nothing but speculation. A good scientist will acknowledge that, while trying to use the tools of science to verify the validity of his ideas. Your two links on behavioral genetics seem good. Have you bothered to read them? "

Evolution is not speculation. We know what causes evolution, and even Darwin admits that intelligent selectuion caused evolution when he mentioned natural selection. Quantum Entanglement is real, it has been proven in lab tests and in experiments. You asked me to show you the science, just do some research on quantum physics and you find evidence. It will never be enough evidence for you because you'll just reject it as speculation until we basically build a teleporter or you see a hologram right in your face. The fact is holographic memory exists, I know the technology, and you cannot debate it, it's there. Quantum computers exist, quantum entanglement exists, it's all real and you cannot just explain it away as speculation. You might not like my spiritual explaination, but at least I can explain it. I admit my spiritual explaination is a hypothesis, it's speculation, but admit that it's based on fact and that it could just as easily be right as it could be wrong. Be open minded.

Time Traveller can you please make it clear who you are quoting and where your bit starts? It's very confusing otherwise.

superluminal
Please stop. You are speaking with someone who knows a fair bit of actual evolutionary science. Stop claiming things you know nothing about.

Now, I really did read the rest of your post, but it is not worthy of dissection. I suggest you go to the library and learn some modern evolutionary theory before continuing to publicly display your ignorance. Bye.

Evolution is God. Prove me wrong?

The fact that we both believe in evolution, and we both believe in intelligent selection, should prove something to you. You want to argue on the "science" of it, as if the "science" actually disproves any of my theories. The more science you bring into the debate, the more you prove my theory.

My concept of God is not something that is seperate from man, and thats why you cannot seem to grasp it. Look, you can believe that your existance is an accident, you can believe that the universe is an accident, you can make the claim that order is chaos or whatever else you want, but the fact is, you are here, you are self aware, accept it and deal with it. You never even attempted to answer my question so I'm guessing your mind simply couldnt deal with it.

Does the universe exist if there is no consciousness to discover it, yes or no? I think no, and that explains my point of view. You must think that the universe is seperate from you, but the science says that there is no such thing as seperation, and that everything comes from somethnig else, and is connected to something else. So where is your evidence that there is no God or to put it in scientific speak, where is your proof that there is no force of creation? I don't have proof, I have a hypothesis, and I told you mine, so lets see yours.

Anyone else who disagrees with me, lets hear your hypothesis. If you just disagree and you have no mind of your own and no hypothesis, it's as if you arent awake at all, just reciting book knowledge that someone else told you about how to think about this.

"Actually, it's just a group think mentality and it has nothing to do with awareness and more to do with sheep being led to the slaughter."

With no group think there is no science. At some point we all agree on reality, thus we always have group think. Group think itself is not bad, as science can just as easily lead to our slaughter without religion.

"
Please, please stop. You are like a pack rat that gathers sutff because it looks shiny, but has no idea what the stuff is for. You are stringing together random ideas of mysticism, spirituality, science, and pseudoscience and deriving "important" truths from them. Most of what you posted is nothing but speculation. A good scientist will acknowledge that, while trying to use the tools of science to verify the validity of his ideas. Your two links on behavioral genetics seem good. Have you bothered to read them?"

Evolution is not speculation. We know what causes evolution, and even Darwin admits that intelligent selectuion caused evolution when he mentioned natural selection. Quantum Entanglement is real, it has been proven in lab tests and in experiments. You asked me to show you the science, just do some research on quantum physics and you find evidence. It will never be enough evidence for you because you'll just reject it as speculation until we basically build a teleporter or you see a hologram right in your face. The fact is holographic memory exists, I know the technology, and you cannot debate it, it's there. Quantum computers exist, quantum entanglement exists, it's all real and you cannot just explain it away as speculation. You might not like my spiritual explaination, but at least I can explain it. I admit my spiritual explaination is a hypothesis, it's speculation, but admit that it's based on fact and that it could just as easily be right as it could be wrong. Be open minded.

Righto. Nice post.

Mainly though:

If you click the "go advanced" button under you quick-reply window, you can easily place QUOTE tags and othe neat things around your text and make it all much easier to read your wisdom.

Please stop. You are speaking with someone who knows a fair bit of actual evolutionary science. Stop claiming things you know nothing about.

Now, I really did read the rest of your post, but it is not worthy of dissection. I suggest you go to the library and learn some modern evolutionary theory before continuing to publicly display your ignorance. Bye.

Evolution is God. Prove me wrong?

The fact that we both believe in evolution, and we both believe in intelligent selection, should prove something to you. You want to argue on the "science" of it, as if the "science" actually disproves any of my theories. The more science you bring into the debate, the more you prove my theory.

My concept of God is not something that is seperate from man, and thats why you cannot seem to grasp it. Look, you can believe that your existance is an accident, you can believe that the universe is an accident, you can make the claim that order is chaos or whatever else you want, but the fact is, you are here, you are self aware, accept it and deal with it. You never even attempted to answer my question so I'm guessing your mind simply couldnt deal with it.

Does the universe exist if there is no consciousness to discover it, yes or no? I think no, and that explains my point of view. You must think that the universe is seperate from you, but the science says that there is no such thing as seperation, and that everything comes from somethnig else, and is connected to something else. So where is your evidence that there is no God or to put it in scientific speak, where is your proof that there is no force of creation? I don't have proof, I have a hypothesis, and I told you mine, so lets see yours.

Anyone else who disagrees with me, lets hear your hypothesis. If you just disagree and you have no mind of your own and no hypothesis, it's as if you arent awake at all, just reciting book knowledge that someone else told you about how to think about this.

Now what the heck is this? Who is the bold? You or someone else, I assume someone else, so who?

Time Traveller can you please make it clear who you are quoting and where your bit starts? It's very confusing otherwise.
Amen sister.

You never even attempted to answer my question so I'm guessing your mind simply couldnt deal with it.

Does the universe exist if there is no consciousness to discover it, yes or no?

That question?

That's an easy one. The question itself is posed from an active consciousness (we assume. That would be you, my chrono-transversing friend). Therefore, if there is no consciousness to pose the question, then the question itself cannot exist. Ergo, it is a pointless rumination. Any "answer" you come up with is therefore meaningless other than as a launching point to even more pointless speculation.

'K?

Does the universe exist if there is no consciousness to discover it, yes or no?
Yes, it exists. It's there physically, consciousness or not.

Please stop supporting the movement. Don't allow 'God' to morph with the times. Let him die a silent death so humanity can free itself already.

superluminal

All science started with speculation. Do you think Einstien knew any of that for sure when he discovered his theory of relativity? He knew of Isaac Newton, and if these scientists are your heros, surprise, they werent athiests. Both of these scientists were spiritual. There is nothing wrong with asking questions such as these, these are the sorts of questions that inspire people to get involved in science in the first place. My personality opinion is, no consciousness = no existance. When there is no self awareness in the universe, the universe will cease to exist. When there is no self awareness in the individual, the universe will cease to exist, and that is about as rational and as logical as I can word it.

HonorAndStrength, so you believe the universe created you and not that you created it?
How is this different from worshipping a God? Even if you worship the machine of the universe, how is it different?

And why is the idea of God bad? The only point I'm trying to make is, believing in God is ultimately a choice. No amount of science can ever prove one way or the other. I believe we control the universe, I don't believe it controls us. In fact I don't believe the universe exists outside of consciousness. I don't believe the universe without consciousness would be real. You can't prove me wrong, I can't prove you wrong, but neither of us are being irrational, both opinions are rational and thats why it's what we should be debating and not debating the God gene As I see it, if we follow your belief, humanity will be worshippnig the universe and be trapped inside it, and trapped inside their physical bodies, as living machines. I don't think humanity can be freed because people choose to worship, if you choose to think of any force higher than yourself, then it will become so. This can be God, this can be nature, this can be the universe, an equation, anything.

superluminal

All science started with speculation. Do you think Einstien knew any of that for sure when he discovered his theory of relativity? He knew of Isaac Newton, and if these scientists are your heros, surprise, they werent athiests. Both of these scientists were spiritual. There is nothing wrong with asking questions such as these, these are the sorts of questions that inspire people to get involved in science in the first place. My personality opinion is, no consciousness = no existance. When there is no self awareness in the universe, the universe will cease to exist. When there is no self awareness in the individual, the universe will cease to exist, and that is about as rational and as logical as I can word it.
That's fine. It's a nice opinion. You seem happy with it. And I never said asking questions was wrong. You asked, I answered.

Plus, Newton may have been a religious fanatic, but Einstien had, at most, vague deistic tendencies. Enough of that though. Nobody really cares.

HonorAndStrength, so you believe the universe created you and not that you created it?
How is this different from worshipping a God? Even if you worship the machine of the universe, how is it different?
I believe I am a product of a very long process. The playing out of mixtures of different chemicals and such. I believe there is a 'recipe' for life at the cellular level. Basic processes of 'survival' (does not fire use up oxygen to also 'survive'??) at a cellular level are then expanded from the micro to the macro. Our ability to think and give birth to culture and thought is nothing more than a result of that. You can think up grandiose ideas if you want to....

We are all lucky to be here.

That is how we are different HonorAndStrength. I do not believe there is a such thing as luck, or random. I think we are here deliberately, with purpose. I suppose spirituality gives people a sense of purpose, and thats why it's good. I can understand why people might say it's bad, but without God we'd be even more manipulated by the spin doctors through commercials and moral hypnosis. If you think things are bad now, how do you think things would be if people had no moral foundation and had to get their morality and purpose from television and music videos?

That is how we are different HonorAndStrength. I do not believe there is a such thing as luck, or random. I think we are here deliberately, with purpose. I suppose spirituality gives people a sense of purpose, and thats why it's good. I can understand why people might say it's bad, but without God we'd be even more manipulated by the spin doctors through commercials and moral hypnosis. If you think things are bad now, how do you think things would be if people had no moral foundation and had to get their morality and purpose from television and music videos?

Replace the Bible with an easily acceptable book that explains the MORAL and efficient methods of living for the benefit of yourself, your family, and humanity as a whole. Nobody will ever be able to say, "god doesnt exist so i do what i want".... everyone on planet Earth would be able to accept this book.

Humanity as a whole needs to get past religion but people like you are allowing 'God' to morph with the times. Let him die silently so we can move on.

HonorAndStrength there are books like that, codes of ethics, manuals, rule books etc. We have laws.

The rule of, do no harm, which JS Mill and others write about, and oaths that people take. The problem is, I don't think everyone has the mind capable of understanding morality beyond the words. The Christian bible saved humanity from destroying itself simply because, people were afraid to go to hell so even though they didn't believe a word in the bible, there was the carrot and stick approach. How exactly are you going to enforce a book on morality or on codes of conduct? No man is powerful enough to do it, you'd need aliens or something higher to enforce the rules. If laws are invented they can be changed and will constantly be broken, but people are afraid of an eternity in hell. Even the most ruthless individuals fear burning in hell forever. I'm not saying the bible metaphors were ever designed to be taken literally, but if you act hellish you do invent hell on earth. The question is, if God is removed, what about Satanism? Wouldnt Satanism become much more popular if God become less popular?

I don't think religion is ready to die because humans are not a moral species yet. We are still morally insane. Some of us have natural empathy, but thats a minority not the majority. Most people if they don't have God, will simply turn to Satan, and Satanism, and how exactly would this be any better?

All the time you athiests spend on attacking God, why not attack Satan? You'd get the pro-God crowd on your side. If you are going to attack religion, why not attack "organized" religion, and then you'd get just about everyone on your side. Why attack "God" and not "Satan". It gives athiests the image of Satanist, and the other reason is, most Satanists are athiests, so it really does not help your cause to be associated with Satanism.

HonorAndStrength there are books like that, codes of ethics, manuals, rule books etc. We have laws.

The rule of, do no harm, which JS Mill and others write about, and oaths that people take. The problem is, I don't think everyone has the mind capable of understanding morality beyond the words. The Christian bible saved humanity from destroying itself simply because, people were afraid to go to hell so even though they didn't believe a word in the bible, there was the carrot and stick approach. How exactly are you going to enforce a book on morality or on codes of conduct? No man is powerful enough to do it, you'd need aliens or something higher to enforce the rules. If laws are invented they can be changed and will constantly be broken, but people are afraid of an eternity in hell. Even the most ruthless individuals fear burning in hell forever. I'm not saying the bible metaphors were ever designed to be taken literally, but if you act hellish you do invent hell on earth. The question is, if God is removed, what about Satanism? Wouldnt Satanism become much more popular if God become less popular?

I don't think religion is ready to die because humans are not a moral species yet. We are still morally insane. Some of us have natural empathy, but thats a minority not the majority. Most people if they don't have God, will simply turn to Satan, and Satanism, and how exactly would this be any better?

If there is no 'God', how can there be a 'Satan'? The Church of Satan actually claims to be a belief system and not an actual belief in a being named 'Lucifer'..

Are these books taught to children? They have competition with religion and each other and are taken as opinions. Remove the fear of Hell and teach genuine caring for humanity... not just because 'God' says so, but explain why you should and how precious each life is. How lucky we are to be alive and how destructive the wrong methods are. If people are taught this, they learn how to do this because they UNDERSTAND it not because 'God' tells them to.

I have a question

How is it possible for atheists to beleive in such a thing as 'luck'?

My bfriend is atheist and he often makes comments suggesting certain things will never happen to him, as that is the way it is with him (bad luck type things) and he has observed he has certain 'luck' with money and thus believes he can win more than someone without his luck. Now I attribute what he speaks of to this interfering force. I call this interfering force God, he calls it luck, what is the difference?

Why do you insist there is a difference?

Luck does not exist for you if you are atheist, how can it? How can you believe that certain things come more to you than to others when you beliive that the world is not built to define you thus?

LUCK:
"Luck is the belief in an organization of fortunate and unfortunate events. Luck is a form of superstition which is interpreted differently by different individuals.

Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B."

Theists thus can believe in luck and note it to be in effect, if you as an atheist have also noted 'luck' in effect then you have noted the interfering force!

I have a question

How is it possible for atheists to beleive in such a thing as 'luck'?

My bfriend is atheist and he often makes comments suggesting certain things will never happen to him, as that is the way it is with him (bad luck type things) and he has observed he has certain 'luck' with money and thus believes he can win more than someone without his luck. Now I attribute what he speaks of to this interfering force. I call this interfering force God, he calls it luck, what is the difference?

Why do you insist there is a difference?

Luck does not exist for you if you are atheist, how can it? How can you believe that certain things come more to you than to others when you beliive that the world is not built to define you thus?

LUCK:
"Luck is the belief in an organization of fortunate and unfortunate events. Luck is a form of superstition which is interpreted differently by different individuals.

Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B."

Theists thus can believe in luck and note it to be in effect, if you as an atheist have also noted 'luck' in effect then you have noted the interfering force!
I wouldn't know because I dont believe in luck only probability. Anyone who believes in luck would be different to a theist though, luck belief would be a product of evolving in an evironment where gambling would be advantageous IMO.

With no group think there is no science. At some point we all agree on reality, thus we always have group think. Group think itself is not bad, as science can just as easily lead to our slaughter without religion.

Sorry, but you're sadly mistaken that science has anything to do with group think mentality. Psuedoscience, perhaps.

Look to Islam as a perfect example of groupthink mentality, based on Irving Janis' (8) symptoms indicative of groupthink mentality:

1. Illusion of invulnerability
2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group
3. Collective rationalization of group's decisions
4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents
5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms
6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect)
7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform
8. Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

I admit my spiritual explaination is a hypothesis, it's speculation, but admit that it's based on fact and that it could just as easily be right as it could be wrong. Be open minded.

Your brains have fallen out. It is my hypothesis, my speculation, based on fact that the Flying Spagetti Monster will touch upon you with his noodley appendages this very night. Be ready!

All the time you athiests spend on attacking God, why not attack Satan? You'd get the pro-God crowd on your side. If you are going to attack religion, why not attack "organized" religion, and then you'd get just about everyone on your side. Why attack "God" and not "Satan". It gives athiests the image of Satanist, and the other reason is, most Satanists are athiests, so it really does not help your cause to be associated with Satanism.

I agree, let's all attack Satan. He gives everyone a bad name.

Please to show us where he is exactly?

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3339/touchedbyhisnoodlyappendagemk1.jpg

I have a question

How is it possible for atheists to beleive in such a thing as 'luck'?

My bfriend is atheist and he often makes comments suggesting certain things will never happen to him, as that is the way it is with him (bad luck type things) and he has observed he has certain 'luck' with money and thus believes he can win more than someone without his luck. Now I attribute what he speaks of to this interfering force. I call this interfering force God, he calls it luck, what is the difference?

Why do you insist there is a difference?

Luck does not exist for you if you are atheist, how can it? How can you believe that certain things come more to you than to others when you beliive that the world is not built to define you thus?

LUCK:
"Luck is the belief in an organization of fortunate and unfortunate events. Luck is a form of superstition which is interpreted differently by different individuals.

Luck as a fallacy
A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the post hoc logical fallacy:

A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B."

Theists thus can believe in luck and note it to be in effect, if you as an atheist have also noted 'luck' in effect then you have noted the interfering force!
What atheists are you talking about? When we say "Oh boy, was I ever lucky" we're not referring to some "force" no matter what you and your boyfriend ObiWan may think. It's a simple acknowlwedgement of the probabalistic nature of the universe. What's so hard to understand about that?

I agree, let's all attack Satan. He gives everyone a bad name.

Please to show us where he is exactly?

Had me laughing hard on this one, thank you Q

My bfriend is atheist and he often makes comments suggesting certain things will never happen to him, as that is the way it is with him (bad luck type things) and he has observed he has certain 'luck' with money and thus believes he can win more than someone without his luck. Now I attribute what he speaks of to this interfering force. I call this interfering force God, he calls it luck, what is the difference?

No difference at all, you're both delusional.

Good grief, this thread sprang up when I wasn't paying attention and has gotten this long in three days. Forgive me for not reading the whole thing, but in case no one else has pointed this out:

One of the things that Jung's paradigm makes clear is that religion is an archetype. A motif, image, artifact, idea, whatever... that occurs virtually without exception, in all cultures and all eras. An element of what he calls the collective unconscious.

Different religions arise independently, or sometimes they evolve from one another, or sometimes they compete with one another and one prevails. But every society has it. Some, like Buddhism and the Dao, have moved slightly aside from the concept of one or more deities--supreme beings resembling humans or other mortal creatures.

But they all contain two themes that transcend rational thought, or even conflict with it: trust in something or someone that has not manifestly earned it the way one human earns another's trust, and belief in a supernatural plane of existence in which the physical laws of the natural universe are suspended. Both of these are aspects of faith, which can certainly be decomposed in a different way from mine.

So whatever else you can say about faith and religion in general, it is an instinct. Certainly there are plenty of people li