Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.
They do the opposite when thinking about the physical world, according to the study.
" from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien … 50956.html
Personally, I don't trust science when it tries to understand human affairs but this guy is saying something interesting.
Their is no point in discussion when any group claims to know the 99 % unknown earths mass. If Jesus claims 2+2 =5, blind faith will go there. Where Atheist must take a spaceship to a trillions of planets to prove no God exist to the 85% world's population.
I just love all the stuff in-between, exploring all of nature and imagination is God enough for me.
Why is there no point arguing with atheists if they're using critical/analytical thinking...?
Actually I perfer discussion with down to earth bio organism atheist than floating all gravity lost in space Christians.
What I do not understand why atheist study world religion more than any other group then become a religion group in America.
I just perfer to avoid an argument in which is an angry discussion of opposites sides, unless you aim to find a middle grounds.
Because where I get run over is on the middle of the road from both sides.
Kind of waste of energy, don't you think?
It's kind of ironic, isn't it? Atheists actually know more about religions than practitioners, generally speaking. In their pursuit of truth*, plenty became atheists by studying religion. I can't speak for the religious but from what I've observed they seem to know less because of the comfort and social connections religion provides, and because of their predisposition to not question (and thus not intellectually analyze) the religion itself, usually starting from birth.
(*This is not to say that atheists are immune to other forms of ideological zealotry. Religion is just not one of their typical blind spots.)
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but yes, given their knowledge of religions atheists could theoretically become a super-religious group. I'm willing to bet that at least some atheists would have been very religious in eras where religions were our best explanatory models of the universe. Fortunately, the scientific method has rendered those models largely obsolete, both as moral codes and as theoretical frameworks of reality.
As for arguments, any argument that tends to have its ideas driven by emotion is likely to be unproductive.
By the way, welcome back Castle. It's nice to see you around again.
Christianity & ALL Derivatives thereof base their ENTIRE Religion on what they believe to be an EARTH which is approximately 5000-6000 years old ~ Scientific FACT reveals the EARTH is actually BILLIONs of years old which leaves a Dramatically Enormous Discrepancy between Scientific Fact & Religious Faith ~
You could progress in your backward analysis and read what Dr. Hugh Ross has to say as a progressive creationist Christian. He has a brilliant mind.
Checked him out. Looks like he's basically an Anti-Dawkins.
The new Pope now believe in evolution and Ross thinks the earth is billions of years old. Maybe they can get together and rewrite another Bible denomination. In order to get rid of hell plus save Satan, so the world is not based on fear. These 2200 old Bibles denomination are so old fashion and need to be updated to swing with the people living in the now.
I agree, they need to get together. But what do they have to offer the world?
At least re educate to nearly half of American that believe the world is not older than 6000 years.
At least re educate to nearly half of American that believe the world is not older than 6000 years. Plus teach half Americans that the OT is older than the NT.
If I may ask, what are your personal thoughts on the person, Jesus Christ?
Jesus was a wonderful myth man who was so vague it gave way to too many wrong translation. Most popular, until Darwin cross over with Evolutionary paths to all religions and faiths. We are just an advance primate among the 100s of billions of Star. I still? about if we are advance primates, when we think on how much we have destroyed the earth.
SORRY colorfulone, but your good Dr. Hugh Ross or whatever will END Up Re-Writing the ENTIRE Bible if he wishes to reflect an EARTHLY Reality ~
Next, maybe he should start with Passages in the Bible which CLEARLY Suggest that Woman is Inferior to Man ~ ~ Maybe he can give that one a shot sometime ~ And then Rational Humans Wonder WHY Radical Evangelicals are so Dangerous to a Civilized Society ~
LOL. Most Christians don't believe that. That's about as ridiculous as saying all atheists don't bother to look at facts and spout off nonsensical sound bites they've been spoon fed.
Again, you've been spoon fed. Most Christians have no problem agreeing with scientific FACT so that means your claim of a dramatically enormous discrepancy is simply an enormous discrepancy between what you know and what you think you know.
The world,s largest creationism museum shows man co existing with dinosaurs. The earth beginning they claim is over 6000 years old. America's at least, 45% of them, believe this crap.
Why not teach 2+2 is 5.
I've quickly Googled this and at first glance the poll results do seem to be around 40%. This article has a good breakdown on polls from recent years: http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-m … us-0015164
Notice how the results change significantly when the question is framed as "religion vs. science" as opposed to a direct question of the age of the Earth. It's possible the framing of the question as religion vs. science triggers the parts of the brain related to empathy and suppresses analytical thinking, as suggested by OP's article.
The article concludes that at most 1 in 10 Americans believe in a young Earth model, but given the consistent poll results hovering around 40% I'm inclined to think it's slightly higher than that. Either way, 10% is still an astounding number for such a backwards belief.
I think that depends, entirely, on who you are getting your facts from. You can certainly find a survey to support that belief.
But, it is really on what you believe. It boils down to a question of what you think of your fellow man and how you pose your questions. Remove religious context and human origins and you will find that most people accept evolutionary theory as the most logical explanation for life on this planet.
One problem I perceive is that being conflicted is a natural state for us. We are inclined to speak what we think we are supposed to say and not what we think, when interacting with others; at most every turn. Get along. Don't create waves within the particular circle you run with. Don't put yourself into a position of a confrontation on beliefs. Why? Because beliefs are personal and no one else's business. You can say what you may think they expect to hear; but what you believe isn't necessarily tied to those words.
Another is that most people don't see an inherent problem with a religious belief being at odds with a scientific fact. They accept the scientific fact yet are willing to express acceptance of a religious belief. Probably because that religious belief only affects their attempt to be in harmony with the universe. It's a private thing completely disassociated with their attempt to be in harmony with those on earth. It's strange, I know, but think about anything else in your life. Things you say, if asked, that are immediately misunderstood. Not because of anything you have said but by the fact that the listener has preconceived notions of what you believe. Tiny sound bites they disapprove of. They've thought of all the reasons they disagree with an idea and are closed to the possibility of understanding all of the reasons you may agree with that idea.
Since people are bio organism first, I can agree about 95% of the time with anyone. It's about the 5% we disagree about that can be a real bitch.
Will be back later
You are in tune with your own universe and with those who are in tune with their own universe. It is difficult at best to be in tune with those who are out of tune (conflicted) in their own universe.
But, those we may feel out of tune with can be in tune in their own conflicted universe and with others who are conflicted that we are not in tune with?
Is that a good way of saying that?
When your mind is in conflict, you imagination can always win out. Everything we have achieved in life was all once imagined. When your imagination grows so dose your Universe grows.
When you lose your dream your imagination cease to exist. Now your Personal Universe is stolden by a dark Emipire who cares less if you live or die.
Nobody is allowed to harm, in my ever expanding Universe. I seek to share with the world, for the world is 50% About them and 50% about me. When we always aim to give a little more, our entire world expands into a spiritual age.
Careful, LTL. While it is an exaggeration and a stereotype, it has a fair bit of truth in it. Christianity, as a whole, has drug it's feet whenever it felt a threat to it's basic belief, or anything that might affect that belief.
This has been so since the days when heretics were hanged, since the inquisition, since Galileo, Darwin or any scientist that found anything that threatened the church. Nor has much changed; we still have a great many that deny the Big Bang or evolution and insist that we teach our kids the "proper" history of the universe and life. That refuse to accept that being gay isn't a choice. People that still find Satan or his demons as the cause of natural disasters such as Katrina. The Creation Museum in Kentucky, getting some 250,000 visitors per year (2 million since opening in 2007) with it's insistence on a young earth and the destruction of all life outside Noah's ark, is a good example of denial of scientific fact. It even shows people cavorting with dinosaurs, for Pete's sake! People like Ken Ham (museum director) have a great following.
I don't know that it is "most", but there are certainly a lot of them.
Yes. In the days of the Inquisition and Galileo the church had a bit of a stranglehold on humanity. And the church is, as you say, a bit of a foot dragger and I consider it to be a knuckle dragger on a lot of things. And I agree with all you have said. My only reason for comment was a false allegation had been made concerning creationism and most Christians. It is as unfair to use the term 'most christians' as it is to say 'most atheists' or 'most people who wear red shoes' when attempting to determine what an individual may think.
Most people I know who claim to be Christian are Christian because they believe in the existence of God and the story of Christ makes the most sense in the evolution of the monotheistic faith which follows Y-H. Now, I don't know 'most Christians' so I have to accept that Alternative Prime's assertion is not disproved by my anecdotal experience. I know none of us can delve into the minds of billions of Christians and most of our beliefs about what Christians believe is what different sects of the church espouse so we can look at what the churches espouse to see if his assertion makes any sense and could be a reasonable conclusion. Since there are about 3300 recognized Christian sects it is impossible to look at them all; but a look at the big sects will help to determine if 'most Christians' can be assumed to believe what Alternative Prime has said they do.
I will have to add that even though everyone loves to say which Christians are 'Christian' and which aren't we can only judge the term Christian to denote someone who chooses the label for themselves.
The following is a summation of a Pew Research on what some churches believe on the subject;
Catholic- the Catholic church claims to shepherd 1.2 billion Christians. Their official stance is limited to an acceptance that evolution occurred in the generally agreed upon time frame within the scientific community; yet they see the guiding hand of the process as Divine.
Episcopal-2.2 million adherents-In 1982, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution to “affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement.” The church has also expressed skepticism toward the intelligent design movement.
Mormon-15 million adherents-Their church has no official stance yet, several high-ranking officials have suggested that Darwin’s theory does not directly contradict church teachings.
Methodist-30 to 80 million adherents-"We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."
Evangelical Lutheran in America- 4.5 million followers- While the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has not issued a definitive statement on evolution, it does contend that “God created the universe and all that is therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that God actually may have used evolution in the process of creation.”
A look at those few finds that 1 1/4 billion Christians are not being led into a belief of a 6000 year old earth. Since there is estimated to be about 2 billion Christians in the world, we can see that 'most christians' don't fall into the category Alternative Prime has imagined for them.
But, this answers the question of why there is no point arguing with a religionist or an atheist. Facts don't matter to them. Belief trumps fact at every turn.
Him saying that Christianity and all of its derivatives believe the Earth is 6000 years old is just completely nonsensical. Though not most, is still surprising to me that a significant number of American Christians do believe in the young Earth model.
Why would facts not matter to atheists? The study established that the religious suppress the analytical/logical side of the brain in the context of religious or spiritual beliefs. Atheists would suppress the social cognitive/empathetic side.
It is odd that a significant number do. I know a guy who had no religion for most of his life. Now, he will sit there and attempt to convince me Noah put dinosaurs on the ark. It's all very strange. I think he is attempting to buy his way into heaven or something.
I don't know how to explain it. But, I do believe that many who claim young earth know that it doesn't add up but they think if they say it, it will please God. As if it is a test of faith.
I would suggest that to consistently suppress either the analytical/logical side or the cognitive/empathetic side is detrimental to a well rounded outlook on life (outside of the lab or the seminary).
You ask why would an atheist ignore facts? I would say because it is easier to believe what makes us comfortable than to seek truth.
In general I would say Christain live too comfortable and Atheist not.
"I would suggest that to consistently suppress either the analytical/logical side or the cognitive/empathetic side is detrimental to a well rounded outlook on life (outside of the lab or the seminary)."
Yes that would be, but the study doesn't suggest that either the religious or atheists do so consistently. It only refers to those tendencies in the context of religious beliefs.
"You ask why would an atheist ignore facts? I would say because it is easier to believe what makes us comfortable than to seek truth."
All too true especially in this modern sociopolitical climate, but I should be more specific - what facts are atheists ignoring in the context of religion? In other contexts they may be as likely to ignore facts as the rest of the population, but in a religious context I don't see any facts that atheists are actively ignoring.
If you are looking for a fact such as 'God is real' or 'Jesus did exist' that is not what I mean. It is simply that it is impossible to have a conversation with an atheist on a spiritual level. I am not sure why they would want to. The only conclusion I have come to is that they want to be argumentative. You have to constantly explain that you don't believe this, or that, and the atheist consistently says 'You must. You are a Christian'. The fact is that each individual holds unique beliefs and the truth about you gets completely overlooked because the atheist who has, for reasons unknown, chosen to engage you in a conversation.
And, I'm sure you will disagree, but almost everything we think we know boils down to belief. The only fact we have, in a universal sense, is that we are here on a planet, in the middle of a really big universe. All of our conclusions about everything have been drawn from a very limited point of reference and a very limited amount of time within the existence of all we observe. You can start from any answer we have and find an infinite number of questions it brings up. As we ask them, eventually we come to the point of 'We don't yet know.' Unfortunately, few atheists I've interacted with are able to accept this. I've actually had atheists make comments such as 'why does it matter?'. I don't begrudge someone who isn't fascinated by the enigma of existence but I don't go out of my way to seek them out and I'm curious why they go out of their way to seek out people who honestly leave their minds open to all possibilities. If one thinks they know everything already and they can't convince others to agree with that you would think they would leave it at that. Not act as if those who disagree are ignorant.
You say atheist would not understand on a spiritual level. I would understand on a spiritaul levels because I'm spiritual sided. I would define spiritual as the 99% unknown. Where Atheist would call it just unknowns.
I agree with you, because I have spent countless hours in decades of interacting on a spiritual level with people of different religions, Pigeons, WICCANs, Atheists and Agnostics, (as a Christian). Our greatest spiritual foundations are a common ground and unity. People can leave their attitudes and judgments outside the door and come together unified as one with spiritual differences (without arguing). Expressing ones own experience, strength and hope...(personal problems, tests, trails...). Its amazing what happens when people can put their faith in the chairs they sit in, on a floor that holds them all safe and secure together in one room, for one primary purpose... to help each other with mutual respect, (and embrace others differences). That takes faith...and faith is spirituality. People just need to learn to keep it simple, because its not complicated.
Acceptance is the key!
I have faith in up, down and sideways. Religion is base on fear of the unknowns. The world is ruled more by fear than love. By our collective human knownledge we have of the 1% mass of earths crust, is 6km deep with very limited knownledge.
The only closest Godlike human process is imagination, for everything in our lives was all once imagined. The greatest fear is hell, an assumed place made by God because he loves you. (An insane concept) Fire like the Sun and stars is the source of all life, not the end of eternal torture. All Government are corrupted to degrees and rule through our finances and use fear too to run the masses. What is worst about these Gov. Gods is they give out liences to steal and kill.
Best to be your own boss or like Jesus said, the kingdom of heaven is within ( or go without)
"The greatest fear is hell, a place made by God because he loves you."
True, God loves us. But, hell is not reserved for those who love one another with goodness in their hearts. God is love and love is of God.
Big topic, but I will keep it simple.
God looks on the heart of man.
If we are made in God images of all loving, then we must love all mankind and love all nature.
Instead if we do not love God ultimately above everything. Like if we do not love God above all. We are to hate your mother, your father and everyone. I will kill God before I kill my Daughter for him.
That is a parable, a comparison...and is not literal. It is a word to Christ's disciples. To hate your father, mother, children or anyone would be in conflict with God's laws. You can study that out for yourself if you so desire. This passage does not concern anyone other then His disciples.
If any man come to me,.... Not in a corporeal, but in a spiritual way; nor barely to hear him preach; but so come, as that he believes in him, applies to him for grace, pardon, righteousness, life, and salvation; professes to be his, submits to his ordinances, and desires to be a disciple of his;
and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in Matthew 10:37 yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Do you love Jesus Christ so much that you would obey Him, and leave those you love who would stand in your way, to go and do His will?
Its a measuring stick.
My greatest joy for most waking hours of my life has been my art work. Art has played a stronger inference tool for all cultures and all religions with a 15 times longer human history.
I except Christian yet many do not except me.
The last 3 girlfriends dumped me for the main reason I can not be saved by Jesus.Their lives have had not been as happy as mine, their loss.
I'm a creative artist, and it is a great joy of mine to create.
Emotional relationships can be complex. The worst to me is a relationship with someone who has a mean controlling religious spirit, and have not the law of liberty. They are far, far worse then an infidel. Mutually respectful infidels I accept, and love....because I can have sweet fellowship with them, and so can God's Spirit.
I'm a happy signal.
Butt you look like a dog.
All living creatures love. It's just about all Christain women I've dated ultimately love their 1.God first,
2. Their children and relative's that are almost all spoon feed on Jesus.
I rank 3rd, 4th or 5th among the animals, friends, car, houses and baggage.
My ultimate loves are
1. The World- worship sun, women and nature
2. My daughter, and we both love our work.
3. Imagination, family, and friends.
Sorry God is just a Word, the example from the religious overall do more harm than good. By dividing the world into conflict and threaten each other with hell.
99% unknown. I agree. Which is why I get a little perturbed with those who claim to have truth. Everything within existence boils down to speculation. As long as we have questions, we have to assume all is still 99% unknown.
Quantum physics is not easy to understand (like spirituality) and it can be perturbing. I'm not sure that anyone understands it fully. But, it explains spirituality scientifically and our whole life experience, it can be explained clearly, even our thoughts, emotions and beliefs. Is it like a blue-print? It can reveal ones conscious and unconscious. Its like tapping into reality and everything is relative.
Quantum can explain how I can have spiritual experiences with Agnostics, Atheists, etc. like I was sharing about in this post.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
~ Albert Einstein ...and, how we have advanced into the 21st century.
Quantum is so precise that it is used in the newest technical computers to tap directly into the fundamental fabric of reality. The web can predict the future. Quantum physicists are working to pin-point where everything derives...one day they will fully, I hope.
I’m surprised by your characterization of atheists. I’m sure you’ve had those encounters as you describe them, it’s just that I’ve had the exact opposite experience and from what I gather the most well-known atheists act quite differently.
For instance, Sam Harris is one of the so called “Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse” and he’s written extensively about being spiritual without religion, something that many atheists desire in their lives. He advocates for spirituality with an interesting mix of moral, philosophical and neurological perspectives. I recommend looking into him, even the most fervent religionist can find some common ground with his views.
I can’t speak for all atheists, and this may surprise you, but I’ve been characterized as argumentative by several of my peers. Sometimes it can get under their nerves, but I don’t argue simply to be argumentative. It’s a method of truth-checking. If your argument stands up to the most vehement scrutiny offered, it is a strong argument, and closer to the truth than if your argument were to fall at the first hurdle.
I’m not sure why an atheist would claim that you must accept a specific belief unless that belief is central to the religion. I think most atheists understand that most people cherry-pick beliefs from their religion. Personally, I think the most honest interpretation is a complete acceptance of all beliefs in the book, but I am very glad people chose to ignore certain words from their god.
I don’t disagree on a technical level that everything is a belief, but only when using a weak sense of the word. Even the claim that we are here on a planet in the middle of a really big universe is a belief (what if this entire thing is just a simulation?). If we’re going by that route then what are facts? How do you make the distinction between the atheists and religionists who are ignoring facts, and the rest who readily accept facts, while maintaining the position that everything is a belief?
What I’m most surprised by is how you’ve had so few atheists admit that they don’t yet know, or worse, claim that they know everything. Again I refer to the Four Horsemen:
As a parent, it's my responsibility to equip my child to do this - to grieve when grief is necessary and to realize that life is still profoundly beautiful and worth living despite the fact that we inevitably lose one another and that life ends, and we don't know what happens after death. - Sam Harris
It's not so much religion per se, it's false certainty that worries me, and religion just has more than its fair share of false certainty or dogmatism. I'm really concerned when I see people pretending to know things they clearly cannot know. - Sam Harris
I don’t know what happens after the physical brain dies. I don’t know what the relationship between consciousness and the physical world is. I don’t think anyone does know. Now I think there are many reasons to be doubtful of naïve conceptions about the soul, and about this idea that you could just migrate to a better place after death. But I simply don’t know about what... I don’t know what I believe about death. And I don’t think it’s necessary to know in order to live as sanely and ethically and happily as possible. I don’t think you get... You don't get anything worth getting by pretending to know things you don't know. – Sam Harris
But religion and the afterlife fantasy have these things in common. First, they’re man-made. That’s very important. They represent claims by humans to be able to interpret the divine and to give themselves power by doing so. We all admit we don’t know; that’s because we can’t know. – Christopher Hitchens
There's much that we don't know about the universe & its origin. But everything we know, we know through science. And we're still learning. – Richard Dawkins
In my experience they’re all too willing to say they don’t know. That uncertainty indirectly demonstrates a fascination with existence, the endless possibilities of the unknown, and how we are to go about in the pursuit of truth and knowledge in the short time we exist.
Well, I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I, too, am accused of being argumentative. But, if one is an atheist who seeks out a religionist simply to 'truth check' I can only ask why? Why would you care? What purpose does it serve? It's belief for goodness sake. How could any belief stand up to vehement scrutiny? It is speculation, at best. I get what you are saying because I hear some things people believe and I guffaw pretty hard on the inside. But,who am I to judge? We develop beliefs in order to cope with life and the prospect of death.
Now, I can see confronting someone with a belief that does cause harm to others or could potentially do so. But, if we are simply talking about someone who believes they are going to be a unicorn in the next life I don't see what harm there is in letting them believe that because they can't prove themselves to be right but you can't prove them to be wrong. To argue about it is pointless.
And that is one of the problems with being an atheist. If you make that statement, when viewing the Christian Bible, it makes no sense. Not from my perspective. I claim Christianity as my faith. I can tell you that by my understanding of the book it isn't a book of laws which have to be followed or beliefs which have to be held. The Old Testament is only a history book. A story of a people and a lesson in why God can't be active on earth. It doesn't work. The whole point of the New Testament is for you to find out who you think he was and his significance; and strive to embody that understanding and in so doing you negate the necessity of written law because your actions are the embodiment of the reason for the law. For harmony. Good people understand the intent of the law and they live by that understanding. Bad people search for ways to use it to justify their behavior patterns because they are too self absorbed to understand the intent.
It is the same with any law. We make laws so that we can live in peace and harmony and people quickly find ways to manipulate our laws to their advantage. Until a new law has to be made. And then another, and another. Pretty soon we are buried under a mountain of laws and our lives are worse for the trouble.
So, the point is that to imply I am supposed to follow your understanding of a book is silly. I'm supposed to follow mine.
We can all agree that a religionist who claims fact in line with their religion is ignoring facts. I think my problem with the term 'fact' outside of religion is that it gives a sense of finality to the subject. And there is no finality to any subject. It stops some from imagining 'what ifs' and it can inhibit discovery. It causes people to ignore some evidence which might be contrary to a firmly held belief that a fact has been obtained.
And you are right. Life very well could be a simulation. As a matter of fact, I believe it probably is a simulation, of sorts. Which does not diminish the mystery.
Your quotes from Hitchens and Harris are good ones. I agree with those sentiments. But, for all of the questions that religion falsely claims to answer it does open the window to discussion on a question we all ask. Well, most of us. And most of humanity has been asking the same question since they first started writing. So, in the absence of answers we speculate. Some prefer to be led and some like to lead. Religion just feeds those natural urges.
I see 'science' as doing the same thing in many ways. Not the individual in pursuit of answers but in the people willing to follow any particular finding as if it was truth. The way some will doggedly refuse to consider a new finding because it is perceived as a threat to their own. Since you quoted Hitchens and Harris, I suppose I'll throw in a quote of my own.
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein
"But, if one is an atheist who seeks out a religionist simply to 'truth check' I can only ask why?"
I was speaking more in the context of general arguments. I don't go around truth checking ridiculous beliefs unless they are causing harm. Most atheists I see do the same.
To go one step further would be to check ridiculous beliefs in the prospect that there is a superior position that could be beneficial. For example, I don't think it's particularly harmful to think that the sun is raised every day by the golden chariot of Helios, but in the context of scientific understanding it can be hindering. People who believe such nonsense are not going to be scientifically literate, let alone capable of contributing to scientific advancements. Challenging those archaic beliefs is only beneficial in the long term.
"It's belief for goodness sake. How could any belief stand up to vehement scrutiny?"
Again, to clarify, the scrutiny is directed at any general argument or claim. This argument doesn't have to be based on a belief, or even contested facts. It can be scrutiny directed at a logical fallacy, for example.
"Now, I can see confronting someone with a belief that does cause harm to others or could potentially do so."
That's pretty much the only reason I do it, that and proposing a more beneficial alternative. I find that most such beliefs are rarely as innocuous as believing that you'll become a unicorn in the afterlife. Even the general Christian who believes that not believing in Christ will send you to hell - there's a lot of potential for abuse there, especially to children who are taught these things at a young age.
"So, the point is that to imply I am supposed to follow your understanding of a book is silly. I'm supposed to follow mine."
That's not what I meant. I meant that there should be no room for interpretation if your book is the word of God. It's not that you're supposed to follow my understanding, it's that you're supposed to follow God's instructions. That's just my personal take on the matter, this isn't even necessarily shared by atheists.
"I think my problem with the term 'fact' outside of religion is that it gives a sense of finality to the subject."
Hmm, maybe when "fact" is used by laymen. Scientific facts are not final, even when they've been tested for centuries. Here's a definition I plucked from the NCSE:
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
"I see 'science' as doing the same thing in many ways. Not the individual in pursuit of answers but in the people willing to follow any particular finding as if it was truth."
Some people do do this, but that's not a knock on the scientific method, that's a knock on people being ideologues. Einstein's quote is a good warning to heed, especially when you look at the issues with the way modern research is conducted. A lot of flawed research comes out (especially in the softer sciences) and people who don't question it end up elevating it as truth.
I recommend vehement scrutiny of such research
Superior position? By whose estimation? I can see if we are speaking to a child. It is important to help them understand the difference between reality and fantasy. I can see if we are speaking to a person from the rain forest who has never encountered modern civilization. That might be helpful. But, if a full grown adult in Western civilization chooses to believe the sun is raised every day by a golden chariot I can assure you they have already been made aware of your 'superior position' and chosen to set it aside for what they have, for their own reasons, deemed a superior position. You can certainly believe you are offering something beneficial in the long term; but I think the more likely scenario is you are offering something to help you believe you are superior. They've made a choice. Unless you are expecting to spend a long time in therapy with them you couldn't possibly understand the reasons for that choice. You'd probably be doing more harm than good.
I would counter with why? How does it affect you? If it doesn't, you are really only looking for things to argue about. You have admitted that you can be seen as argumentative; yet that is about you. So, it is really a selfish endeavor.
Well, as I have said you are offering something you want them to see as a more beneficial alternative. It may not be so for them. So, as an atheist, you are doing exactly what the religionist does. Attempting to force your belief (a better alternative) onto them who think they've got a good one in the first place.
You know, I get tired of that one. There is potential for abuse in every thing we do in raising a child. But, there is also potential for good. Yes there are some backward Christians who do bad things but, I would counter with they would do bad things no matter what belief they chose to adopt.
No life is perfect. No parent does everything right. We've all survived our childhoods, grown up, wrestled some things into perspective and gone on with our lives. Some people want to be victims and they chose not to put their lives into perspective. Some people are like a dog with a bone with a grudge. I don't see the point of demonizing some Christian philosophies, or all of them, because of the poor judgment calls of a few people.
That's a pretty lame interpretation. Because you are saying we are supposed to be following your understanding of God's instructions. I know, I know. You'll say it is written in the book. But, your interpretation is that it shouldn't be studied and thought about. It shouldn't be something that your understanding deepens as time goes by. It isn't something that is attempting to make a point. It's just a book of law. Follow it or die. If that were the point they could have stopped at the Mosaic law. Why write anything else? It would just muddy the waters or, maybe, there is another reason? Man, I hope so. I'd hate to think we were all supposed to be walking around with our heads covered, killing goats and calves each week and heading out to some central location to be splattered with blood by a priest once a year, or so.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. But, we both know that the term fact is used when teaching our children and children don't necessarily understand the difference. Some atheists have the same problem.
I would say that you could substitute the word religion for the term scientific method in your statement and it would be equally true.
Did we all get off topic to.
What's the point about arguing with atheist or Religionists.
One good thing is it's more calm down to a discussion.
By any empirical estimation, the 'theory' of the golden chariot is infinitely inferior to Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's universal gravitation theory, and Einstein's theory of general relativity. The latter three actually make predictions about the nature of reality and the universe. The golden chariot theory makes no predictions because it is nonsensical. Has anyone even seen a golden chariot flying in the sky, let alone pulling the sun up on a daily basis?
The only possible advantage of the golden chariot theory is a sense of comfort it provides to the believer (which can also be true of the other theories). But considering theories to be as valid as any other because of comforted feelings is an untenable position.
You're telling me that all adults living in the West have already been exposed to every conceivable argument against their positions and will never change their minds?
My brother was a Bible literalist, he didn't believe in evolution (he erroneously thought it said that present day monkeys evolved into humans) and thought Noah's ark was a story that literally happened. I had many discussions with him about evolution, citing Darwin's discoveries, the Galapagos islands, DNA evidence, but he refused to accept it - until his teacher told him the exact same things I had told him. He changed his mind hearing the same thing but from a different person. Sure, he wasn't an adult, but that's not to say all adults' minds are set in stone. If you've listened to any of the famous atheists I mentioned, they get daily letters from people thanking them for changing their minds about religion.
Besides, challenging these notions is not just for the adults who harbor them. It's also for others who may be on the fence, or who may be maturing into their own being and developing their own viewpoints of the world. They can see the arguments and decide for themselves what they want to believe.
That's quite an accusation - I'd almost take offense if I cared about such a thing. Unless you're prepared to back up your statements I recommend we put aside the armchair psychology.
I'm not interested in understanding why they came to that choice (though I'd estimate 90% of the time is simply because they were raised with that belief by their parents, based on geographical distribution of beliefs). I'm just interested in challenging arguments.
By whose estimation?
Here's an example of the ecological fallacy getting someone unlawfully convicted, beginning the development of psychiatric problems and alcoholism, and later acute alcohol poisoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecuto … Clark_case
More generally, challenging fallacies helps people develop better arguments and helps you develop your own. It's good practice for all involved. Really, I don't see why you're taking such objection to this practice.
I think the above disproves that notion.
It is objectively a more beneficial alternative for scientific progress. It "may" not be so for the individual. I'll take a gambit between a more educated population and some potential cognitive dissonance any day of the week.
That's one hell of an equivocation, pardon my pun. How am I "forcing" beliefs onto anyone? Religionists have actually threatened people with damnation or even carry out violence. I haven't threatened anyone nor have I seen any atheists do so. I don't particularly care what you believe provided it's not harmful, but I'll still challenge backwards notions whenever I see them.
You said that challenging beliefs that cause harm is acceptable. That's still attempting to offer a more beneficial alternative. That's still making a judgement call on a superior position. Think about how you would estimate a position to be harmful. It's the same principle when finding beneficial positions.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying if there existed a divine guide to life and I believed it to be true, I'd follow the instructions to the letter. There would be no room for personal interpretation, it would not be my interpretation, it would be the interpretation of the divine. Divine text would not be open to manipulation or misinterpretation, in my view.
I never said that. You can study and think about it all you want. The point is there wouldn't be any question about it's divinity, if such a thing were to exist, in my opinion.
Yes, there could be another reason. For instance, it could be that the book isn't divine at all and is simply filled with superfluous, contradictory, and morally reprehensible content.
Why the snark? This is actually not that obvious to a lot of people.
But you weren't talking about just children - you were talking about fact being used outside of religion giving it a sense of finality. All I was offering was a point of contact because the discussion about everything being a belief yet people ignoring facts was becoming convoluted.
Sure, and so do many religionists. In the context of religion specifically it's far more likely for a religionist to ignore facts than the other way around.
Maybe if they had the same level of predictive ability.
I'm not going to delve into responding to the entirety of your post because I can see you do have a dogmatic stance on this topic. What I will say is that each side in the debate displays the same weakness in their stance. Each has already placed themselves in the position of judge and jury without bothering to know the thoughts of the individual they have chosen to condemn. There is good and bad in everything and everything includes every philosophy and belief. Focusing on what we perceive to be the negative only sets the stage for the negative to be seen in us.
Do you mind at least explaining how my position on challenging ideas is dogmatic?
You're right. They're wrong. You are there to save them.
One quick note:
"Each has already placed themselves in the position of judge and jury without bothering to know the thoughts of the individual they have chosen to condemn."
This is incorrect, again I defer to Sam Harris:
I just felt that, for certain truly evil people, those for whom rehabilitation is more or less unthinkable, an ultimate act of retribution made moral sense. But thinking more clearly about the roots of human behavior changed my view. No one has made himself. Our genes and our environment are completely outside of our control. People become whoever they become based on forces they are ultimately not responsible for. This has many consequences, but one is that you have to believe that even the worst person on earth is at some level a victim of circumstance - of bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, or some constellation of forces that made him the way he is. You have to admit that if you had his brain and body, and had passed through the precise circumstances of his life, you would be him. And you’re merely lucky that you’re not.
Atheists of his calibre are well aware of the potential circumstances of any individual, including thoughts. Instead of condemning people for being at the whim of circumstances, we recognize them as victims. That's not condemnation; that's empathy.
I'm going to have to disagree with Mr. Harris on that point. And you. No one is a victim. Our genes and our environment are outside of our control; to some extent but we choose how to view our environment. We chose to perceive ourselves in certain ways. We choose to act. We choose. Yes, we are victims of circumstance on many levels however when we chose to react in a certain manner because of those circumstances we choose to be victims. The 'there but by the grace of God' thought is how we show empathy, yes. But, when you attempt to empathize with someone who does not feel they are in need of it (something to the effect of 'oh gee, the poor religionist. They are just victims I may be able to save') all you are really doing is looking down your nose at them and, more than likely, causing them to feel the need to show you some empathy. Or roll their eyes at you. Depends on how you go about conjuring up your false sense of empathy.
I'm getting tired of these baseless attacks. The bottom line is challenging ideas/arguments will make the ideas/arguments stronger over time. These ideas are not limited to religionists. These ideas are not limited to people I feel empathy with or not. These ideas are often my own. Having a natural selection of ideas is the best way of improving ideas over time. Accusing me of flaunted superiority, false empathy, dogmatism and selfishness will not change that.
(I mean, you do realize that you've been challenging the idea that challenging ideas is a good thing, right?)
(I mean, you do realize that you've been challenging the idea that challenging ideas is a good thing, right?)
Circular reasoning and cogitative biases doesn't do anything for anyone except for a logical fallacy committed intentionally to manipulate.
Its twisted. Lots of noise. Catch-22. Just say .. Oh Wow!
You are none of the things you have been accused of by self-projection of the accuser. However, I would say you might be superior. You don't display a superiority complex, which is a defense mechanism to cover feelings of inferiority.
Did you know that Satan, means "accuser" (or "adversary") in Hebrew?
And, the funny thing is I was thinking of people with beliefs such as yours when I said we had no right to feel sorry for those beliefs, attempt to confront those beliefs and generally attempt to sway people from those beliefs. I think that, even those beliefs are ludicrous, people have a right to hold them. I don't know what drove them to such.
I stand corrected.
Then why did you challenge Alternative Prime on his belief that Christianity and all of its derivatives believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? Were you not confronting and attempting to sway him from his belief (while educating others who might have been uninformed on the matter)?
I'm with you on people's right to hold ludicrous beliefs. I'm just not understanding why you are against confronting beliefs altogether.
I'm not against confronting beliefs altogether. I apologize if I gave you that impression. I confronted Alternative Prime because he expressed a belief that was easily proved wrong, with a negligible amount of research which he should have done for himself prior to making a sweeping accusation. it wasn't a religious belief, in my opinion.
I don't mean to imply that confronting people for the how they act or interact upon their beliefs is wrong. I will confront the conclusions drawn because of religious belief as we all should if we deem it to be warranted, or the behavior patterns brought about by those conclusions. But the core belief isn't something I see necessary or wise to confront. The core belief in God, or lack of belief, is a personal choice that cannot be proved right or proved wrong. And, any belief which only affects the individual who believes it.
"I confronted Alternative Prime because he expressed a belief that was easily proved wrong, with a negligible amount of research which he should have done for himself prior to making a sweeping accusation. it wasn't a religious belief, in my opinion."
Then why did you take exception to challenging the golden chariot theory? It's easily proven wrong with a negligible amount of research.
With regards to your position, couldn't you assume that AP, a full grown adult in Western civilization, chose to believe his nonsense and you'd be probably doing more harm than good in challenging him? Doesn't his belief only affect himself?
"The core belief in God, or lack of belief, is a personal choice that cannot be proved right or proved wrong."
I agree, which is why throughout our discussion I never challenged the belief in gods, or an afterlife, or the existence of a human soul, or even the precise details about the origin of our universe. I challenged the belief in a young Earth, in the sun rising with a golden chariot, in evolution being a myth etc.
My polls on creationism vs man existed 200'000 years old ago was. -
10% were for Creationism, the other 30% are hiding in the dark being feed sh*t like a mushroom.
I have to wonder if anyone really knows the truth of how old earth is. I mean how could they? There are no records but lots of theory and speculation. Some even go so far as to say scientific facts prove a rock is 150,000 years old. What if: Science cannot be proven using scientific methods.
How much of what we have been taught to believe is science-fiction? How much of science-fiction is truly real? Not that it matters. I am hopeful that one day all things will be revealed to us...if so, that should be enlightening and rather fun-filled with laughter. Academia doesn't largely tech truth, it is hopelessly corrupt like our rulers.
I don't know. His statement implies a large percentage of people believe something which they don't. It is, in my opinion, an attempt to cast a negative shadow on others by using false information to do it. I don't think believing in a golden chariot is an attempt to degrade others. Although I will admit that I have never encountered anyone with that belief.
But, you are right. I doubt if I encountered such a person I wouldn't be curious to hear how they came to that conclusion and the subsequent exchange might be seen as challenging their belief. The point is, once one gets to the point of understanding that the believer has had the benefit of full access to all information; if they continue to believe in a higher cosmic order that we don't agree with the only reason to continue to debate the topic would be because we honestly hope to create an environment where they agree with us. I wouldn't continue to argue this point with Alternative Prime. If he ignores the information I can only assume this is what he wants to believe. For whatever reasons he has.
Then we were simply talking about two different things. Although I will say that I can imagine a scenario where young Earth could fit into the mix (even with all of the scientific information we have at hand) and this scenario could actually happen without a god in the mix. It's all a matter of perspective.
"It is, in my opinion, an attempt to cast a negative shadow on others by using false information to do it."
That's fair. In my opinion, the golden chariot theory has false information that needs correcting. We're both making a judgement call on the potential harm or benefit of beliefs and we're reacting accordingly. I wouldn't call this dogmatic.
"Although I will admit that I have never encountered anyone with that belief."
That was an odd example on my part. I tried to pick an extreme case to illustrate that one could opt to challenge any belief for a beneficial purpose, even if the benefit would be negligible. I probably wouldn't challenge people who honestly believe in the golden sun theory because it isn't likely to change anyone's mind, but in principle it could be challenged.
(Incidentally, this is why I didn't opt to challenge AP's belief. I figured he was unlikely to change his mind, and most readers would not be on the fence. Still, it was probably for the better that you challenged him.)
"The point is, once one gets to the point of understanding that the believer has had the benefit of full access to all information"
This is all I'm advocating for - attempting to reach that point of understanding. Adults in Western society may not have had access to all information and there is no reason to assume that they do.
"if they continue to believe in a higher cosmic order that we don't agree with the only reason to continue to debate the topic would be because we honestly hope to create an environment where they agree with us"
Most of the time I'm not trying to get the other person to agree with me, but I am trying to get others who may be on the fence to agree. If I feel the readers are unlikely to be on the fence or uninformed on the issue, and if I feel the other person wouldn't change their mind, then I wouldn't continue or even initiate the discussion. That's less about the principle and more about being smart with time and energy.
"Although I will say that I can imagine a scenario where young Earth could fit into the mix"
Sure. We've already imagined a scenario where all scientific facts would be null and void, in the form of life being simply a simulator.
"and this scenario could actually happen without a god in the mix"
Exactly. In fact, I'd say all of these scenarios could happen with or without the belief in gods, which is why I don't really care if the belief comes from religion or from personal deduction. If it's a bad idea I'll challenge it (in principle), whether it comes from religion or not.
So I am guessing no one believes that there are many kinds of truths? There is just the one? Their own, perhaps, lol.
America's greatest pass time, is lying. It's our job to sort out the high degrees of truth and low degrees of truth.
Then there are some people so full of bs with no reason yet to kill or to support killing children in Iraq. I'm just glad to be just miserable sometimes rather than being trapped in such a horrible mind and heart.
There is little point to arguing with any closed-mind extremists on both religion and politics.
No point. Even the religious people fight among themselves. No point in arguing. It is personal to the spirit.
Many hard religious kind get verry irate when you talk about diosaures and human world cutures and civilians dating back a 100,000 years.
My brother who is a pastor was so angry with me discussing these topic. He would not talk to me again for several years.
It will all be revealed and play out in the end just the way Yeshua said it was and it already is. Interesting prophecy transpiring in the world.
The atheist actually read your Bible and that is why they think your God does not exist.
About 1/2 Americans do not know what Bible is older, OT or NT. You'd think they would have enough clues if they actually read them. The OT was borrowed from the Jews. If Christian have no idea what their beginning is. How will they know where they are going. If it is the spirit world that nobody has come back from to tell the truth, let me sell you something better.
Most bio scientists and people in the world believe the earth is 4 billion years old. Meaning if you set earth age into a calendar year. Dinosaurs would been here for 3 months, man for 10 minute's, by Adam time 20 seconds. Jellyfish are immoral and water bears are the toughest on earth.(Chuck Norris eat your heart out) Human diversity eyes and brain is the only thing we got over 30 million other species.
After bio and human history facts.
We can go into human behavior facts. About 90% of the wars are predominantly religious countries. US has the most Christains and hypocrites in the world.
Plus American have the most Sodam & Gomorrah like behavoirs than anywhere or group on the planet.
If God must destory the earth, take Christains down first.
No need to be sorry about that, Castlepaloma. That's how the law of liberty works. The Holy Bible has caused wars and revolutions and much more because of mankind. For me, I get excited by it because so much has been mathematical proven, and I'm saddened at the same time as I see prophecies unfolding.
Mankind is intelligent enough to stop these wars and I have envision we will continue on earth for 1000s of more years. I't always been abuse from the greedy rich against the poor and the poor that always ends up cleaning the mess and changing things.
There are many who are hell bent on fullfilling self prophecy in the bible. In my clairvoyancy, it's foam of a sense in extreme logic. Even my proven prediction are at 100%, and still I fell these destiny can be changed up.
Ancient spiritually prophecy would be weaker today because mankind is much wiser advance than people living in the dark ages. Less people killed in wars per capita today than any other time in human history.
World War 3 is in the stage of Act 2, in the Bibles prophecy right now.
I believe we have a very long conspiratorial history, and that is what the Holy Bible view verifies.
Psalm 2: .. "Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?" .... (good place to start)
But, we have been subjected to a false accidental view of history through the media. It is shocking for us who have been brainwashed and uncomfortable to hear the truth and to awaken.
World War III was planned long ago. Iraq, Iran and Syria are setting the stage I believe. N. Korea will attack S. Korea, China will attack Taiwan. Then, WWIII. (people in the know like to leak information, maybe they get paid for it, or moral conviction wins)
I hear reports from missionaries that Acts 2 is happening in the Middle East in Muslim communities, and in refugee camps. Muslims are having visions and dreams about Jesus Christ and converting to Christianity. Sadly, they are being murdered by ISIS forces, as are peace loving Muslims. It is genocide, the Obama Administration admits is happening but will not stop.
Interesting that the PlayStation 2 (Ps2) has a post WWIII game, I have watched some videos. But, that's how serious this is to me when a war game is conspired politically. "Ending shows US Capitol/flags and saying if you're a great President."
America is ISIS or Al Qaeda or who ever they ghostly invented. Because their finger are all over the attacks on the Middle East for their One World Order. A lience to kill and steal granted by the Empire of the richman Cub The same club they beat up American every day with. Saudi Arabia is the U S friend, as they sent 15 Saudi into those 9/11 plane crashes, yet no Iraqi were on those planes.
Now Saudi"s training ISIS funded by Americans. American have so extremely brainwashed other Americans that they believe Muslims are ISIS. To the point they lost their conciseness, except rare ones. Nazi's ordered good German people to follow their orders. America's will follow their banker/Government because American and their childred are debtors slave for life, unless they lock up their owners, like they have done in Iceland.
American have conspired to killing mostly millions of poorest people, women and children in the Middle East.
It sicken me for many days.
What is it to own the world and lose your soul.
You are right, done your research or you have insider information. It sickness me to my very core. I spend way too much time weeping because of all the innocent blood that has been needlessly shed. Then, there are our military that have been killed or wounded, or come back from missions damaged in other ways...used and some spent.
"What is it to own the world and lose your soul."
The Luciferians / Illuminati must think they are going to make it out of this alive and their loved ones. They thirst for bloodshed, riches, property, power and all the wealth? But, all of God's promises are certain, I believe,...the riches of the wicked have been stored up for the righteous...and that promise of transference of the wealth is yet to be fulfilled.
To all of God's promises I say, Amen!
I was going to dump this Hubpages site. Because after 13 posts asking if anybody thinks these Iraqi children should be killed. Hubber ignore me like I' m crazy.I can not setup my artwork and name related to people who support the killing of children.
I have the longest running sand and snow sculpture company in the world. Only my father morally supported in the beginning until I got rich and famous. Today I build eco villages planning on the America crashing, then my higher purpose begin. I have this same gut feeling along with nightmares about US becomeing ground zero for civil and world war
I' ll try a few more threads and if 5% care for these in Iraqi babies lives. Then I will stay on as grass root group to help. If not, there are more decent folks else where who knows lies live short and truth long lives and happy.
I understand, there isn't much empathy in the forums for innocent children being slaughtered in Iraq. Or, it may be too difficult to express. The thing that matters is that you do have empathy for them.
I came across this site awhile ago, "The 13 countries where being an atheist is punishable by death". Not something I had thought about before to make the link between the hatred of Muslims toward Atheists. But, I wasn't surprised when I saw the list, because radicals in those countries kill infidels. I must look outward more.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style … 60561.html
That would be enjoyable work creating sand and snow sculptures. Dang!
I have created such things playing but not professionally.
Gays have it worst, it"s 79 countries being gay is a crime, death penalty in 10 countries. About 1 in 10 people are gay, what ever happen to live and let live. I do not do drugs, not an atheist not religious, or gay. All these groups will never go away. Why are people so intolerant and hateful, it adds more suffering to the world rather than happinesses.
Nobody should be killing anybody. The lives of the Iraq children are just important to God as the Israel children and the U.S. children. He loves them all. There should be no such thing as Jew haters or Christ haters. We should hate evil. Wickedness. Darkness and love the Light of God and love. Thou shall NOT KILL! Every life matters everywhere in every country. THE KILLING MUST STOP!
That is not a 'religious statement.' This is just spiritual truth.
by il Scettico3 years ago
A common religion debate is that religious people try to shove their beliefs down every ones' throats, which is unwanted, closed-minded, and hypocritical. Yet the most common closed-minded belief shoving type of...
by Brittany Williams2 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
by arthriticknee7 years ago
There is no Atheist text.This ensures Atheists can't manipulate the ambiguous writings from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago to justify their actions.As far as I am aware, no one has committed mass murder in there name of there...
by Ron Montgomery7 years ago
Possible? Interesting? Shortest thread ever?I was raised in a conservative Christian family, but no longer refer to myself as a Christian. I am agnostic, meaning I live in a world full of...
by cjhunsinger2 years ago
"Are atheists really so different from everyone else? Well, yes – but not in a bad way. Catherine Caldwell-Harris of Boston University has studied atheists and found that they share certain personality types,...
by Eric Graudins7 years ago
It's going to be hard for me to write objectively about this, but I'll try.I've recently seen a documentary about the child witches in Nigeria. I think it's just about the most terrifying and horrendous thing I've...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.