By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why don't you believe in a god?

As far as I'm concerned, the idea of God is no different than Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.  Just dribble told by the ignorant that can't use logic.

-puts up Flame Shield-



Pixel Art can be fun.

Around the Network
Armads said:

(code fractured) " There's also the fact that people of all religions experience them. And what are "spiritual" experiences anyways? Aren't they just some form of high, like when you take drugs?"

They indeed are, you should research DMT, I did a school report on it last summer as a final.  DMT is DiMethylTryptamine and it may very well be the most important chemical that we have studied in relation to human consciousness.  DMT can be made in the brain quite easily, but our brain has defenses that keep that from happening.  You see we have a gland in our brains called the Pineal gland (so called because it resembles a pine cone, it is the only part of the brain that is singular and does not have a part for each half of the brain) which produces melatonin.  Melatonin is released when there is a perceived absence of light and causes somnolence, drop in body temperature, and at extreme doses mild hallucination (hallucination from sleep deprivation is more caused by exhaustion than by the continued release of this chemical.)

 

To form DMT all you need is two melatonin molecules to bind together (melatonin being acetyl5-methoxytryptamine) and the conditions for this bonding is superb within the human brain.  But like I said our brain has defenses against the accidental production of DMT.  Now I wish I was at home (I'm at work) so I could pull out a couple of sources I have (DMT:the spirit molecule is an excellent read and I reccommend it to everyone who has attended the discussion in this thread) but I'm not so I can't delve into the specifics about the defenses. 

However I can describe the effects of DMT.  It is a powerful psychedelic drug (yes a powerful psychedelic drug can be easily made within your own brain, shocking I know), in fact it can be easily considered the most powerful of all psychedelics.  DMT in America is commonly smoked or eaten, but when eaten it must be consumed with an MAOI (monoamine oxidase inihibitor) or else these enzymes will break it down before it reaches the brain (I believe they're the same enzymes that are used as a defense in the brain but not totally sure.)  Outside of the US/EU shamans having been using it ritualistically for millenia in the form of Ayahuasca and Yage (these are drinks that contain both an MAOI and DMT, some cultures also include psilocybin mushrooms.)  The effects of smoking or injecting (which I've only heard of being done in test subjects) are a rapid onset occurring within 30 seconds a peak at 5 minutes and a return to normal after 30.  The experience is highly spiritual (thus it's classification as an entheogen) usually involves the vision of a diety or perfect being, oftentimes visions of creatures from distant worlds who will even engage in conversations.  Time becomes altered and subjects often report feeling as if they had spent an hour or even a couple where they were when in reality it lasted not more than 5-10 minutes and everyone who has done it has reported feeling a freedom from fear of death (even if that fear was not prevalent before hand.)

 

It's quite clear to me that these religious experiences are the product of accident DMT production within the human brain, DMT relieves anxiety (the definition of an anxiety attack is an overwhelming sense of impending doom) and stress, we know now that DMT releases when we sleep.  Thus sleep, and DMT release, is necessary for a healthy human psyche.  Large doses of DMT causes memory to stop being recorded during it's effects, this is why we don't remember our trip to the stars we take every night, just the lingering after effect of a dream.  So from the observed data we can understand why we have DMT, why it is important enough to our species for evolution to have kept it within our genetic structure, and now we not only have a plausible solution to the question of 'why is there religion?' we have the answer to 'where do religious experiences come from?'

 

I also did another report on the correlation of DMT release and glossolalia (which through some effort I was able to induce in myself.)

That was a relly interesting read. If you get a chance I'd love to look at what references you used.



Slimebeast said:
Rath said:

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for.

But why hasn't that worm's eyes evolved further since the Cambrian age? Doesn't he want to see better?

Statis (no evolving eyes) including living fossils is also evidence of evolution. everything is evidence of evolution which is a fundamental problem. ToE tries to explain both "A" and "Not-A" at the same time.   With such a big target you can't miss. In reality the fossil record does not support ToE so the evidence has to be forced to fit the theory. 



Smidlee said:
Slimebeast said:
Rath said:

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for.

But why hasn't that worm's eyes evolved further since the Cambrian age? Doesn't he want to see better?

Statis (no evolving eyes) including living fossils is also evidence of evolution. everything is evidence of evolution which is a fundamental problem. ToE tries to explain both "A" and "Not-A" at the same time.   With such a big target you can't miss. In reality the fossil record does not support ToE so the evidence has to be forced to fit the theory. 


You mean stasis?

Also the reason the worm hasn't evolved further is due to a lack of environmental pressure. Worms that have better eyes do not have a higher chance of survival than worms without them so therefore the eyes do not change.

Also I'm done with this topic, you're claiming all the evidence has been shoehorned to fit everything, you clearly have no respect for science so theres no real point arguing it with you.



I like how well some people can argue in this thread.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
Rath said:
Smidlee said:
Slimebeast said:
Rath said:

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for.

But why hasn't that worm's eyes evolved further since the Cambrian age? Doesn't he want to see better?

Statis (no evolving eyes) including living fossils is also evidence of evolution. everything is evidence of evolution which is a fundamental problem. ToE tries to explain both "A" and "Not-A" at the same time.   With such a big target you can't miss. In reality the fossil record does not support ToE so the evidence has to be forced to fit the theory. 

 

Also the reason the worm hasn't evolved further is due to a lack of environmental pressure. Worms that have better eyes do not have a higher chance of survival than worms without them so therefore the eyes do not change.

How do you know that?



FootballFan said:

As a scientist I have to look towards evidence. From a religious viewpoint that evidence is lacking and offers few explanations. I guess it is comforting to believe that god will protect you from evil and the world is in his safe hands and everything. In addition heaven is a nice thing to tell your children when your best friend has just being murdered by a axe weilding maniac. Can people answer the following questions?

Why does an all loving god create hell for the poorest people?

Why does an all powerful god punish people in the forms of natural disasters?

Why does an all knowing god not prevent illness and disease from striking the innocent?

If every creation needs a creator then what created god?

Why is it there a correlation between believing in god and being educated?

 

There can be no good without suffering, or some such thing. Besides, the God in the Bible is hardly "all-loving".

That said, I am also an atheist. If we'd just said "It was god!" to every single question which arose from humanity's curiosity, science wouldn't exist. Does God make the apple fall from the tree, or gravity? Does God create stars, or are they formed from the debris of supernovae? 90% of the questions we still have will probably be able to be explained by science in the future, and the other 10% have no answer at all.

It's only the question of "why" that really requires God to formulate an answer, but that is one of the 10%.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Slimebeast said:
Rath said:
Smidlee said:
Slimebeast said:
Rath said:

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for.

But why hasn't that worm's eyes evolved further since the Cambrian age? Doesn't he want to see better?

Statis (no evolving eyes) including living fossils is also evidence of evolution. everything is evidence of evolution which is a fundamental problem. ToE tries to explain both "A" and "Not-A" at the same time.   With such a big target you can't miss. In reality the fossil record does not support ToE so the evidence has to be forced to fit the theory. 

 

Also the reason the worm hasn't evolved further is due to a lack of environmental pressure. Worms that have better eyes do not have a higher chance of survival than worms without them so therefore the eyes do not change.

How do you know that?

Because that's how evolution works? If you're asking me if I have definitive proof of that statement, no. But that's what would be expected under the theory of evolution.

Edit: I can see that my statement was a little too strong. I was trying to say that the worm not evolving is something that could be expected under the theory of evolution and that it doesn't somehow contradict it. If there is no environmental pressure the evolution is expected to be very slow.



Rath said:
Smidlee said:
Slimebeast said:
Rath said:

 

Planarian, cup shaped eyes (step 2)

I'm fairly sure all of those creatures are 'living fossils' which haven't changed much since the Cambrian period actually, in any case they provide the small steps you were asking for.

But why hasn't that worm's eyes evolved further since the Cambrian age? Doesn't he want to see better?

Statis (no evolving eyes) including living fossils is also evidence of evolution. everything is evidence of evolution which is a fundamental problem. ToE tries to explain both "A" and "Not-A" at the same time.   With such a big target you can't miss. In reality the fossil record does not support ToE so the evidence has to be forced to fit the theory. 


You mean stasis?

Also the reason the worm hasn't evolved further is due to a lack of environmental pressure. Worms that have better eyes do not have a higher chance of survival than worms without them so therefore the eyes do not change.

Also I'm done with this topic, you're claiming all the evidence has been shoehorned to fit everything, you clearly have no respect for science so theres no real point arguing it with you.

I came to the same conclusion. I'm not sure if he reads scientific articles and just doesn't understand them fully or if he genuinely understands the material but disregards it until he finds random out of context quotes to fit in with his own viewpoint or both.



SmokedHostage said:

As far as I'm concerned, the idea of God is no different than Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.  Just dribble told by the ignorant that can't use logic.

-puts up Flame Shield-


That was very offensive and unnecessary. An ignorant statement to make.



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies