*************
M*W: Assuming the scientific claims are true, and there really is a God 'spot' in the brain, why is it that everybody's belief about god so diverse and archaic? Seems to me this God 'spot' would have evolved along with humanity. If we do have a natural God 'spot' in the brain, does this mean that atheists' brains are not working properly (mine included)? Further, how does the God 'spot' explain declining Christianity worldwide? Has the God 'spot' run its course and is evolving out of the human brain? Is the God 'spot' unnecessary like the appendix, little toes, and wisdom teeth? I'll show you my God 'spot' if you show me yours.

Medicine Woman

If there is a "god spot" in the brain it is because God himself put it there to give us a desire to worship and return to him.

Ah, but what if it wasn't God, but Zeus, that put that "God spot" there?

It's kind of evident that God lives in all things because even a caveman will come up with his own simple idea of a God. If something evil happens, this primitive man would instantly create the idea that some superior entity is punishing him for something, yet it's only his own self which is punishing him, which is the same as God. At the beginning we believe in God because we don't yet know the doubts of the mind. When we start our way towards the truth we stop believing because we discover the world, then in the end, we once again "believe" in God because we find ourself, the only reality - but this time self-consciously.

Athelwulf: Ah, but what if it wasn't God, but Zeus, that put that "God spot" there?
*************
M*W: Well, since I don't believe in a god, I don't believe that God, Zeus, The Pink Unicorn, or Tinkerbell put the God 'spot' there, but somehow we ended up with it, and I guess it's left up to individual interpretation. What I do understand is the God 'spot' in my brain tells me I am my own higher power, and I just need to believe in that.

It's not a "God" spot, it's a "Who, What, Why" spot.

This "God spot", or the "Who, What, Why spot", or whatever we're calling it now — perhaps it's responsible for what I try to communicate in one of my posts in the thread "why do you worship Gods?":

I'm an Atheist, but I believe I have a word to contribute.

It's human nature to hope for something more. We look around us, and think to ourselves, "Is this it?". Some aren't comfortable with the possibility that this is it, so they conclude, "This can't be it!".

Another factor plays in with this. A lot of people think, or like to think, or wish, that something is true kuz they think it's true. They keep telling themselves that what they think is true really is true. It's kinda like denial.

So, wanting something to be a certain way, and convincing yerself that that certain way is the way it really is, is how ya make a religion.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=751893#post751893

Uhhh. God spot? Exactly who's making such claims?
There is certainly something about the human mind that seeks order and patterns, but it doesn't exist in a 'spot'. The old 'module' theory of the mind has fallen into disfavor. Research done on patients about to undergo brain surgery for epilepsy is what led to the idea that there were key areas of the brain that handled certain functions. Broca's area, Wernicke's area, Exner's area, the list goes on and on, but with more modern techniques of MRI and PET scan it's being shown that this idea is misleading.

There are hallucinatory phenomenon linked to temporal lobe epilepsy which in many ways jibe with the classical religious fervor. Visions, a sense of a mysterious other outside the body, greatly enhanced (distorted) pattern-finding. Many of the stories of saints fit the pattern of temporal lobe epilepsy. Some of these saints have even left behind drawings and paintings of their visions. Geometrical drawings of heaven and angels. All these fit the pattern.

But, there's no 'spot'.

And, if there were, I'd have to say that the Japanese would be closest to being correct by attributing it to the souls of our ancestors. Evolution, don't you know.

Yorda,

It's kind of evident that God lives in all things because even a caveman will come up with his own simple idea of a God.

Oh? Been doing some caveman research then, have you?

The fact is that little (next to nothing) is known about prehistoric religion. We interpret artifacts through modern eyes. We have no idea how much of human history is involved in worship gods and whatnot.

I personally find it likely that religious thinking and language go hand in hand. It's symbology and abstraction that leads to concepts of spirits and gods. But calling it evident is a bit strong and foolhardy.

Take, for instance, feral children. Children that are lost to humanity as children and raised by animals. These children don't create their own religious mythos. They are very pragmatic and unable to understand abstract concepts.

Symbolic thinking is our birthright, but it must be transmitted by forebears. We do have a propensity to recreate that which is lost--creole languages are an excellent example of this--but even creole has something to work with. You take a human and raise it completely deprived of any of our social and symbolic construct and I'd say the odds are a million to one against him coming up with any concepts that you'd feel remotely comfortable calling god or spiritual thinking. Now, do this to a group of humans and allow them to live out multiple generations, building up a culture as they go, then I'd say the odds increase. But, such experiments have never been performed and we have no idea the likelihood of such constructs forming.

You'll probably mention how every culture in the world has some type of religion and religious thinking. And you're right, but it's possible that the ultimate source of this idea came from one place. It's possible that there was one 'caveman' in the depths of time which had an epileptic fit one day and scared her tribe senseless with the stories she told. And this tribe either spread itself or the idea throughout the world. All the religion of the world could easily come from a single germ. Joseph Campbell's books The Masks of God show an excellent argument for this idea.

Anyway, just try not to speak of things being 'evident' when there is no evidence for your claim.

It's evident for me.

It's evident for me.

Hmm. Excellent retort. Nice discussion skills.
Enjoy.

Medicine Woman

If there is a "god spot" in the brain it is because God himself put it there to give us a desire to worship and return to him.

So much for free will :rolleyes:

You'll probably mention how every culture in the world has some type of religion and religious thinking. And you're right, but it's possible that the ultimate source of this idea came from one place. It's possible that there was one 'caveman' in the depths of time which had an epileptic fit one day and scared her tribe senseless with the stories she told. And this tribe either spread itself or the idea throughout the world. All the religion of the world could easily come from a single germ. Joseph Campbell's books The Masks of God show an excellent argument for this idea.

Haha, a simple caveman responsible for all the world's religions.. Absurd!

I think there's a predisposition to spirituality however because some people get 'sucked into religion' more easily than others. Call it a 'survival mechanism' if you will but it is a part of their nature.

There are also emotional predispositions which evolved for various reasons and make us prone to religious belief as a by-product. The anthropologist Ruth Benedict summed up much of prayer when she said, "Religion is universally a technique for success.Ó Ethnographic surveys suggest that when people try to communicate with God, it's not to share gossip or know-how; itÕs to ask him for stuff: recovery from illness, recovery of a child from illness, success in enterprises, success in the battlefield. (And of course, the Red Sox winning the World Series, which almost made me into a believer.) This idea was summed up by Ambrose Bierce in The Devil's Dictionary, which defines "to pray" as "to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy." This aspect of religious belief is thus a desperate measure that people resort to when the stakes are high and they've exhausted the usual techniques for the causation of success.

- See here (http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm)

Social factors only help to repress or bring out the disposition, sometimes via religion. This is probably why the deprived child you spoke of may not develop any such spirituality - the seed is there but there is no one to water it. But will they develop spirituality on their own initiative after "they've exhausted the usual techniques for the causation of success?" And as for whether or not a caveman was responsible for changing the genes of all humankind and making us either indifferent, averse, or thirsty for spirituality I don't know..


TIME magazine has a great article here (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101041025-725072,00.html) on the 'God gene.' The journey to find such a root may prove impossible, but I think it will be well worth it.

*************
M*W: Assuming the scientific claims are true, and there really is a God 'spot' in the brain, why is it that everybody's belief about god so diverse and archaic? Seems to me this God 'spot' would have evolved along with humanity. If we do have a natural God 'spot' in the brain, does this mean that atheists' brains are not working properly (mine included)? Further, how does the God 'spot' explain declining Christianity worldwide? Has the God 'spot' run its course and is evolving out of the human brain? Is the God 'spot' unnecessary like the appendix, little toes, and wisdom teeth? I'll show you my God 'spot' if you show me yours.

Paulist Christianity was a departure from True Religion, that is, the Religion that sourced out of the psychologically based Mythologies that have their corresponding Realities in the Symbols and Scenarios of our Dreams. But the Christianity that still holds to the Great Myth of the Goddess Virgin Mother who gives Immaculate Birth to a God-Hero Son ... that is on the Up-Swing. Marian Catholics are growing in number. Even Anglican's, as much as I hate them like any good Irishman would, have established a Strong Marian Cult which quite annoys their ArchBishop at Westminister who would prefer to keep the Church of England as non-Religious as possible in keeping with good English Traditions of applied Barbarism.

All of the Mystical and Yoga cults are in agreement with the Religion of our Subjective Psychologies. Indeed, you know you're Religion is authentic when you can Dream of its Characters, Symbols and can measure your Progress by your Dreams. Protestants and Paulist Catholics never experience that.

I used to invariably trash New Agers as either corrupt, on the selling end, or silly, on the buying end, but my Angels asked me to give them a bit more lee way. I also used to hold that Wicca was an inch from Conscious Satanism, but again my angels interceded for them and asked me to desist with that opinion immediately.

I used to invariably trash New Agers as either corrupt, on the selling end, or silly, on the buying end, but my Angels asked me to give them a bit more lee way. I also used to hold that Wicca was an inch from Conscious Satanism, but again my angels interceded for them and asked me to desist with that opinion immediately.

Leo, no offence, but maybe you should see a therapist or something. Ye'r not supposed to hear voices in yer head, or halucinate.

Leo, no offence, but maybe you should see a therapist or something. Ye'r not supposed to hear voices in yer head, or halucinate.

"Not supposed to"

Uh, who makes these rules?

I suppose the Prophets and the Oracles of Past Ages should be summoned to some Court and have a fine imposed upon them for disregarding whatever rule you think you are obeying by living a Life entirely on the shallow Surface of Things.

Wow! You're shallow and you congratulate yourself for it.

Wow! You're shallow

Uh, who determines that?

Foolish and moronic hypocrisy.

Uh, who determines that?

Foolish and moronic hypocrisy.

The Man comes On Line and says that he follows a rule by which he will Never Dream, Never Imagine, Never Vision, and Never Introspect or Meditate upon the Things of the Spirit. And then you wonder why I call him 'shallow".

And you call ME a moron!

"Not supposed to"

Uh, who makes these rules?

Mental health professionals mostly.

I suppose the Prophets and the Oracles of Past Ages should be summoned to some Court and have a fine imposed upon them for disregarding whatever rule you think you are obeying by living a Life entirely on the shallow Surface of Things.

Yes, let's sue the voices in yer head.

Wow! You're shallow and you congratulate yourself for it.

Hey, call it whatever ya want, but if ye'r halucinating, ye'r halucinating.

The Man . . .

I've never been given so much respect. I'm not just a man, but the Man with the capital-M. Muchas gracias, señor.

. . . comes On Line and says that he follows a rule by which he will Never Dream, Never Imagine, Never Vision, and Never Introspect or Meditate upon the Things of the Spirit.

Dreaming, visioning, introspecting, and meditating are all different from halucinating. I'm sorry, but they just are.

And then you [§outh§tar] wonder why I call him 'shallow".

And you call ME a moron!

Ya reap what ya sow.

Dreaming, visioning, introspecting, and meditating are all different from halucinating. I'm sorry, but they just are.





And why is it your insistence that I am hallucinating and not "Dreaming, visioning, introspecting, and meditating". You seem to be projecting upon me the worst possible interpretations you can think of... beating square pegs into round holes just to insult me. That makes you neurotic. Maybe you should see a Mental Health Professional about YOUR problem.

Southstar,

Haha, a simple caveman responsible for all the world's religions.. Absurd!

What's so absurd about it?
You've heard of Mitochondrial Eve? Well, there are those who say that this religious mutation that occurred, possibly in as few as a single individual, also had a number of survival benefits. Mankind was small back then. This was before the diaspora of man throughout the globe. Man traveled and took the seed with him as he went.

Religion is much more easily spread than mitochandria and other genetic factors. It doesn't require a direct biological link. Memes are spread culturally and culture can spread quite quickly and effectively. Especially a successful one.

I think there's a predisposition to spirituality however because some people get 'sucked into religion' more easily than others. Call it a 'survival mechanism' if you will but it is a part of their nature.

As I said, it's part of our pattern-finding abilities. We create a web of correlations to establish order in a chaotic world.

And, consider that this thing called religion (and language as well which is it's carrier and comrade) can be considered an organism of its own. It mutated from near random processes until it achieved a state where it could effectively transmit itself amongst its host population. Over succeeding generations it has only become more efficient in transmitting itself.

Social factors only help to repress or bring out the disposition, sometimes via religion.

The social is the means that this organism/parasite religion transmits and reproduces itself. Without the social there could be no religion.

Without being instilled with the religion and beliefs of one's fathers then the odds of one coming up with something even remotely like religion are a million to one. It's not that a seed is being repressed or 'brought out' by the social. You could say that it is being fertilized by it, in a way. THe social gives one a ready-made construct with which to adapt to one's own life. Without this construct one would have to start from scratch and has been shown by the feral children they aren't spiritual or superstitious.

Consider language as a correllary to relgion. It's known that children raised in the utter absence of language (feral children) do not create their own language. They do possess methods of communication but a true language is not one of them. But, give them something to work with, a pidgin language, and they'll turn it into a full-fledged language in as few as one generation. And a new creole language is born. But, the predecessor to this langauge must be present. Something to work with.

Now, this is all imperfect knowledge as I don't recall any feral children groups. It would require a group to need language and it would be interesting to see what would happen in such a setting. Maybe someday when life is not so precious the forbidden experiment will be performed and we can know for sure.

But will they develop spirituality on their own initiative after "they've exhausted the usual techniques for the causation of success?"

What does this mean? "Exhausted the usual techniqes for the causation of success." What are the 'usual techniqes' and what is the 'causation of success'?

And as for whether or not a caveman was responsible for changing the genes of all humankind and making us either indifferent, averse, or thirsty for spirituality I don't know..

You're bringing in 'responsibility' where such doesn't apply.

For one, I'll agree that it very likely wasn't a 'caveman' who introduced mystical thinking into the culture, but rather the ancient humans that moved from the dwindling forests to the savannah. They didn't live in caves.

For two, there is no real scientific evidence that correlates spirituality with some 'God gene'. That article you linked to is sensationalistic crap which could only be called science in this era of George Bush worshippers. The 'God gene' does not mandate creation of a god, but rather a spiritual feeling. But, one can utilize that spiritual feeling in any way, from worshipping Satan to putting puzzles together. It's a feel good gene. And calling it a 'God gene' begs the question.

Perhaps it could be called a 'gulllibility gene'. It predisposes people to the ecstatic fervor which finds an easy outlet in religious ritual. But, it doesn't follow that this gene, in the absence of a previous religious structure, would urge one to create that structure from whole cloth.

They give an example in the article and I quote, "When tribes living in remote areas come up with a concept of God as readily as nations living shoulder to shoulder, it's a fairly strong indication that the idea is preloaded in the genome rather than picked up on the fly."

Now that's just ridiculous. This would have you believe that these city-folk and the primitive tribesman came out of a vacuum. That each don't have common roots buried somewhere in the past. That the traditions of the city-folk are purely of the city and the traditions of the tribe are purely of the tribe.

Preposterous.

A better comparison would be between people that grew up in an environment in which religious ideas are taught or at least made available for assimilation and one in which they are non-existant. If this 'god gene' mandated the creation of spiritual structure then the latter would form spiritual belief structures every time, given the presence of the 'god gene'. And since religion and mystical thinking is so wide-spread, it's fairly obvious that it is widely represented in the entire population of the earth and therefore the odds of gene pool not containing this gene are fairly low.
And yet, feral children are not spiritual. Are not superstitious. Do not dwell in the abstract.

This 'god gene' (a misnomer and simplisticly conceived) merely gives the social mechanism of religion a fertile ground in which to take root. It's not real science as there is only one means to answer this question as well as certain other questions regarding human cognition.

The forbidden experiment.

Raising humans in a controlled environment deprived of their social heritage.
Raising a race of true primitive humans. Cut off from all the thousands and thousands of years of cultural evolution to which all humans are heir to.


Anyway, the topic isn't a genetic predisposition to certain modes of thought. Such obviously exists, if not so simplisticly as this 'god gene' would have it. Our brains are built from genetic guidelines, there is no disputing that. The topic is a specific region of the brain which when stimulated would cause one to 'see god' or some such. Or so I presume. And, as I said earlier, temporal lobe epilepsy is known to cause this phenomenon. But it's not a specific spot, it's a widespread redundant network.


Edit: One last thought on that 'god gene'. It would be funny if this 'god gene' turns out to be one that we have in common with our animal brothers, wouldn't it?

Sorry, but Leo wins this one.

- N

And why is it your insistence that I am hallucinating and not "Dreaming, visioning, introspecting, and meditating".

You say that angels came and talked to you. Unless ya were asleep or high, it sounds to me like ya were halucinating.

You seem to be projecting upon me the worst possible interpretations you can think of...

The worst possible interpretation I could think of is you being Bush. Trust me.

beating square pegs into round holes just to insult me.

Ya flatter yerself.

That makes you neurotic. Maybe you should see a Mental Health Professional about YOUR problem.

I am affected by neurosis (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neurosis), any of various mental or emotional disorders, such as hypochondria or neurasthenia, arising from no apparent organic lesion or change and involving symptoms such as insecurity, anxiety, depression, and irrational fears, but without psychotic symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations?

Um . . . Okay, go ahead and think that.

Sorry, but Leo wins this one.

What one? How so?

You say that angels came and talked to you. Unless ya were asleep or high, it sounds to me like ya were halucinating.

Could be a number of conditions, temporal lobe epilepsy being on top of the list.
That and affectation, of course. I'd put my money on affectation.

That and affectation, of course. I'd put my money on affectation.

I'm confused about yer usage of "affectation".

I'm confused about yer usage of "affectation".

Simple. Something that is affected. Like Madonna talking with a British accent.

You say that angels came and talked to you. Unless ya were asleep or high, it sounds to me like ya were halucinating.



.

Or meditating... or in a trance...

You need to read Huxley's "Altared States of Consciousness" before you assume that everything beyond your uneducated comprehension must be pathological.

I'm confused about yer usage of "affectation".

Affectation.

he means that I am just saying it for effect, that I am being disingenuous... making it up.

Yes, I try to present things for the greatest possible effect, but I don't lie about the essentials of what I experience.

It would be dangerous for me to lie. For instance, there are people out there who actually know about how things work in the Spiritual Realm and would easily catch me in a lie. Likewise, if I stick invariably to the Truth, they will discern that too. So, no, I'm not lying. Besides, there is no money to be made in this, so what do I have to lie about?

Could be a number of conditions, temporal lobe epilepsy being on top of the list.


I have been practicing Kundalini Yoga now for over 30 Years. I send the Energy up to my head and exert a pressure right there at the Temporal Lobe... so I suppose you are partially correct; however, you still can't account for the coherent and meaningful Nature of my Visions, can you?

Sorry, but Leo wins this one.

- N

Why, thank you.

I would say that it is not about winning but only about the Truth, but who would I be kidding... ha!

And why is it your insistence that I am hallucinating and not "Dreaming, visioning, introspecting, and meditating". You seem to be projecting upon me the worst possible interpretations you can think of... beating square pegs into round holes just to insult me. That makes you neurotic. Maybe you should see a Mental Health Professional about YOUR problem.
hallucinate
1 : to affect with visions or imaginary perceptions
2 : perceive what is not there; have illusions

dream
1 : A daydream; a reverie.
2 : A state of abstraction; a trance.
3 : A wild fancy or hope.
4 : To conceive of; imagine.

vision
1 : A mental image produced by the imagination.
2 : The mystical experience of seeing as if with the eyes the supernatural or a supernatural being.

the main reason leo, is highlighted.

introspection
1 : Contemplation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations; self-examination.[ then keep them to yourself, else you will look like a lunatic)

meditating
1 : To reflect on; contemplate.( as above )

nobody but you project the worst possible interpretation, it's your imagination not ours.
That makes you neurotic.( not us, we make no imaginary assertions) you should see a Mental Health Professional about YOUR problem.

I wouldn't call it a "spot", but I think humans did evolve a capacity for unquestioned religious belief. This might have happened quite recently when direct plant based sacrements associated with shamanism fell out of favor. Religion is like a self-catalyzing reaction that adapts itself to us while adapting us to it. In a sense, forums like this one serve to strengthen the power of religion by helping it evolve to explain (or dismiss) emerging truths revealed by science, in the same way anti-bacterial soap helps form more resistant bacteria.

Behavior is influenced by evolution. It makes sense that the printing press and modern communication technology, along with the increased lifespan made possible by medicine provide a medium for evolution in this direction. It's like the very first ants struggling to develop their rigid social structure that would enable them to act like one super-organism. Unfortunately, it leaves little room for rebels and competition from other systems. It's the most virulent religions that rise quickly. Let's hope that they will also burn out just as quickly like a plague, and that it won't also take out the whole species with it.

for simplicities sake i hone it down to two problems. 'science'/State AND religion. THe most dangerous muthafuker on the planet right now is BushWCo. there we have the perfect example of a literalist Christ-Skull&Bonesman with his hands on skin melting, and Nature poisoning technology!

The God spot in our brain? I've never heard of that one, however I've hit the "OH!!GOD!!" spot when I play with the G-Spot of my girlfriend!. :D ;)

Never mind me I was just bored!. :o

G.

Behavior is influenced by evolution.

And vice versa. Something I wanted to touch on earlier but forgot.
Baldwinian evolution. Not Lamarckian.
Think dolphins and you'll see how behavior effects evolution.

*************
M*W: Assuming the scientific claims are true, and there really is a God 'spot' in the brain, why is it that everybody's belief about god so diverse and archaic?
Because what we call "God" is infinite.

Seems to me this God 'spot' would have evolved along with humanity. If we do have a natural God 'spot' in the brain, does this mean that atheists' brains are not working properly (mine included)?
No, it just means that you are different. That "spot" is either repressed or simply deactivated for the moment. Life style might be a cause for that.

Further, how does the God 'spot' explain declining Christianity worldwide?
God is not necessarily Christian. Their are many "gods", which explain basically a single one, which is really hard to comprehend logically, thanks to the infinite nature of such a being.

Has the God 'spot' run its course and is evolving out of the human brain?
I think the God "spot" is actually necessary for our survival. If it wasn't for it, we would never had made laws. It kinda makes us less competitive and more co-operative (which is why we can consider that we are in the "armagedon"- translated as "revelation"- since we are more competitive than co-operative at the present moment).

Is the God 'spot' unnecessary like the appendix, little toes, and wisdom teeth?
Nope. It is necessary...

Those are my opinions. Not necessarily true.

*************
M*W: Assuming the scientific claims are true, and there really is a God 'spot' in the brain, why is it that everybody's belief about god so diverse and archaic?
Because what we call "God" is infinite.

Seems to me this God 'spot' would have evolved along with humanity. If we do have a natural God 'spot' in the brain, does this mean that atheists' brains are not working properly (mine included)?
No, it just means that you are different. That "spot" is either repressed or simply deactivated for the moment. Life style might be a cause for that.

Further, how does the God 'spot' explain declining Christianity worldwide?
God is not necessarily Christian. Their are many "gods", which explain basically a single one, which is really hard to comprehend logically, thanks to the infinite nature of such a being.

Has the God 'spot' run its course and is evolving out of the human brain?
I think the God "spot" is actually necessary for our survival. If it wasn't for it, we would never had made laws. It kinda makes us less competitive and more co-operative (which is why we can consider that we are in the "armagedon"- translated as "revelation"- since we are more competitive than co-operative at the present moment).

Is the God 'spot' unnecessary like the appendix, little toes, and wisdom teeth?
Nope. It is necessary...

Those are my opinions. Not necessarily true.

*************
M*W: Assuming the scientific claims are true, and there really is a God 'spot' in the brain, why is it that everybody's belief about god so diverse and archaic?
Because what we call "God" is infinite.

Seems to me this God 'spot' would have evolved along with humanity. If we do have a natural God 'spot' in the brain, does this mean that atheists' brains are not working properly (mine included)?
No, it just means that you are different. That "spot" is either repressed or simply deactivated for the moment. Life style might be a cause for that.

Further, how does the God 'spot' explain declining Christianity worldwide?
God is not necessarily Christian. Their are many "gods", which explain basically a single one, which is really hard to comprehend logically, thanks to the infinite nature of such a being.

Has the God 'spot' run its course and is evolving out of the human brain?
I think the God "spot" is actually necessary for our survival. If it wasn't for it, we would never had made laws. It kinda makes us less competitive and more co-operative (which is why we can consider that we are in the "armagedon"- translated as "revelation"- since we are more competitive than co-operative at the present moment).

Is the God 'spot' unnecessary like the appendix, little toes, and wisdom teeth?
Nope. It is necessary...

Those are my opinions. Not necessarily true.

...I've hit the "OH!!GOD!!" spot when I play with the G-Spot of my girlfriend!Very interesting. Is this the G-Spot in the brain? Maybe that's why TruthSeeker posted in triplicate. Religious orgasm?

Religion helps survival in the same sense that a peacock's tail helps it's survival. It shouldn't be necessary, but the arm's race among males (driven by the females) dictates that the larger tailed males get mates. So, in a Godless society, belief in God wouldn't help at all, but once the religious culture is established, it would help you very much, giving you the benefits of an extended family.

Religious orgasm?

Well it does seem like it!!

When tickling a woman's G-spot the (Oh!!God!!) screams and yells get going,
It may prove that not only may god be in your brain, but may also be stimulated in the Grafenberg-spot hence the G-Spot; which make women extremely religious orgasms by yelling "Oh!!! God!!" Don't stop!. Where would we be without god in an orgasm? what would you yell, if you had not learned of the concept of god?. Jesus!! seems to be very popular after the stimulation as well :D

PS; sorry for geting off subject there W*M. Then again it's all harmless fun. For finding those certain "spots" of the human anatomy.

Someone asked were or whom made such claim of "The god spot in our brain?" here's a tid-bit; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm
http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/god.htm

There ya! go I hope I make amends of earlier posts. :cool: ;)

Godless.

examples:
"ohhhhh VEEEEENuuuuuSSSS!"

"OH...OHHHH OHHHHHHHAAPHRODIIIIIITEEEEE...ugh!!"

"KAAAAAALIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHGGGGG!"burp

M*W: Assuming the scientific claims are true, and there really is a God 'spot' in the brain, why is it that everybody's belief about god so diverse and archaic? Seems to me this God 'spot' would have evolved along with humanity. And how much has humanity evolved? You see, you claim to be a rationalist these days, but you don't seem to know the science you profess to believe!

If there is such a structure, what on earth would make it evolve away? The fact that it may not be used as much nowadays? That's 19th Century Lamarckism. Evolution takes more than a handful of millennia to take effect!

Instead of books "proving" that Moses was an Egyptian pharaoh (as a mythical folk hero, isn't just easier to believe he's altogether imaginary?) I recommend you read some Richard Dawkins, for preference The Blind Watchmaker, and the one I just bought yesterday, A Devil's Chaplain.

Silas: And how much has humanity evolved? You see, you claim to be a rationalist these days, but you don't seem to know the science you profess to believe!
*************
M*W: I believe humans have evolved quite a bit in the past 30,000 years, but we're not finished yet. Our brain and mindpower have evolved probably more than our bodies. We know how to create eternal life, but we haven't done it just yet.
*************
Silas: If there is such a structure, what on earth would make it evolve away? The fact that it may not be used as much nowadays? That's 19th Century Lamarckism. Evolution takes more than a handful of millennia to take effect!
*************
M*W: And it may take a handful more millennia before we become homo spiritus.
*************
Silas: Instead of books "proving" that Moses was an Egyptian pharaoh (as a mythical folk hero, isn't just easier to believe he's altogether imaginary?) I recommend you read some Richard Dawkins, for preference The Blind Watchmaker, and the one I just bought yesterday, A Devil's Chaplain.
*************
M*W: I've been doing more reading on the fictional characters of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus, but what that boils down to is that pharaonic Egypt, Judaism, and of course Christianity, are all false. Is that what the evolution of the collective human mind has given us? If these characters didn't exist, then do we?

M*W: I believe humans have evolved quite a bit in the past 30,000 years, but we're not finished yet. Our brain and mindpower have evolved probably more than our bodies. We know how to create eternal life, but we haven't done it just yet.This is semi-mystical, and there's no more evidence for the brainpower having evolved than there is for the God of Abraham. And exactly how do we create eternal life, then, because that is news to me!M*W: I've been doing more reading on the fictional characters of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus, but what that boils down to is that pharaonic Egypt, Judaism, and of course Christianity, are all false. Is that what the evolution of the collective human mind has given us? If these characters didn't exist, then do we? I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

Very interesting. Is this the G-Spot in the brain? Maybe that's why TruthSeeker posted in triplicate. Religious orgasm?
:p

Nope, that' just the stupid computers I use at college. My posts often take about half-an-hour to be sent, so I get annoyed and click the "submit reply" button many times...... :D

Religious orgasm? Ever heard of Kama Sutra!? :D


Oh, and btw, the proper term is "spiritual" orgasm. Religion is to spirituality as a virus is to bacteria.

And mutualism is the greatest sign of evolution....

Silas: This is semi-mystical, and there's no more evidence for the brainpower having evolved than there is for the God of Abraham.
*************
M*W: That's just my opinion for what its worth.
*************
Silas: And exactly how do we create eternal life, then, because that is news to me!I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify?
*************
M*W: Stem cells.

Southstar,

What's so absurd about it?
You've heard of Mitochondrial Eve? Well, there are those who say that this religious mutation that occurred, possibly in as few as a single individual, also had a number of survival benefits. Mankind was small back then. This was before the diaspora of man throughout the globe. Man traveled and took the seed with him as he went.

Religion is much more easily spread than mitochandria and other genetic factors. It doesn't require a direct biological link. Memes are spread culturally and culture can spread quite quickly and effectively. Especially a successful one.

I was being sarcastic when I said it was absurd. That religious mutation must have had one hell of a survival benefit in order to have survived that long. I wonder how it worked with grunts and snorts.. Don't you think it is fantastic for one or a few individuals to have wanted to evangelize their animism or other beliefs in a community where such a thing would have been unheard of? And for everyone or most to be so gullible as to accept it in rejection of the previous absence of belief is also hard to believe - it suggests a predisposition since there does not appear to be any other good reason for them to change direction so abruptly. Perhaps there was some sort of leader who persuaded the others to join in but. The benefits of today were obviously not available and so it would take an impossibly willing audience and some fanatical evangelists to propagate the beliefs. On the other hand, the unbelievers could simply have died off and the religious simply became the majority - but that too seems unlikely. The most likely scenarios to me are these however:

1)Some unexplainable and fearsome event witnessed in broad daylight led them to infer spirits. This could have been lightning or some other 'simple' occurence.
2)They feared death and inferred spirits of the dead. Not too long of a stretch from that, they soon came up with spirits of the living. This could very well have followed from #1, where a volcano eruption or other natural disaster caused widespread death.
3)They were avid teleologists.


As I said, it's part of our pattern-finding abilities. We create a web of correlations to establish order in a chaotic world.

And, consider that this thing called religion (and language as well which is it's carrier and comrade) can be considered an organism of its own. It mutated from near random processes until it achieved a state where it could effectively transmit itself amongst its host population. Over succeeding generations it has only become more efficient in transmitting itself.

Don't forget to mention it is only as strong as its carrier.

The social is the means that this organism/parasite religion transmits and reproduces itself. Without the social there could be no religion.

Without being instilled with the religion and beliefs of one's fathers then the odds of one coming up with something even remotely like religion are a million to one. It's not that a seed is being repressed or 'brought out' by the social. You could say that it is being fertilized by it, in a way. THe social gives one a ready-made construct with which to adapt to one's own life. Without this construct one would have to start from scratch and has been shown by the feral children they aren't spiritual or superstitious.

Consider language as a correllary to relgion. It's known that children raised in the utter absence of language (feral children) do not create their own language. They do possess methods of communication but a true language is not one of them. But, give them something to work with, a pidgin language, and they'll turn it into a full-fledged language in as few as one generation. And a new creole language is born. But, the predecessor to this langauge must be present. Something to work with.

Now, this is all imperfect knowledge as I don't recall any feral children groups. It would require a group to need language and it would be interesting to see what would happen in such a setting. Maybe someday when life is not so precious the forbidden experiment will be performed and we can know for sure.

Where did language come from then if feral children are unable to create their own language? Also what makes a person resistant to society's ready made religion? Genes? And what survival benefits did our great ancestors enjoy from religion that we no longer *need*? Comfort? Hope? Is it that we now place hope in ourselves, in the tangible, in the "reasonable" things? And what precipitated this change? Europe is reputed to have turned away from the dark ages of religion into Thomas Paine's 'Age of Reason' with the dawn of the Enlightenment. But tribal villages in Africa, South America, which have not been marred by civilization - they are not very far religion-wise from our ancestors. Did logic kill God? Logic which stemmed from the same language which nurtured religion. And so are logic and religion diametrically opposed?

As for feral children, yes they do not have language, but it is rather difficult to ascertain what they think and what they believe as a result of this 'handicap'. Language is the only way we know of communicating spirituality but must we so hastily conclude the feral child is devoid of spirituality just because they do not demonstrate it in any of the 'normal' ways? It might be different from what we would determine to be 'spirituality', but we simply can never tell because of the communication breach. It strikes me that the spirituality we are familiar does not have to be the only spirituality there is.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think the key is to remember that they may simply not understand how to show of their spirituality or even know that it is 'spirituality' without language. This again is no indicator of an absence. We may never know, but it is premature to dismiss the possibility, no?

What does this mean? "Exhausted the usual techniqes for the causation of success." What are the 'usual techniqes' and what is the 'causation of success'?

It's from the Harvard quote and is also what I was hinting at above. Will the child raised without religion, after suffering breaking setdowns one after the other, develop their own form of spirituality as a sort of coping mechanism? I understand and agree with what you say later, the term is vague. And so I view it as a sort of coping mechanism, or at least what starts out as a coping mechanism and maturates (as is possibly the case of our ancestors), and not just some 'deep' feeling.

Take 'Genie' (http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=genie) for example, is it possible just like our ancestors she developed her own way of dealing with the pain of deprivation?

You're bringing in 'responsibility' where such doesn't apply.

For one, I'll agree that it very likely wasn't a 'caveman' who introduced mystical thinking into the culture, but rather the ancient humans that moved from the dwindling forests to the savannah. They didn't live in caves.

For two, there is no real scientific evidence that correlates spirituality with some 'God gene'. That article you linked to is sensationalistic crap which could only be called science in this era of George Bush worshippers. The 'God gene' does not mandate creation of a god, but rather a spiritual feeling. But, one can utilize that spiritual feeling in any way, from worshipping Satan to putting puzzles together. It's a feel good gene. And calling it a 'God gene' begs the question.

Perhaps it could be called a 'gulllibility gene'. It predisposes people to the ecstatic fervor which finds an easy outlet in religious ritual. But, it doesn't follow that this gene, in the absence of a previous religious structure, would urge one to create that structure from whole cloth.

They give an example in the article and I quote, "When tribes living in remote areas come up with a concept of God as readily as nations living shoulder to shoulder, it's a fairly strong indication that the idea is preloaded in the genome rather than picked up on the fly."

Now that's just ridiculous. This would have you believe that these city-folk and the primitive tribesman came out of a vacuum. That each don't have common roots buried somewhere in the past. That the traditions of the city-folk are purely of the city and the traditions of the tribe are purely of the tribe.

Preposterous.

A better comparison would be between people that grew up in an environment in which religious ideas are taught or at least made available for assimilation and one in which they are non-existant. If this 'god gene' mandated the creation of spiritual structure then the latter would form spiritual belief structures every time, given the presence of the 'god gene'. And since religion and mystical thinking is so wide-spread, it's fairly obvious that it is widely represented in the entire population of the earth and therefore the odds of gene pool not containing this gene are fairly low.
And yet, feral children are not spiritual. Are not superstitious. Do not dwell in the abstract.

This 'god gene' (a misnomer and simplisticly conceived) merely gives the social mechanism of religion a fertile ground in which to take root. It's not real science as there is only one means to answer this question as well as certain other questions regarding human cognition.

The forbidden experiment.

Raising humans in a controlled environment deprived of their social heritage.
Raising a race of true primitive humans. Cut off from all the thousands and thousands of years of cultural evolution to which all humans are heir to.


Anyway, the topic isn't a genetic predisposition to certain modes of thought. Such obviously exists, if not so simplisticly as this 'god gene' would have it. Our brains are built from genetic guidelines, there is no disputing that. The topic is a specific region of the brain which when stimulated would cause one to 'see god' or some such. Or so I presume. And, as I said earlier, temporal lobe epilepsy is known to cause this phenomenon. But it's not a specific spot, it's a widespread redundant network.

Makes good sense to me and I agree with all but I'll wait to see what you have to say about my comments on the feral children.

Edit: One last thought on that 'god gene'. It would be funny if this 'god gene' turns out to be one that we have in common with our animal brothers, wouldn't it?

Funny for who? :p

the missing link in all this--as per usual (i speak from forum experience)--is hallucinogenic experience. You seem to ignore this factor yet if you took the trouble to research you'd find that THE most common spiritual inspirator among our ancestors and Indigenous peoples has been A hallucinogenic sacramant which gives a spiritual feeling with community and Nature. And that it has been the patriarchy that has ruthlessly not only suppressed the taking of this sacramanet whereever its oppressive fist has got to, but also suppresses the very MEMORY of it anient use. This is evident if one asked the average person on the street. They presume all of that began in the 1960s with the Hippies!

So i am understanding the insight of animism--understanding Nature to be alive would be greatly inspired from the use of hallucinogens--and i also speak from personal experience, not just intellectual research. All of this is on mythical writings for you to see, if you get the hang of how it is transitted. the pattern running through. Even the patriarchal subversion of the earth religions give the game away from what the condemn, and so on

Next question: is all of what is experienced on hallucinogens hallucination which materialistic science denounces as false and not 'real truth'........Well i am arguing that materialistic's very position IS a religion and a dogmatic one at that. Though it will deny it, and is unconscious of its own indoctrination.

Duendy, I would say there is a link and some ingluence, but I wouldn't say there is necessarily a direct relationship between them. I will ponder on that, I guess....

Southstar,

That religious mutation must have had one hell of a survival benefit in order to have survived that long.

It does, doesn't it? Haven't you yourself personally witnessed the lengths people will go to justify themselves to their religion and their religion to themselves? Haven't you seen the sacrifices that people are willing to make when they TRULY believe in their religion? Nowadays so many 'religious' just pay lip service to their faith and don't even know what it is that they're supposed to believe in. They simply say, "I'm a christian" and expect it to work. Leo may be a fraud, but he's absolutely right about the hypocrisy encouraged by protestant religion's emphasis on forgiveness. But, for those who truly believe in their religion and the consequences of thier faith, then no act is too extreme.

Think on it this way. It may not have a strong survival benefit for an individual at all times. Suicide bombers, as a modern example. But, it does have a strong survival benefit for the group as a whole and for the culture of the group and for the religion itself. Each person that acts in a self-sacrificing manner for the 'good' of the group or religion strengthens the grip that the particular religion has on its host population. It must have meaning for so many great people to have given their lives for it.

Consider the Aztecs sacrificing themselves in the thousands to prevent the end of the world that would come after a 500 year cycle. They were utterly sure of the rightness of their religion and the blood flowed. But, the Aztec religion has died and the sacrifices haven't taken place for over 500 years now and guess what? The world is still here. Fancy that.

I wonder how it worked with grunts and snorts.

It couldn't. Language is required. At least a simple form of language. Language and religion go hand in hand. Language is all that allows us the ability to conceive of the truly abstract of which religion is made.

There is a theory on ritual being a type of symbolic reinforcement that might fit in with this conversation. But then again, it has little to do with with brain, more to do with types of reference and language. I need to come up with a good premise for a thread to discuss this.

Don't you think it is fantastic for one or a few individuals to have wanted to evangelize their animism or other beliefs in a community where such a thing would have been unheard of? And for everyone or most to be so gullible as to accept it in rejection of the previous absence of belief is also hard to believe - it suggests a predisposition since there does not appear to be any other good reason for them to change direction so abruptly.

Not really. You must consider that the world in which these early peoples lived was a great unknown thing. Symbolic reference and language would have arisen through some other mechanism, social contracts being a likely candidate, and set up the prerequisites for a method of discerning meaning from a meaningless existence.

Pattern seeking combined with symbolic reference. These two things combine perfectly into an animistic view of the world. The world becomes symbolic of the self and the social unit. The world becomes peopled with spirits. Some friendly. Some not. Some appeasing. Some requiring appeasement.

The motivations for one to spread this idea once chanced upon are complex. For one, the person would find himself in a position of power as he is able to mediate between the people and the spirits. For two, the person would be overcome with the sense of discovery and purpose that such an insight provides and I see no reason to doubt that he'd be any less eager to share his revelation than those in the modern day. How many other reasons can be posited for the conceiver of spirits to share his conception? A near infinte number. No. There's nothing strange in his/her behavior.

And the gullibility of the people? Again. They lived in an unknown world and were gifted with pattern seeking combined with symbolic reference. They probably lived in a state of fear and confusion much of the time. They were aware of many causal connections but the meaning behind them were nonexistant and thus eluded the ultimate pattern to which they sought. This revelation would have come over them like a lightning bolt. How could they not fall under its sway? Especially given the conviction that the original conceiver would have likely had. I imagine that he could easily have scared the piss out of them. Perhaps the strange death of a child was explained by witchcraft. By the vile actions of a fellow tribe member or maybe an enemy tribe. Burn the witch!!! What a wash of pleasure would likely wash over these people knowing that, at last, they've done something about these strange occurences. At last they're not completely at the mercy of their environment. At last they have some control. Illusory control, you say? Burn the 'witch' and the deaths still continue? Well, so what? There's always more witches to burn and the illusion of control is just as powerful as the reality of control.

The benefits of today were obviously not available and so it would take an impossibly willing audience and some fanatical evangelists to propagate the beliefs.

On the contrary, the benefits of then are not present today. This is why religion is outdated and should be eradicated. Or at least put on the back shelf for a time when it may be required again.

These people were not possessed of the defense mechanism against the illusions of religion which the people have today. The religion was raw and primal. It tapped into their primal state. In fact, the people who were the original religion were probably not even homo sapiens. The people themselves were more primal and raw.

On the other hand, the unbelievers could simply have died off and the religious simply became the majority - but that too seems unlikely.

Or killed off. Probably a combination.
Consider that religion is ultimately an expression of that abstract reasoning which makes humans human. It is a test of that aspect of ourselves that seperates us from the animals. Those unable to conceive of the abstract ideas which religion expresses could only be a hindrance and a genetic throwback. Unworthy of life as humans. It's no great wonder that they didn't survive.

1)Some unexplainable and fearsome event witnessed in broad daylight led them to infer spirits. This could have been lightning or some other 'simple' occurence.

Lightning, thunder, total eclipse of the sun, the change of the seasons, the tide, tidal waves, the lst is endless of things which evade a simple understanding and which call directly to a anthropomorphic reasoning. I.e. animism.

2)They feared death and inferred spirits of the dead. Not too long of a stretch from that, they soon came up with spirits of the living. This could very well have followed from #1, where a volcano eruption or other natural disaster caused widespread death.

Certainly. Some would be obsessed with they dead. Why did they die? When will I die? Will I know its coming? Will I have the opportunity to continue my existence in some manner? And what of dreams? The dead still live in dreams. And then there's the hallucinations of both the natural mind and the drug-induced hallucinations in which the dead may walk as well as other things.

3)They were avid teleologists.

Yes. That's what I've been saying all along. Pattern seekers. Addicted to patterns. Far more than avid. Obsessed.

Don't forget to mention it is only as strong as its carrier.

It's a bootstrapping process. Each carries the other higher and higher.

Where did language come from then if feral children are unable to create their own language?

That's the thing. The knowledge of feral children we have is incomplete. We know of only isolated feral children. Language requires more than one. And likely more than two or three. It requires a group. And it requires components to work with.

Also what makes a person resistant to society's ready made religion? Genes?

We're down to a point here that can't be further broken down.
Nature/nurture.
Genes, of course, have a bearing on everything we do and are. But nurture is also an important consideration.

And what survival benefits did our great ancestors enjoy from religion that we no longer *need*? Comfort? Hope? Is it that we now place hope in ourselves, in the tangible, in the "reasonable" things? And what precipitated this change?

Simple. The survival benefits were meaning and purpose. It's not that we don't need these anymore, it's that we now have better means with which to acquire them.

Science.

Yes. Science is not meant to explain why, only how. But, religion is science and philosophy combined. Religion fights science on the how because it contains its own how on which its why is based.

We now have philosophy which can stand seperate from religion.

Science and philosophy are all that is needed.
Religion can exist as philosophy and metaphorically, but it's not designed this way. The writers of the bible weren't speaking in metaphor. They were speaking literally. They believed everything they said.

At least the Catholic church finally admitted they were wrong about denying Galileo's claim on the movement of the Earth. When was that? Two years ago? Three? Four? Can you imagine the gall of it? The 21st century and the church finally admits that the Earth isn't the center of the universe. That's what is wrong with religion in a nutshell. If they stuck with their metaphor then they wouldn't be so dangerous. But they despise knowledge that is not religiously derived.

But tribal villages in Africa, South America, which have not been marred by civilization - they are not very far religion-wise from our ancestors.

Oh? You realize that their religion is just that? They've absorbed christianity into their own native religion and the result is an amalgam of beliefs. The same has happenned time and time again throughout history. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, how many examples of paganism survive in Christianity? And the old habit of building shrines on the sites of pagan holy sites. The same thing.

As for feral children, yes they do not have language, but it is rather difficult to ascertain what they think and what they believe as a result of this 'handicap'. Language is the only way we know of communicating spirituality but must we so hastily conclude the feral child is devoid of spirituality just because they do not demonstrate it in any of the 'normal' ways?

They can be taught language. They will never be masters of language, but they are able to express themselves crudely. But they can't be taught religion. Most of them, anyway. I won't fall into the trap of generalization.

Remember also that the sampling of feral children is too limited to be truly enlightening. Without the forbidden experiment we will never know these things for sure.

Take 'Genie' for example, is it possible just like our ancestors she developed her own way of dealing with the pain of deprivation?

What? Chronic masturbation, you mean? Chimpanzees also do the same in captivity.
Genie is a special form of feral child. Not so much feral as abused and neglected. Tied to that chair her whole life.

Funny for who?

For me, of course.

Silas: And how much has humanity evolved? You see, you claim to be a rationalist these days, but you don't seem to know the science you profess to believe!
*************
M*W: I wanted to discuss this further with you. From photographs of bones, skeletons, mummies, etc., it appears to me that humans have evolved from lower animals. However, I am not opposed to looking at this in another way. After the Neanderthals died out (for whatever reasons), Cro-Magnon and Modern Man appeared. I don't believe we evolved from the Neanderthals, but while we were still in an animalistic body, I believe we were somehow inbred by beings of a higher intelligence. I don't exactly know what to call these beings. The Bible calls them "sons of God saw the daughters of men fair and ...". Were these alien beings who intercepted Earth and bred with the daughters of Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon Man? I haven't studied this yet, but I've always thought of it as a possibility.
*************
Silas: Instead of books "proving" that Moses was an Egyptian pharaoh (as a mythical folk hero, isn't just easier to believe he's altogether imaginary?) I recommend you read some Richard Dawkins, for preference The Blind Watchmaker, and the one I just bought yesterday, A Devil's Chaplain.
*************
M*W: I am not against believing that Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and Jesus were fictional characters. I just haven't made my final decision on it. They've found relics of King Tut and his father, Moses, so I think Moses is more than an imaginary folk hero. However, if you have further evidence, I'd like to see it. If these characters didn't really exist, that would change the face of Judaism and Christianity. As I see it, that would mean that we're all Egyptians!

Moses's god was Aten, the Sun, also called Ra. Ultimately, the sun was the first "god." Then it became the "sun of god," and "the son of god." I don't believe in any god. All religions have simply twisted this early monotheistic belief to suit their needs. Could it be because the higher intelligence entities came from the skies? I don't know. I'd like to hear more of what you have to say. Thanks.