The brain hardwired to believe in God.

[ding]

Back on topic....Breezeqood, Emily...your faith was decided 100s of 1000s of years ago by genetics...

Do you even understand how natural selection works?

I'm guessing you don't have a clue.

You aren't that bright.

I do, and thanks for asking!


Tantrums aside... likely, most everything we do is hard-wired, and one could even say everything we do is a result of our hardware, as even learning new ideas is part of our hardware.

Bigotry, for instance, has its uses. That big animal with fangs? yeah, pretty good bet it wants to eat you (even though some of them don't).

Not even close. You are ignorant on it. Try again. Or do you want to be schooled instead?

Ding, stop jerking yourself off and just make your point. I ALWAYS have to tell you that, by the way.

My point is that you don't know shit.

 

[ding]

C'mon big talker, tell me how natural selection works.

 

[dblack]

I was just browsing recently and came across this interesting article I had never seen;

Why we are born to believe in God: It's wired into the brain, says psychologist | Daily Mail Online

I found it quite stimulating , it caused some thoughts. Did I believe in God, before I started believing in him? Was the perception of him just already there? The author made some interesting suggestions that seemed to match my personal experience in my life. I was aware of the other ways of influence of actually how one can " Learn about God", from parents, educational venues, peers and just naturally growing on in your life experiences with learning. But actually being born with belief patterns already there, I had not given much thought to it before.

The thought does cross a few biblical concepts, such as " Predestination" , and our destiny is a subject the bible certainly mentions. Its like " Presuppose", or to believe or suppose " In Advance." Interesting, almost like presuming before any evidence is involved. Its always better to go after evidence first, but between the ages of lets say 5 to 10 years old, who actually does that? I mean were just children, we don't know how to collect evidence just that well yet; and the evidence is not so clear on the topic to all any way.

We can then say the first humans who perceived there may be a God, that perception may have just already been " In them." And it just started coming out.

Being " Born that way", covers more than belief in God , there are many things we can accept that we were most likely born with. Its been proven some are born gay , or some with more emotional content in one area of their make up than another. Some seem born with much more talent in areas, or just something seems to have already been there.

I tell you, learning is just interesting.

We're also hard-wired to shit ourselves under extreme duress.

 

[ding]

I ALWAYS have to tell you that, by the way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We're also hard-wired to shit ourselves under extreme duress.

Ha! True!

 

[ding]

^ doesn't understand how natural selection works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only proof one needs that we are hardwired to accept religious belief is in the fact that is has been prevalent throughout human history. This does not mean that a human, raised in isolation, would necessarily produce polytheism, or monotheism. Rather, it means we clearly are hardwired to readily accept dictated truths that we believe help us make sense of the world and ourselves. Such a trait would come in very handy, as a child. The children who questioned and defied their parents orders not to wander out of the cave at night probably had fewer offspring!

 

[ding]

The reality is that belief in a higher power than man and the behaviors taught by religion provide a functional advantage and can be proven scientifically.

So from a natural selection standpoint belief in a higher power is superior to the intellectually dead practice of atheism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So from a natural selection standpoint belief in a higher power is superior

One can easily argue this, yes. It would definitely be important on many levels. Self-delusion is useful, codes are useful, unifying principles are useful.

However, we no longer get operated on by the same selective forces as the early proto-humans and early humans. We are no longer bound by the same old, constructive rules fitness of ourselves or our mates or our small tribe. So the usefulness of such nonsense has diminished greatly.

One may argue that it is a benefit to human psychology overall. I don't doubt that either, over the whole. But that doesn't make it anything greater than delusion. It just makes it useful delusion.

 

[ding]

So from a natural selection standpoint belief in a higher power is superior

One can easily argue this, yes. It would definitely be important on many levels. Self-delusion is useful, codes are useful, unifying principles are useful.

However, we no longer get operated on by the same selective forces as the early proto-humans and early humans. We are no longer bound by fitness of ourselves or our mates or our small tribe. So the usefulness of such nonsense has dominished greatly.

One may argue that it is a benefit to human psychology overall. I don't doubt that either, over the whole. But that doesn't make it anything greater than delusion. It just makes it useful delusion.

Actually you can't argue it, easily or otherwise because the science doesn't support it.

Please stop ass raping science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually you can't argue it, easily or otherwise because the science doesn't support it.

Of course I can argue it. I dont need evidence to form an argument. You can use evidence to support your premises, if you like.

You made a claim... I said it could be argued as true...now you are throwing a fit, telling me that your own claim cannot be argued.

Damn you are weird.

 

[ding]

Actually you can't argue it, easily or otherwise because the science doesn't support it.

Of course I can argue it. I dont need evidence to form an argument. You can use evidence to support your premises, if you like.

You made a claim... I said it could be argued as true...now you are throwing a fit, telling me that your own claim cannot be argued.

Damn you are weird.

Show me your science, Einstein.

 

[ding]

And then I will show you mine.

But we both know you don't have any. All you have are talking points from a militant atheist website.

Sad.

 

[ding]

It seems to me that Fort Fun believes that human behavior does not follow Darwinian principles.

That human behavior defies Darwinian principles.

That's fucking hilarious.

There is a reason why the vast majority of people throughout the history of mankind have believed in God. It provides a functional advantage. To believe otherwise is to deny science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show me your science, Einstein.

"My science " ..that it could be argued that natural selection favored acceptance of religion? Simple... religion is prevalent in our species.

Whew, that was easy. want to see me do the same thing with Facial hair? How about...empathy? It's just as easy.

 

[ding]

Show me your science, Einstein.

"My science " ..that it could be argued that natural selection favored acceptance of religion? Simple... religion is prevalent in our species.

Whew, that was easy. want to see me do the same thing with Facial hair? How about...empathy? It's just as easy.

That's your science?

Can you provide a link to that, Einstein?

Why did natural selection favor religion, Einstein?

Could it be that it provided a functional advantage over atheism?

 

[ding]

However, we no longer get operated on by the same selective forces as the early proto-humans and early humans. We are no longer bound by the same old, constructive rules fitness of ourselves or our mates or our small tribe. So the usefulness of such nonsense has diminished greatly.

That's not what the science says, Einstein.

 

[ding]

The same functional advantages that existed 6000 years ago, still exist today.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you provide a link to that

Of course I can... but i think providing links to current and historical prevalence of religion would an academic exercise. Beieve it or don't, up to you.

Why did natural selection favor religion

Of course, the correct answer is, "we do not know". But, there are several proposals as to why. Clearly, some sort of selective force favored acceptance of religious belief.

Could it be that it provided a functional advantage over atheism?

Yes, of course, I already covered that. Pay attention, you annoying twit!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The same functional advantages that existed 6000 years ago, still exist today.

False, as we are not subjected to the same selective forces we were as primitive people. Secular ideas like scientific enlightenment, reason-based morality, and secular government have slowly replaced many of the functions of religion.

Of course, delusion will ALWAYS be in vogue, so I don't see any of this magical bullshit disappearing for good anytime soon.