Misguided Belief

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Hmm, you make a compelling argument...

Thanks, it took me all day to come up with that gem.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the dearth of evidence supporting any of the various flavours of religion available, what makes believers choose one sort over another?

I find plenty of evidence, plus there's that little word called FAITH.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I find plenty of evidence, plus there's that little word called FAITH.

Much as I'd like to agree, I don't see much evidence that stands up to objective scrutiny. Which is of course why faith is required. I think my point in raising this thread was to question why the fact that people tend to follow the religion that they're brought up to follow doesn't raise questions in the mind of the followers.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Much as I'd like to agree, I don't see much evidence that stands up to objective scrutiny. Which is of course why faith is required. I think my point in raising this thread was to question why the fact that people tend to follow the religion that they're brought up to follow doesn't raise questions in the mind of the followers.

I think my point in raising this thread was to question why the fact that people tend to follow the religion that they're brought up to follow doesn't raise questions in the mind of the followers.

The vast majority of people are able to avoid reality that gets in the way of a sense of well-being a great deal of the time. See "ego defense mechanisms".

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Given the dearth of evidence supporting any of the various flavours of religion available, what makes believers choose one sort over another?

early childhood socialization

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Much as I'd like to agree, I don't see much evidence that stands up to objective scrutiny. Which is of course why faith is required. I think my point in raising this thread was to question why the fact that people tend to follow the religion that they're brought up to follow doesn't raise questions in the mind of the followers.

You'll have to give your standards for this "objective scrutiny" failsafe you're touting as the iceberg to Christianity's alleged Titanic-like qualities.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
In my experience, most people who actually study these things have very much higher estimation for the intellect and abilities of our ancestors than the media and the general public. As far as I can gather, the supposedly 'Victorian' attitudes regarding 'brutish ape-men' went out of the window in the academic world along with the idea of the racial ...[text shortened]... those of modern chimpanzees. Or, see http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm.

======================================
That said, while this may ostensibly appear to weaken the case for human evolution, the genetic evidence is pretty much slam-dunk. Have a look at the chromosome maps for modern humans compared to those of modern chimpanzees. Or, see http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm.
========================================

Relationships of decent is not the only possible explanation to the similarity.

Similarity could also be explained by intelligent design.

Not a slam dunk. Perhaps, a slam dash.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Much as I'd like to agree, I don't see much evidence that stands up to objective scrutiny. Which is of course why faith is required. I think my point in raising this thread was to question why the fact that people tend to follow the religion that they're brought up to follow doesn't raise questions in the mind of the followers.

Apparently 75% of people in australia vote as same as their parents too. 😕
Clearly there is an apathetic element in there.

I see the athiests and religious people bash it out here in this forum day and night, and its been going on forever in the world.

But, the religious people ask for it, because they put forward erroneous beliefs about god, and its no wonder they get flogged by the atheists.

But the fact is that a person is a spiritual being, eternal and without beginning and end, and that being the nature of every living thing, is indisputable, and has nothing to do with belief, and therefore cannot be argued against.

But the silly superstitious beliefs of the relgious people, will continuingly be attacked by the atheists, because they are surely erroneous.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
I see the athiests and religious people bash it out here in this forum day and night, and its been going on forever in the world.

But, the religious people ask for it, because they put forward erroneous beliefs about god, and its no wonder they get flogged by the atheists.

But the fact is that a person is a spiritual being, eternal and without begin ...[text shortened]... lgious people, will continuingly be attacked by the atheists, because they are surely erroneous.

Yeah, thats basically what you get.
I have noted that you wish to make a clear distinction between spirituality and (organized)religon. I think I know where you are coming from on that one.

I have more in common with theists general beliefs...(I reserve the right to extrapolate that comment in the future). I find myself agreeing more with the athiests than the theists. Way more.

It is fun to have beliefs. It is quite another to record them in a public forum.

It goes without saying that the positive and negative elements in the universe will tend to balance each other out in the long run.
Perhaps I am being to naive and THE SECOND LAW OF THERNODYNAMICS is eating away at my brain. Either way I say it is good. Maybe not "all good", but good enough to make all our souls' dreams come true. Ahhhhhhh!!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You'll have to give your standards for this "objective scrutiny" failsafe you're touting as the iceberg to Christianity's alleged Titanic-like qualities.

Let's say, the application of reason and logic in a rational manner.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
That said, while this may ostensibly appear to weaken the case for human evolution, the genetic evidence is pretty much slam-dunk. Have a look at the chromosome maps for modern humans compared to those of modern chimpanzees. Or, see http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm.
=================== ...[text shortened]... y could also be explained by intelligent design.

Not a slam dunk. Perhaps, a slam dash.[/b]

To me, the weakness of the intelligent design idea is that the 'intelligence' in question based everything 'it' made on something it made earlier, with a slight tweak or two here and there. There are a lot of inherited weaknesses in the 'design' of the human animal which would have been easy to iron out at the prototype stage. Why would god produce shonky goods?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
To me, the weakness of the intelligent design idea is that the 'intelligence' in question based everything 'it' made on something it made earlier, with a slight tweak or two here and there. There are a lot of inherited weaknesses in the 'design' of the human animal which would have been easy to iron out at the prototype stage. Why would god produce shonky goods?

I've just read a couple of chapters on cell structure by some guy with a phd. (If anyone is actually interested in the author, I will dig up the name)

His basic contention was that the "intelligence " of a cell is contained not within the nucleus, but within the membrane of the cell. His contention was that cells can be manipulated from the outside by the decisions we make. That cells can be altered from the outside by positive thinking. That things like cancer can be erradicated through proper "manipulation".

I have no problem with this and it furthur backs up my belief that god has not produced shonky goods.
(I realize that this is kinda left-field of what you were saying but I just thought you may find these points of contention interesting in your more complete understanding of the (human)world🙂 )

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I've just read a couple of chapters on cell structure by some guy with a phd. (If anyone is actually interested in the author, I will dig up the name)

His basic contention was that the "intelligence " of a cell is contained not within the nucleus, but within the membrane of the cell. His contention was that cells can be manipulated from the outside b ...[text shortened]... oints of contention interesting in your more complete understanding of the (human)world🙂 )

I would sure like to see some scientific trials to back up what sounds like a pretty interesting idea - I'm naturally sceptical, you understand, but hey, once you accept quantum theory it's hard to close doors like these! And certainly I think that a positive attitude can influence one's general health. Go on Kaz, dig up his name for me.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
That said, while this may ostensibly appear to weaken the case for human evolution, the genetic evidence is pretty much slam-dunk. Have a look at the chromosome maps for modern humans compared to those of modern chimpanzees. Or, see http://www.evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm.
=================== ...[text shortened]... arity could also be explained by intelligent design.

Not a slam dunk. Perhaps, a slam dash.

Not long ago you said you knew nothing about genetics?!