We are born, we live , and we die. Just like everything else.( There is no hotels for entities )Religious people or man kind invented gods, cause of the fact they cant come to terms with their own demise, and the meaning of it, which helps one to cope with the fear's of death.( and not to mention, death too them cant be the last stop) Well it can!

People who fear death will manifest a place in their minds and this helps them to better understand the end and the point of living as well. SO 2000 years ago in the thinking.! ( and lets not forget that this manifested from the primitive mind and not to mention the selfish aspects the religious people have.

Christians are gullible to the fact, too where one cant see anything else and this is a shame, IMO, The answer that we seek, are not on earth, and you need to be alive to find it.

The answer too everything is OUT THERE. and not in the borrow of a god!

Its no wonder mankind hasn't got anywhere, to busy living in fear from something that we have no proof exists.

Like I said before, god is not what you think it is.

Just a thought.

Evolution,

The capture of God(s) by a religious priesthood would go back about 6,000 B.P. Before that time, there were post-nomadic garden coummunities. When the first cities, like Ur, were established, the question of who owns God's land came into question. The answer, "God". Who administers the property on behalf of God? Reply, "The Priesthood". Herein, a transition from tribalism and animism to institutionalised religio-politics and power occurs.

Of couse, Shamen also held power in earlier systems, but said power was more associated with the spirits of totems, ancestors and healing.]

Our Limbic system envolved to assist us in our survival [Rhawn] and is marketed to us by the religions and their respective priesthoods. Hence, Churches, mosques and synagogues market to that need:
Relionigists "indwell" [Polanyi] [typically] uncritically in the priesthood'd performance, reinforcing cognitions, via the neocortex, to serve the limbic systems instinctive fear of death.

The after-life is a powerful construct; and, churches inventing gods and satisfying that need to survive, is very influential indeed.

Lastly, I posit "divine creation" [which I believe did not occur]; if it did occur; would have nothing to the fabrications and confabications of church councils and decrees. Institutionalised religion via Humankind's manistifestations, devoution and cunning, would be different to a divine creator, of which, neither history nor science provides any evidence.

This begs the question does religion help us survive? Is relatant to evolution?

Freediver,

When can post:

Please explain the existence of God?

Does religion help us to survive? Yes It did and now it doesnt. In past posts I have said this. Ever since man became a conscious being, he has looked to the skies for the answers. Evolution has played a big part in everything, including religion.

Evolution,

I am much in agreement with your most recent statement on religion, except I think it might take a few hundred years to wean religionists off their beliefs: And we might need this time for disestablishment and social adjustment, presumably towards secular humanism of some sort. I would like to be around in 2500 to see. Alas, my atoms will have other duties by then: My sentience, history.

Bugsy:

"where did you address the similarities between Poppers argument and your own? Most of that link looks like it's talking about Kuhn

Yes it is mostly about Kuhn, but there is a bit about Popper in the first post.

"Is Poppers argument is the same as yours? Or different?

It is similar, but different in important ways. I am more familiar with Kuhn, as his view is more widely supported and I have read far more of his work. As I understand it, Popper's view differs in that Kuhn focusses on the emergent properties of science as a community, whereas Popper focusses on the ground rules. Popper makes them too restrictive and placed unnecessary demands on the motives of scientists, rather than the methods. In the argument about whether evolution is a scientific theory, I focus on the 'ground rules' which recieve only light treatment from Kuhn, however I share his view that for the most part it is not necessary for scientists to consciously follow them. As people, they are free to move in and out of the scientific method at will. However, the scientific method is distinct and shows remarkable overlap with the products of what is readily defined as science by the lay person. There are two sources of value in the semantic part of my argument - this overlap, and the insight and power of the method itself.

"Just out of curiosity, who are these 'opponents' of yours you mention? Are they scientists, philosophers or anonymous internet bloggers?

A mixture.

Pericles:

"That is blindingly obvious.

OK I'll simplify for you - that alleged convention does not exist.

"Do you have any evidence of this? Apart from your saying it is true, of course.

There is plenty around. Pick up any journal. It is common knowledge.

"Regrettably, this is not true. Even more regrettably, you believe that it is.

I have outlined the basic argument above. Perhaps you should respond to that, rather than asserting I made no argument.

"but the reality is that they advance the argument not one jot or tittle

Says the guy who just admitted he cannot understand them. Plenty of other people have no problem understanding it. Perhaps the problem lies with you after all and not me. In any case, understand the argument first before declaring it lacks value.

"It seems to me that only argument in your locker is that evolution and creationism are equally valid philosophical propositions, because there is nothing "scientific" about either.

Not quite, but you are getting there.

"So long as you remain self-referential, your position is untouchable.

Perhaps you still haven't noticed my references to other peoples work? Do try to keep up. There is nothing wrong with self referencing, provided you give the necessary basis.

TRTL

"Despite the protestations of atheist, I don't think there's compelling evidence to rule out the existence of a deity, even noting the 'teacup' proposition put forward by Dawkins.

Dawkins tended to use logical fallacies. His arguments merely reflect his assumptions about God, not the liklihood of God's existence. For example

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1195014419