The English news paper “The Telegraph” published an interesting article on the controversial science of neurotheology and the results of research to find out the question: why do we believe? It uses magnetic electrical fields, applied directly to the brain evoking religious experiences. Have a look at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10914137/What-God-does-to-your-brain.html

I don’t intend to discuss that research here, although I hope you will have a look at it, but an interesting observation was made by a poster on the forum that followed the article. When comparing a computer with a brain he noted that a computer was programmed by human beings and then asked me the question “who programmed you?” He wanted me to admit that it was God. Here is my answer:

Thank you, thank you for asking a great question! " Who programmed me? Well when my brain was formed it was a blank slate, which slowly was programmed by the environment and the people who brought me up, naturally their beliefs and biases were passed on too me. Growing up, observing the environment and the situation I found myself in, I also noticed that there were conflicting opinions about religion and I had to make a judgment of the different positions or experiences.
This natural process explains precisely why there are so many religions since tribes were mainly isolated in the past and so many different theories about the nature of the universe evolved. The more we understand nature, the more we can judge the value of the different philosophies. That's why there is no ”one correct" religion because we were "programmed" by the environment we grew up in and the daily experience of living. If you were born in another part of the world you would be a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist etc. If there was ONE TRUE GOD who programmed the human brain (that's what you imply with the question) then there would be no different gods or religions.

Another poster, answering to the same person, wrote the following:

It appears logical to believe in all the over 400,000 named gods, goddesses, god-men and other supernatural entities that appear to exist only within human imagination and human authored books of fiction.., or to believe in none of those many, many imaginary gods.

To believe in one god without evidence, while dismissing the myriad others that similarly lack evidence - appears to be irrational and illogical.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you may come to understand why I dismiss yours."

On my page "In the beginning" I outlined how religion and Astrology could have started. The criticism from one of my readers, a devout Christian, was very enlightening so I want to share it with you.

Here are my critical thoughts concerning the article 'IN THE BEGINNING'. I've included abridged quotes for others to follow along.

“Geneticists studying the DNA of today’s world population have discovered that Homo sapiens went nearly extinct sometime between 195,000 and 123,000 years in the past.”

My initial though here is: Why the large time gap? That's 72,000 years. Furthermore, even 100,000 years allows for unimaginable amounts of population growth (which I'll expand upon further, below)

That is not a “gap” it is an UNCERTAINTY in the estimated time. It could be 195,000 OR 123,000 ago OR anything in between, say 150,000 years ago.

Also, why did they nearly go extinct? The Biblical account of Genesis states that a worldwide flood occurred; of which only a small family led by a man named Noah survived (along with the animals populated in the Ark).

There are many reasons for extinctions in the past. Impacts of meteorites, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, Climate change, Drought etc,  The  research, this conclusion was based on, was referenced too on my article, you can look that up on the internet.
The bible is an historical book and very incomplete and does not provide enough information so we use other kinds of historical records such as archeology and genetic research to find out what happened in the past.

“They lived on the coast and must have understood the rhythm of the tides...Some clever individual might have noticed the connection between the moon cycles and the tides and could predict when it was time to go back to the shore to gather the shellfish...The observation that the sun and the moon influenced what happened on earth and that that knowledge could be used to predict future happenings evolved into astrology.”

However, this goes beyond just measuring the patterns of star formations and tides, and into the realm of divination (horoscopes, zodiac, etc.). Why did this evolve into divination? Furthermore, such supernatural ability would require evidence -- convincing evidence; not just happening to be right every once in a full moon (no pun intended).

These people were not educated but they were not dumb.  The moon and sun were “gods” Some clever person put up some large stones and indicated with other stone how the shadows changed and after a while returned to the same spot (a Year) It took probably many years before the pattern was discovered but then a smart person eventually put two and two together and noticed the seasons, then predicted the next season by comparing it with past experiences .  If your food supply depended on going to the beach at low tide, then after many such occasions someone might have noticed that the position of the moon was connected with the tides and predicted when it was a good time to go for food by looking at the moon.

Who gave these human survivors such occult knowledge?

It is not OCCULT knowledge, it is practical observation over a long period of time. Trial and error!

"Obviously, because of their cognitive abilities, humans looked for such signs in their environment to predict the future. And eventually when they spread out through the world they learned to predict many events such as seasons, weather and even calamities such as floods and other disasters...The individuals who could predict some things would not always be correct but one could always blame an external force (gods) when things would not pan out..."

How were they able to predict floods and other sudden disasters? Again, this goes beyond measuring weather/star patterns and into the realm of divination. Furthermore also, those claiming to have such supernatural abilities would have to be right far more often than they were wrong in order to be credible. For instance, within a population's estimated 50 year lifespan, someone would have to possess a convincingly high success rate of predicting disasters in order to be believable. You couldn't just be right 10% of the time, and blame gods for the other 90%. No majority would ever buy that.

“look at these dark clouds. The last time we saw this it rained so badly we were flooded out of the valley. Lets not take a change this time and climb up to the caves higher up in the mountain”.

“See those smoke columns just over the horizon? Last time we saw that, fire and brimstone came falling out of the sky, better go to find shelter”

“See that lightstreak (comet) in the sky? Our Shaman told us during the last feast dance that he heard from his father’s father who heard it from his forefathers  that one of those streaks long ago hit the earth creating earthquakes and fires and nearly killed everybody.  The next time it happened we made offerings to that god (streak) and it went away. So next time we see that streak we better prepare for offering our best animals or perhaps our sons.”

To answer the rest of your comment no they would not have to be right far more often, to be credible. Many psychics today  are believed, even if they are more often wrong than right, people remember when the “predictions “ are right and they forget when they are wrong. This is a very common characteristic, you can look that up  in psychic research. Yes the majority actually buys that.

"During the ages before any written language was invented, the “knowledge” was passed on from generation to generation by song and dance and storytellers. Shaman would train their offspring or pupils...Because of the lack of permanent records this knowledge must have evolved in fits and starts and therefore progress must have been very slow. When finally written down in “recent” times these rules became the “laws” which governed food and behavior. Yes, the last 8000 years, are recent compared to the previous 100,000 to 200,000 years."

I'll address the subject of Shamans in the next paragraph of the article...

Back to the 100,000+ estimation made by the geneticists. As I mentioned, this allows for a major, unsustainable period of population growth.

For example: Say you have 8 human survivors (4 men, 4 women) after a near-extinction event. Say that they reproduce and double their population after every 25 years. Here's a conservative estimate of what such a worldwide human population would look like:

Basically, by the time you'd hit year 1,000, this potential human population would reach 8,796,093,022,208 people! Obviously, this doesn't factor in disease, war, choice on whether or not to reproduce, etc. However, it is utterly asinine to suggest that our human population has existed anywhere near 100,000 year

Better look at your “obviously”. Disease, starvation, wars , predators etc. indeed decimated poulations until recently. I don’t think that in those days they used birth-control! The death of women and babies was so great that to even just sustain the population humans had to reproduce at an enormous rate.  If your reasoning would hold for humans it would hold for any other animal as well and most of them are more proliferate than humans., this world would have been overrun by an “asinine” amount of rabbits by now. Since we have overcome many of the threats to human life in the last few ages we are indeed running the risk of overpopulation in the next century and it won’t be pretty.

I will use the word Shaman for the leader who used his knowledge and cunning to impress the rest of the tribe. They would see this person as having supernatural powers...

Why would they see this person as possessing supernatural powers? What sufficient evidence could such a person present/display towards a population focused on food, shelter, and survival? Because the leader simply told them? There would have to be more at play here than just speech craft and ceremony. Other factors would have to be involved in order for a population to be convinced of supernatural work at play (i.e. actual supernatural elements at work)

Since not everybody is as bright. Not so long ago clever Magicians were believed to have supernatural powers. People still listen to psychics who read cards, or pretend to talk to the dead, and believe them.  So a Shaman who looks at the moon and says, lets go to the beach the tide is low, and got that knowledge from his father and told him to keep it a secret, was thought to have divine powers, and yes, they would believe him. When he predicted a flood by the cloud cover, sometimes, it would happen and some “unbelievers” would drown. Next time, would you take a chance?  If the prediction does not happen (such as the many end of the world predictions we have had over the recent time period) you can always say “ I prayed or made an offering, that’s why it didn’t happen.”

I would love to get some comments from you after you read this. I'll be sure to acknowledge your contribution if you wish. The more, the better, we all learn from that.

 

 

Religious people keep telling us that humans are basically immoral and that we need God and the Bible  to give us morals. I have seen the statement many times that without God’s Morals  we would rape, murder and steal. Unbelievers are therefor bad people since they have no “morals’ to restrain them This “argument” is a fallacy of course since there are many “unbelievers” who do not need the fear of God or Hell to be “good”.

In a new book “Just babies: the Origin of Good and Evil” (Crown2013) by Yale university researcher Paul Bloom, provides experimental evidence of innate morals. One-year-old babies already have a sense of what is a good action and punish unfair or bad actions. It is an interesting read and it indicates that babies have an inborn sense of good and bad. Of course society’s culture and laws will influence this inborn morality in either direction but it indicates that we are born with basic morals which we can build upon and help us to cooperate with each other to the benefit of society, avoiding the religious morals which have led to, and is currently creating, intolerance and hatred to others with different religious morals.

CNSnews.com published a survey showing that 42% of Americans Believe God created Humans 10,000 years ago. That is frightening. It means that nearly half of the population will support politicians based on a myth.  “Share” the following, easily to verify proof, to educate these 42% so they can make better decisions when supporting or not supporting certain political factions.

For those people who believe that creation took place less than 10.000 years ago and the earth was created before light was (Genesis 1:1-3) answer this question: How come that we can see farther than that distance in lightyears? If the forgoing myth was true (because it's in the bible) we could not look farther than 10,000 lightyears because the light of stars, farther away than that, could not have reached us yet.  Not only that but the size of the universe could only be a sphere with a 20.000 lightyear diameter. We observed that the Milkyway galaxy alone is much larger than that. Remember that according to their Holy Book light was created before the sun (Genesis 1)
A Lightyear by the way, is about 6 trillion kilometers, the distance light travels in on year. We measure the speed of light and we can observe the size of the visible part of the universe. I would request that anyone here, taking part of this debate who insists that the earth is less than 10,000 year old, proves that the speed of light is wrongly measured and that every speck of light we see is maximum only 10,000 lightyears away. If you can't, shut up, no one except scientific illiterate people will believe you.
You can observe the speed of light, by telephoning someone overseas and by measuring the time it take to respond since all electronics move at the speed of light (fiber optical cables). Too small to measure you say? With the right instrumentation any one can measure that, you don't have to be an accomplished scientist to do that just borrow the right equipment.

That's science people! The 10,000 year old earth myth blown out of the water! Sorry Ken Ham!

Many Creationists will argue that it is impossible of life starting by chance. They say the probability is so small (billions and billions to one) that even if the time span of the earth was more than 10,000 years and the universe was  13.8 billion years old, there wasn’t time enough for it to happen and therefor it “proves” that we need a “designer” to do that. It shows that they have no understanding of probability laws or deliberately distort it.

I suggest they read the new book “ The Improbability Principle, why Coincidences, Miracles and Rare Events happen Every Day” by Statistician & Mathematician David J. Hand. This book has nothing to do with religion or evolution. It just explains what the “probability principle” is all about.

There are many examples of nearly impossible odds that have happened mentioned in that book., such as the one about Major Walter Summerford was struck by lighting three times and whose gravestone was hit 4 years after his death. What must be remembered is that although a probability is very low, say 1 in a trillion, trillion trillion it could happen tomorrow. With even with very high odds, it does not mean that it always needs a very long time to happen or even that the interval between 2 similar happenings takes a long time. If an event has odds of 100 to 1 it does not mean that it happens one time in every hundred events. It can happen any time and even two or more times in a row. Over a long period of time it would average out to 100:1. You can test this with a coin. The odds are 2:1. Tossing the coin does not result in one head followed by a tail all the time, You can have multiple tails or heads in a row. You cannot predict the order in which the coins may fall or how long an interval will be until  a series of heads change in a tail.

Imagine a lottery in which 100 people take part for $1.00 a day and a draw for $100.00 is held every day. After 100 days not every one has won. Therefor there must be multiple winners and no winners. Repeat this over a long time and there will be people who win frequently and some who never win.

The book is full of examples of staggering odds, such as a state lottery drawing the same numbers twice in a row. If you want to argue using the probability principle, you must read it first.

Now let us get back to the claim of  “impossible” odds. You cannot confuse “impossible” with “improbable” they are distinctly different. The “improbability” of you winning the lottery in a lifetime is correct, but it could happen tomorrow. I bet you that some creationists who confuse “impossible” with “improbable” buy lottery tickets, because no matter how BIG the odds are, it could happen ANYTIME.

Mac wrote in Charisma News Forum:
"There are 2 kinds of God's will - Direct and permissive. It is His permissive will that ALLOWS us to chose to enter into sin because He gives us free will which is REAL love, however it is NOT His will that we sin. There is a distinct difference."

Let me put this in more understandable terms.
A father is direct and permissive, he allows his children their free will to do bad things and that is REAL love. He doesn't want them to be bad but doesn't stop them because he really loves them.
If they do bad things,however the loving father will punish his children severely (for ever).

Now of course, if the child confesses and says he/she is sorry, they are forgiven no matter what the bad thing is (even murder) and the child that didn't do anything really bad, but is inherently judged to be bad because an distance forefather did something wrong and does not want to accept being guilty and does not ask for forgiveness is automatically and severely punished.
That is the definition of REAL love.

So presumably, a Nazi Death Camp guard, responsible for killing thousands, including women and children, an who asks for foregivenes and is "reborn" will enter heaven, but a peaceful Buddhist monk, who lived an examplanary peaceful life, serving his fellow men, is damned for eternity.