Why God?

[Niya]

I thought it was a good article for a general overview.
But really, I assumed most people here know the content already. One look at tribalism and its pretty easy to see why a monkey or a jaguar or a sun and many other god/gods are worshipped.

The article in my view only shows how a religion may have evolved (and certainly it has). But it fails to mention that not all religions are that old and not all have roots in tribalism. Consequently, I don't see that it proves there is no God based on its opening statement, only that religion may have/may be could evolve like this. Over generalization in my opinion.

Recent God(s) are simple adaptations of the original God meme. Mormonism/Scientology being prime examples of meme evolution. I would disagree about the tribalism as well. Social behaviour, a given in all but the most autistic humans, is the basis of tribalism. Atheism is becoming noticeably tribal and if you want other examples how about 'Mums Net' or in the UK 'Fathers for justice' or the fan following of any celebrity, sports person or team. Tribalism is a core psychological pillar of being human.

I was using the word tribalism, as in ancient actual tribes. I see, you are using term in a more broad sense.

And yes it is a generalised opinion, that's what it was meant to be. It's not an academic article.

Hmm, I don't know how to respond. If its general then it overlooks a technicality. That is what I meant to say. I liked some of the points as they were insightful but the opening statement was something that caught me. All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

One interesting question is, when did this God meme, started everywhere humans were. For example, the indians worshiped, the aztecs worshipped Gods. Yet they were separated from the rest of the world.

Perhaps the concept of God is as old as humanity itself but then this is mere speculation. I however understand why to a non-believer this might make sense.

[Tank]

I thought it was a good article for a general overview.
But really, I assumed most people here know the content already. One look at tribalism and its pretty easy to see why a monkey or a jaguar or a sun and many other god/gods are worshipped.

The article in my view only shows how a religion may have evolved (and certainly it has). But it fails to mention that not all religions are that old and not all have roots in tribalism. Consequently, I don't see that it proves there is no God based on its opening statement, only that religion may have/may be could evolve like this. Over generalization in my opinion.

Recent God(s) are simple adaptations of the original God meme. Mormonism/Scientology being prime examples of meme evolution. I would disagree about the tribalism as well. Social behaviour, a given in all but the most autistic humans, is the basis of tribalism. Atheism is becoming noticeably tribal and if you want other examples how about 'Mums Net' or in the UK 'Fathers for justice' or the fan following of any celebrity, sports person or team. Tribalism is a core psychological pillar of being human.

I was using the word tribalism, as in ancient actual tribes. I see, you are using term in a more broad sense.

And yes it is a generalised opinion, that's what it was meant to be. It's not an academic article.

Hmm, I don't know how to respond. If its general then it overlooks a technicality. That is what I meant to say. I liked some of the points as they were insightful but the opening statement was something that caught me. All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

One interesting question is, when did this God meme, started everywhere humans were. For example, the indians worshiped, the aztecs worshipped Gods. Yet they were separated from the rest of the world.

Perhaps the concept of God is as old as humanity itself but then this is mere speculation. I however understand why to a non-believer this might make sense.

I'll let you ponder on this.

[Niya]

I thought it was a good article for a general overview.
But really, I assumed most people here know the content already. One look at tribalism and its pretty easy to see why a monkey or a jaguar or a sun and many other god/gods are worshipped.

The article in my view only shows how a religion may have evolved (and certainly it has). But it fails to mention that not all religions are that old and not all have roots in tribalism. Consequently, I don't see that it proves there is no God based on its opening statement, only that religion may have/may be could evolve like this. Over generalization in my opinion.

Recent God(s) are simple adaptations of the original God meme. Mormonism/Scientology being prime examples of meme evolution. I would disagree about the tribalism as well. Social behaviour, a given in all but the most autistic humans, is the basis of tribalism. Atheism is becoming noticeably tribal and if you want other examples how about 'Mums Net' or in the UK 'Fathers for justice' or the fan following of any celebrity, sports person or team. Tribalism is a core psychological pillar of being human.

I was using the word tribalism, as in ancient actual tribes. I see, you are using term in a more broad sense.

And yes it is a generalised opinion, that's what it was meant to be. It's not an academic article.

Hmm, I don't know how to respond. If its general then it overlooks a technicality. That is what I meant to say. I liked some of the points as they were insightful but the opening statement was something that caught me. All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

One interesting question is, when did this God meme, started everywhere humans were. For example, the indians worshiped, the aztecs worshipped Gods. Yet they were separated from the rest of the world.

Perhaps the concept of God is as old as humanity itself but then this is mere speculation. I however understand why to a non-believer this might make sense.

I'll let you ponder on this.

I do, most of the time.

[Kody]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

[Tank]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Good points.

[Niya]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Lol Chris, I didn't recognize you were the author. The skype pic was very dim. That is why I kept referring to you in the third person. 

[Tank]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Lol Chris, I didn't recognize you were the author. The skype pic was very dim. That is why I kept referring to you in the third person. 

I'm not 100% sure if Davin has worked out it's me either 

[Niya]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Point noted. Thank you.

[Niya]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Lol Chris, I didn't recognize you were the author. The skype pic was very dim. That is why I kept referring to you in the third person. 

I'm not 100% sure if Davin has worked out it's me either 

he will now.

[Davin]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Lol Chris, I didn't recognize you were the author. The skype pic was very dim. That is why I kept referring to you in the third person. 

I'm not 100% sure if Davin has worked out it's me either 

he will now.

I did from reading the first post and then the author name, but I don't care who the author is when critiquing an article/story/book/post.

[xSilverPhinx]

  It's so cool that your article got published on another site.    Are you going to link it in your "Why God?" thread?

(very mild organizational OCD talking) 

[Tank]

All of this, history/evolution of a religion does not necessarily negate that no God exists, I found it strange that the author gathered that as a conclusion from his thoughts where they only showed how the God meme have/could have evolved.

Consider that this is an opinion piece and tank is a 6 on the Dawkins scale. He doesn't believe 100% that no God exists, he finds it highly improbable. We know that you cannot disprove God, all we can do is give reasons why we find it improbable. Remember this when trying to decipher the thoughts of agnostic atheists.

Lol Chris, I didn't recognize you were the author. The skype pic was very dim. That is why I kept referring to you in the third person. 

I'm not 100% sure if Davin has worked out it's me either 

he will now.

I did from reading the first post and then the author name, but I don't care who the author is when critiquing an article/story/book/post.

I did wonder if that was the case which is why I didn't remark on your comment.

[Tank]

It's so cool that your article got published on another site.    Are you going to link it in your "Why God?" thread?

(very mild organizational OCD talking) 

Go on. You do it. 

[technolud]

I read the article before the thread and was going to respond that Tank's earlier explanation on this forum was better.  But maybe I was wrong....

[Tank]

It's so cool that your article got published on another site.    Are you going to link it in your "Why God?" thread?

(very mild organizational OCD talking) 

Go on. You do it. 

I merged the threads.