First Cause

Post Reply New Topic

The god gene isn't there. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough in what I said. It was one unpublished and unreplicated study that thought they had found it, and has since been debunked.

Who says a "normal" person believes in God? That's a pretty subjective and judgmental thing to claim.
Also, it's not a case of someone "trying to disbelieve." Far from it. Another claim that biases the argument.

Evidence please.

And further, like I stated previously, lets say for sake of argument an un-caused first cause is required. Why does it need to be sentient?

History proves it. Humans (in general) never doubted God.

Several informed scientists have presented strong evidence that humans are pre programmed to believe in God.

God was not imposed on us by our ancestors. As humans we just believe in God without ever seeing him. Belief in God is part of our human nature.

The minute you doubt God, you are deviating from what is standard.

The atheist (atypical) is no different to the homosexual (atypical) in that sense.

Because a non-sentient God would not be able to create a sentient human being.

History has not proven that atheists are not "normal." People who do not believe in a god are generally just as "normal" as other people. To suggest otherwise is like the brown dog analogy - If all dogs are brown, and that animal is brown then it must be a dog.

But one thing history has proven is that beliefs evolve over time.


And no wonder too... for thousands of years there was no other way to understand the world except through the supernatural.
Knowledge has not only replaced supernatural explanations it has contradicted them.


That has largely been debunked. Link


Largely untrue. Where you are born heavily influences your belief - asia, arabic countries, europe, southern US - all largely homogenous with the great majority taking on the religion of their region, and most of them passionately. If you were born in KSA, you would almost certainly be a Muslim. If you were born in England, you'd have about a 30% chance of being an atheist.


That is unproven. Most of science does not agree with you. And the few that proposed that idea also argued that we evolved that way for social cohesion and survival. Chicken and egg.


In statistical terms yes. Atheism is a the minority belief. So is vegetarianism. But atheism is growing, especially in the educated west, which is evidence that knowledge overcomes superstition, even if slowly.


Statistically there are more homosexuals than atheists. But there is also one other important difference. Atheism is not about biology or life choice, but about reason and an intellectual position on belief. So equating the two does a disservice to both.

The big problem in coming to a discussion with a belief is that you mold the evidence to fit your belief, as all of the above has shown. I consider myself a functional atheist, which means that while I allow room for some sort of deity, I don't find our concepts of such a deity to be anything more than anthropomorphisms. But on top of that, I allow that I could be wrong, which is not a concession I gave when I was a Christian.

Allowing yourself to be wrong means you don't try to push square pegs into round holes to satisfy the investment. And a believer is very invested. I was. And 35+ years worth of investment is not easy to let go of.

There is no "God" gene. We are not programmed to believe in God. Objectivity has no place in religion. Religion is subjective experience with a sometimes strong communal element.

It takes a tremendous amount of arrogance to think humans are capable of truly understanding the universe with our limited minds and senses. We're not equipped with the hardware to process it. Attempting to apply our simplistic languages and concepts to something of this magnitude is a joke.

^ Indeed, there will be things that we will never discover, simple fact is the universe is far too large for this. HOwever that A. Does not mean God exists and B. Even if God does exist it is even more arrogant to think you know its nature.

Sophisticated, I assume by your post that you do not understand evolutionary biology, nor do you have a grasp on the simplest of particle physics. If so and you are basing your beliefs from knowledge formed at a time when we thought climatic and geological events were an expression of Gods wrath or benevolence, adam was created from dust, and the universe is 6000 or so years old, it is pointless trying to have a rational discussion with you. This understanding of the universe and our place in it belongs in a museum of comedic beliefs.

The homosexual claims to be normal too.



Belief in God has nothing to do with environment though. It is something ingrained within you.



They shouldn't be linking it with evolution without evidence. That's the mistake they made.



With the level of propaganda it doesn't surprise me that atheism is growing.

Yet, most atheists don't even rule out God. There are some (extreme minority) who claim God does not exist, but most are just irreligious.

The consensus is indisputable: 97% of theists believe that God is real (the remaining 3% are only hallucinating).

Most of them probably are. But that's a different question, and begs the question, what is normal?


And your evidence for this is.......?


Evolution isn't the weak link here. The mistake they made was claiming a god gene without proper evidence.


What... like spreading the gospel?

Oh my! Great link... thanks!

Ants are "wired" to stack grains of dirt, which results in them building elaborate nests. You cant stop them from doing it.

If humans were indeed "wired" to believe in God (the way ants and bees are wired to build hives, or ant hills) then you wouldnt be able to stop humans from believing regardless of logic and evidence to the contrary. So the existence of an instinct to believe in God would be evidence AGAINST the reality of God. Not for it.

If you were believer you would only be believing something that instinct dictates- and you would be immune to contrary evidence-which would imply that ANY notion of a deity is instinctive denial of evidence- which would make any notion that any of us have about a god existing suspect .

Humans are "wired" to NOT be able to see ultraviolet light. But that doesnt mean ultraviolet light doesnt exist.
If we as a species were wired TO see something that isnt there- it would not cause the hallucination to be real.

God may or may not exist. And this alledged inborn human instinct to believe in God, also may, or may not exist. But those are two seperate questions. Dont see the point of dragging one question in to argue about the other.

See this is what i mean. Now you're asking "what is normal". You're a "what if" guy. You just like to ask questions for the sake of it. You're never ever satisfied are you. With your approach you can never ever be sure anything.

So rather than search for knowledge and gradually get closer to the actual nature of things, you believe we should stop asking why and what if and instead say PRAISE BE TO GOD. If this is your answer get off the computer, get out of your house, stop taking any form of transportation other than your own legs, forget how to make a fire and tools, live like a scavenger eating carrion and do not bother asking "what if I were to put these left over fur skins on my body". Oh and I forgot to mention never, ever visit a hospital, Dr, or pharmacy again.

People like you are nothing but parasites on science. You denigrate it, lie about it, belittle those who respect it. Yet use its discoveries all the same

Pathetic.

There are many things I am sure of, but the freedom to be uncertain is a good thing. You should try it sometime.

As for the "What is normal?" question, it helps to ask because definitions can be driven by agenda and bias. For example, people with a religious bias often define homosexuality with negatives - words like unnatural and abnormal. My definition no longer includes those ideas.

I could assume your position on homosexuality includes words of judgement. But I prefer to ask rather than assume. That's courtesy, not "what if."

But even if it was "what if," so what? It's a good thing to ask.