Question for Athiests and church bashers

nozzferrahhtoo

To answer that question I would recommend the work of people like VS Ramachandran and many others. Read up on the "god chair" too. There have been some massively interesting developments in the area where people working on it have actually been able to bring on intense spiritual experiences by exciting or stimulating very specific regions of the brain.

It would take about 6 to 8 hours to listen to all the longer talks by VS on you tube, and you might get minorly frustrated with the repetitions between some of the talks, but overall you will come away from it feeling that was some hours well spent.

nozzferrahhtoo

Caulego wrote: »

What authoratative evidence can you produce or link to to confirm or explain your reference to the idea of spirituality being 'housed' in the temporal lobe? Does that mean that all the rest of the being is not spiritual, as in say the hand, the knee, the liver? All are linked, so I can't see how a claim for it being located in a specific 'place' makes sense, though I would be interested in having it better explained to me.

My reply was short last night due to time constraints and tiredness but I will elaborate with another short reply now to excite your interest in the work of VS Ramachandran and his team.

One of his discoveries which is relevant to your question is something he found when he explored a rare condition in people called Capgras delusion - a disorder in which a person holds a delusion that a friend, spouse, parent, or other close family member has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor.

He found the cause for this is that there is an area of the brain which measures an item or persons significance to us personally. Due to some trauma the link between some memories and this centre of the brain is severed. So when the person looks at, say, his mother he does not feel any of the significance he is used to and so can not bring himself to believe it is really her.

He then went further by exciting this region of the brain in "normal" people and this caused in them much the same kinds of experiences that spiritual contemplatives describe when they have, for example, been in a cave in solitary for many years. This feeling of connection to everything and everyone, and a universal love.

Basically he had used a tiny part of the brain to excite a spiritual experience in subjects of a profound feeling of oneness and significance in everything and everyone.

So as I said, the work being done into the brain and the "spiritual centres" of it (to use a simple, crass but vaguely useful term for it) has taken some massive and exceedingly interesting leaps in recent times. I find I could listen to Ramachandran talk about his work for hours on end and never get bored for a moment.

4leto

Caulego wrote: »

What authoratative evidence can you produce or link to to confirm or explain your reference to the idea of spirituality being 'housed' in the temporal lobe? Does that mean that all the rest of the being is not spiritual, as in say the hand, the knee, the liver? All are linked, so I can't see how a claim for it being located in a specific 'place' makes sense, though I would be interested in having it better explained to me.

Thanks

I could throw up links, but internet links are not evidence. I could say that pain feelings are also housed in the brain and not in the liver knee etc.

Its just people with Temporal lobe epilepsy have been very prominent in our history. People who suffer from this can have outer body and spiritual experiences. Ceaser was one, Blake another, Joseph Smith and probably Muhammed as well and many more. Anyone who get visions of angels and voices from "God" definitely have it.

Unless you want to believe people with TLE are sacred messengers from the Gods, then maybe, there has being cultures who believed they were, but other cultures who thought they were messengers from the devil and co.

If it involves feeling as religion does it comes from inside us, were else could it come from.

RichieC

4leto wrote: »

So its not a higher being that makes religion but a higher out of body spiritual sense that does. Spirituality is religion. There is even a section of the brain that houses it, somewhere in the temporal lobe.

Ah yes, the imagination lobe, one of my favourite houses in my brain.

4leto

One question I would like to ask this debate is.

Is religion spirituality, I think it definitely is.

So does a "true believer" in atheism see spirituality as religion. Because I do.

Seachmall

4leto wrote: »

One question I would like to ask this debate is.

Is religion spirituality, I think it definitely is.

So does a "true believer" in atheism see spirituality as religion. Because I do.

An atheist doesn't necessarily reject all spiritualism, they simply don't believe in the existence of a deity.

Some might call Buddhism an "Atheistic Religion", it doesn't believe in a deity but it does believe in other spiritual factors.

Atheism, by it's very definition, does not concern itself with anything other than it's belief in a deity. Everything else is just inferred from the colloquial use of the word.

4leto

The existence of a deity is not the sole definition of religion, although Buddism does not have a deity they have, IMO, the irrational belief in the Budda, ancesters, the interconnectedness of all life, which I think are religious spiritual feelings. I don't believe in any of those things. I don't believe in ghosts, luck, and i just see mystery as something to be eventually explained into the rational.

That is what my feelings of atheism represent. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever including an irrational spirituality.

nozzferrahhtoo

Quite the opposite 4leto, many atheists are indeed very spiritual. The only difference really between theism and atheism on that subject is that atheists have realised that there is no reason to make any assumptions on no evidence in order to explore spirituality within oneself or others.

I realise that religion has been the main game in town when discussing spiritual matters, and that the word spiritual has become more entangled with metaphysical matters than a garden hose left in a shed for a year, but once you divest yourself of religion and unsubstantiated claims, spirituality still remains a genuine line of intellectual inquiry.

Atheist, skeptic and spiritualist Sam Harris is good on this and I recommend a couple of his very short essays on the subject.

4leto

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quite the opposite 4leto, many atheists are indeed very spiritual. The only difference really between theism and atheism on that subject is that atheists have realised that there is no reason to make any assumptions on no evidence in order to explore spirituality within oneself or others.

I realise that religion has been the main game in town when discussing spiritual matters, and that the word spiritual has become more entangled with metaphysical matters than a garden hose left in a shed for a year, but once you divest yourself of religion and unsubstantiated claims, spirituality still remains a genuine line of intellectual inquiry.

Atheist, skeptic and spiritualist Sam Harris is good on this and I recommend a couple of his very short essays on the subject.

Then that doesn't make any sense to me. If atheism is meant to be a non belief in irrational unproven religion, why would you trade your belief for an irrational deity, to another belief in an irrational spirituality.

There is no spirit, soul, connectedness, we are bio/electrical sole machines that came about from a process of evolution but individually we came about from random events. No soul, no God, no spirit.

I would regard a belief in the "true" spirituality as another religion and bogus, you might as well believe in God.

nozzferrahhtoo

4leto wrote: »

Then that doesn't make any sense to me. If atheism is meant to be a non belief in irrational unproven religion, why would you trade your belief for an irrational deity, to another belief in an irrational spirituality.

But I see nothing irrational in it. Perhaps we mean entirely different things when we use the word spirituality and you think I am subscribing to something I am not. What aspect of "spirituality" are you referring to that is "irrational". Maybe we are in danger of talking past each other because the word means different things to each of us. I genuinely recommend you read the three links I gave you before you reply again though as at least then you will be clear what I personally mean when I use the word. Then you can tell me what you mean.

In short though, the meaning we mean by it does not involve spirits, or souls.

deirdremf

4leto wrote: »

Then that doesn't make any sense to me. If atheism is meant to be a non belief in irrational unproven religion, why would you trade your belief for an irrational deity, to another belief in an irrational spirituality.

There is no spirit, soul, connectedness, we are bio/electrical sole machines that came about from a process of evolution but individually we came about from random events. No soul, no God, no spirit.

I would regard a belief in the "true" spirituality as another religion and bogus, you might as well believe in God.

It seems to me that you want to impose god on everyone.
Spirituality is quite possible without the idea of a fairy who controls it all. We don't need the fairy; and in fact, we're far better off without one, because we continually get groups of people who insist their fairy is the only right one, and that they are superior as a result. This allows them to rationalise treating others as second-rate people, and to mistreat them as a result.
Just look at the importance of religion in the European colonisation of Africa, America, Australia etc. The belief in white superiority was underpinned by a fairy. Incredibly dangerous.

4leto

I just read the first one so far and "transcendence" transcendence to what? an altered state of consciousness, I have felt that many times, but that is driven internally, I know that. But if these experiences in transcendence come from without then that implies there is a spirituality and somehow we are connected to it. That is still religion to me.

I can feel connected to external things but that is cultural and imaginative. They are not "part of my soul".

4leto

deirdremf wrote: »

It seems to me that you want to impose god on everyone.
Spirituality is quite possible without the idea of a fairy who controls it all. We don't need the fairy; and in fact, we're far better off without one, because we continually get groups of people who insist their fairy is the only right one, and that they are superior as a result. This allows them to rationalise treating others as second-rate people, and to mistreat them as a result.
Just look at the importance of religion in the European colonisation of Africa, America, Australia etc. The belief in white superiority was underpinned by a fairy. Incredibly dangerous.

But I regard A God or a spirituality as a faery, I believe in non of it, I do not have a spirit nor does anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo

If they come from without, but no one is claiming that. Harris and others are just claiming that such experiences are worth having and worth exploring. You may object to the label "spritiuality" to describe it, and you are far from alone, but that is generally to what they refer.

And as I said, such experience can be explored without making any presuppositions on insufficient evidence like magic, woo, or invisible deities.

So I imagine its more a disagreement of terminology you have, rather than one of intent or content.

4leto

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If they come from without, but no one is claiming that. Harris and others are just claiming that such experiences are worth having and worth exploring. You may object to the label "spritiuality" to describe it, and you are far from alone, but that is generally to what they refer.

And as I said, such experience can be explored without making any presuppositions on insufficient evidence like magic, woo, or invisible deities.

So I imagine its more a disagreement of terminology you have, rather than one of intent or content.

Yes it is.

Which goes back to an earlier point I made about religion/spirituality been in our internal make up.

Take sexuality, we could try deny it but it will just surface somewhere, some place else.

Religion is the same, because it is in our internal programming (no matter how it is there) it will express itself.

Even I the master atheist, meditate to feel my own life, I don't think you can have a truly atheist society.

You would have to change to much about us.

Mickeroo

4leto wrote: »

Then that doesn't make any sense to me. If atheism is meant to be a non belief in irrational unproven religion, why would you trade your belief for an irrational deity, to another belief in an irrational spirituality.

There is no spirit, soul, connectedness, we are bio/electrical sole machines that came about from a process of evolution but individually we came about from random events. No soul, no God, no spirit.

I would regard a belief in the "true" spirituality as another religion and bogus, you might as well believe in God.

I would consider myself a spiritual person but I don't believe in any of the supernatural. I quoted this passage in a simliar debate in A&A but I think Carl Sagan put it better than I ever could:

'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science........Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
- Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Seachmall

4leto wrote: »

The existence of a deity is not the sole definition of religion, although Buddism does not have a deity they have, IMO, the irrational belief in the Budda, ancesters, the interconnectedness of all life, which I think are religious spiritual feelings. I don't believe in any of those things. I don't believe in ghosts, luck, and i just see mystery as something to be eventually explained into the rational.

That is what my feelings of atheism represent. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever including an irrational spirituality.

Spirituality doesn't have to be something irrational.

Some might say taking drugs is a very spiritual experience, they might understand the chemical processes they are experiencing and everything but it doesn't take away from the subjective experience which they might define a spiritual.

I'm guessing if I asked if you believed in fate or destiny you would answer no. I however would answer yes. Fate is simply a belief that our life is determined to follow a specific course and as a determinist (predeterminist) I see that to be the most logical position to take. Nothing irrational about it. The definition of the word and how both parties understand it is extremely important and you're assumption that all spirituality is irrational is wrong.

Just because you should strive to understand the world as objectively as possible you still can only experience it subjectively, so embrace it.

4leto

Mickeroo wrote: »

I would consider myself a spiritual person but I don't believe in any of the supernatural. I quoted this passage in a simliar debate in A&A but I think Carl Sagan put it better than I ever could:

That quote brings back memories of that book, yes that is beautifully put, I agree with him off course, I suppose this quote from Robert Pirsig makes my point.

Ghosts "They contain no matter and have no energy and therefore, according to the laws of science, do not exist except in people's minds. Of course," I add, "the laws of science contain no matter and have no energy either and therefore do not exist except in people's minds"

nozzferrahhtoo

4leto wrote: »

Even I the master atheist, meditate to feel my own life, I don't think you can have a truly atheist society.

You would have to change to much about us.

I am not so sure or so pessimistic but I do admit to not quite seeing a pathway from here to there so I am not unsympathetic at all to your statement.

Thankfully however it is not an atheist society people like myself are aiming for but a secular one and that I think is more attainable and we are making very slow, very incremental but also very steady baby steps in that direction.

Will my childrens childrens children live in that society? I dont know. Sometimes I think maybe, sometimes I think not.

Does it bother me the slowness or that I will never see the society I want? No. Not at all. I am proud to have played what little parts I have played in it by attending debates, making talks, helping start Atheist Ireland, providing one more voice in the tide of voices that is atheism and in being an example of a well living, well living, moral person without a god to show people that the concept of atheist being ammoral is vacuous at best and a canard at worst.

4leto

Well I am 100% in favour of a total secular society, religion should absolutely have no part in any of our public institutions, not even a symbolic one, (funny to think they still actually swear on bibles in courts, I find that strangely infantile in a modern scientific age, I know you don't have to, but still, it should never even be considered).

I think that is attainable, but in Ireland it would involve ripping up our constitution and that is something that needs to be done anyway, but that is another thread.

Although an atheist of course I am a moral person, but I think morals have more to do with empathy. I couldn't do certain things to other human beings or animals because I have an ability to imagine their pain or suffering.

That has nothing to do with religion.

mascaput

4leto wrote: »

I kind of see delusions on both sides of this debate.

Its fair to say religion gives meaning while science gives control, you can-not get a meaning out of science, because by its nature it progresses by discarding falsehoods. So you can't have faith in science but you can have a faith in religion. Another irony if you believe there are laws in nature, then that implies a god, the law maker. So can you have true science without a theism??

Meaning denotes purpose, design, intent, and it is the purpose of science to examine and discover the truths behind those phenomena, and not create fanciful notions and mindless ritual around them, like some tribe of superstitious believers.
What is real exists, and therefore requires no addition of artifices or false ideas, as such will detract from the correct understanding of what is being pursued. So, yes, you can have trust (faith) in the scientific process, as 'science' simply means 'study'. If you use the wrong approach when studying something, by way of self satisfying and selective bias, then the fault is not the original process, but that of the processor. Get back on to the trail of evidence and you increase the prospect of advancing your understanding, whilst heading off into speculation and blind faith in the non-existent can only lead to lost time and effort.
Religion, being based on emotional and imaginary concepts, as distinct from any pursuit of serious study of what either exists or may yet be discovered, merely give the impression, the image, of providing meaning, but in fact does not do so. It merely serves and an anxiolitic, a temporary supression of psychological discomfort, without being a cure for it. Christianity, as a religion, has not added one single iota of value to the condition of man's existence in 2000 years, simply because it alleges that its 'faith' is set and unchanging over time, thus denying the realities of life itself, which is about truth within perpetual change.

pagancornflake

mascaput wrote: »

Meaning denotes purpose, design, intent

No, it doesn't. Intention is relevant to the word only in language, the other two are simply a case of you defining the word as suits your case.

Meaning is synonymous with implicational significance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning?show=0&t=1316978444

mascaput

pagancornflake wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Intention is relevant to the word only in language, the other two are simply a case of you defining the word as suits your case.

Meaning is synonymous with implicational significance.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning?show=0&t=1316978444

I'm using language here, with the intent of eliciting purpose, so unless I say otherwise that's what I mean. There is direct interpretation, such as dealing with the facts e.g. 'I am a woman', reflecting the stated fact of the issue. My intent is to relay the fact, and I do that by transmitting the meaning of what the sentence states. The purpose, the design, the plan, the scheme, the intent involved in transmitting the information is to convey meaning, otherwise there is the risk of faulted interpretation. There is no point in trying to glean the truth of something by way of studying its nature, unless you seek to divine its purpose, is there? Maybe you misunderstand my designed intent?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning

pagancornflake

mascaput wrote: »

I'm using language here, with the intent of eliciting purpose

Meaning => The object for which conveyance is attempted through language, not the fact that language is being used itself. This part of the definition is irrelevant in this thread's context. We are looking at implicational significance, as I said.

mascaput wrote: »

There is direct interpretation, such as dealing with the facts e.g. 'I am a woman', reflecting the stated fact of the issue.

Nah, interpretation has nothing necessarily to do with "stated facts". Interpretation is the explaination or reciprocal deterministic conception of a non-categorical set of representative elements, factual or not, and can be factually conclusive or not as a result.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interpret?show=0&t=1317062505

See 1&2

mascaput wrote: »

My intent is to relay the fact, and I do that by transmitting the meaning of what the sentence states.

I don't know what "fact" you're talking about. Depending on what the nature of this "fact" or sentence is, transmission/relay etc. may not even be necessary.

mascaput wrote: »

The purpose... involved in transmitting the information is to convey meaning, otherwise there is the risk of faulted interpretation.

Interpretation has nothing to do with transmission. It depends entirely on the recipient and/or framework in which the transmission occurs. Also, meaning is not necessarily contained in that which is transmitted. This, again, depends on recipients.

mascaput wrote: »

There is no point in trying to glean the truth of something by way of studying its nature, unless you seek to divine its purpose, is there?

There are literally entire industries dedicated to delineating the elements of systems for no reason annexed to that specific practice.

mascaput wrote: »

Maybe you misunderstand my designed intent?

Probably, because you're "transmitting" your intent by using words incorrectly and heedlessly.

mascaput wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning

Dictionary.com? That is not a recognized academic source. The reason for this is quite apparent due to the fact that (presuming for the sake of argument that there is no sentient object capable of orchestrating or designing the basic states of nature) there is no definition applicable to the attempts of beings to apply non-apperceptive labels to entirely apperceptive systems.

mascaput

4leto wrote: »

Then that doesn't make any sense to me. If atheism is meant to be a non belief in irrational unproven religion, why would you trade your belief for an irrational deity, to another belief in an irrational spirituality.

There is no spirit, soul, connectedness, we are bio/electrical sole machines that came about from a process of evolution but individually we came about from random events. No soul, no God, no spirit.

I would regard a belief in the "true" spirituality as another religion and bogus, you might as well believe in God.

You either accept the ideas or deities or you don't, so you can set aside any nonsensical ideas that are obviously created by the leaders of sects for their own gain at the expense of the masses. You can't believe in something that is proven or evidenced, as there is something factual to work on. 'Spirit' simply signifies and active force, an agency for change to occur within living things. There is evidence for this thing called 'spirit', the life force if you will, as living things move and act of their own accord to varying degrees. Life expands where resources are available and it contracts where they are limited. Therefore, by virtue of the fact that this thing, call it what you may, can be clearly evidenced, and it obviously doesn't care what you think or believe it is, then belief (opinion without supporting provability or evidence) is not an issue, as fact is present.
You can create beliefs about truthful facts, but truth exists of its own accord. Mainly beliefs are useful if we merely seek to conceal or avoid what is factual. Lies and avoidance are methods of avoiding the facts of any given matter, but we do have choice, so each one eats according to the stew they cook.
We usually avoid the facts because we are more concerned for our feelings and emotional wants than the truth itself. By doing this we are acting selfishly, and therefore go against that part of ourselves that we would like others to consider us virtous by i.e. we lie. The facts remain as they are anyway, so any attempt to deny the facts is all vanity, as the all you can do with truth is accept it, unless you wish, choose, to avoid it. It's a choice, but all choices have two main directions.
We either know something (factual knowledge, like 1+1= 2), and it's obvious that something lives within our physical bodies, so there is no need to create beliefs about it, but study and learn about its nature.
If you say 'There is no spirit', then what prompted you to deny the very thought that derives from your essential mind, spirit, that posted 'There is no spirit'? Are you saying you don't exist, or what?

Overheal

this is turning into the BC&P thread of AH.

You either accept the ideas or deities or you don't

I could understand, even believe in "God" ... but not "Deities", or even a "Deity". Confused?

mascaput

4leto wrote: »

One question I would like to ask this debate is.

Is religion spirituality, I think it definitely is.

So does a "true believer" in atheism see spirituality as religion. Because I do.

You are a spirit with a body. You are a mixture of animal instincts and humanity. Your humanity controls your animal, or base instincts; this being all that separates you from the lower animals. This doesn’t just mean cats, dogs, lions and tigers etc. as it also means men and women without a sufficient amount of humanity to control their base animal desires and instincts, who look human, but behave like beasts. Such people are usually controlled by self-interest and fear of retribution, and not, unfortunately, by any humanity within them. And because of this fact, which you can experience every day, so many so-called human beings are in reality just beasts of the very lowest order, so often totally lacking the humanity that is necessary to makes a real and complete human.
The spirit of man cannot be found, no matter how hard you look for it. You can open up the human skull and dissect the brain, and you will neither find a picture or a single thought. These things are not evident to the eye, yet we know that they are there, because we all experience them every day.
You may ask about the realities of death, because you hope that you will live in some paradise or other after death. Yet again, this is the promise of religious leaders. For example, at most Christian funerals they will mention the “Sure and certain hope of the resurrection of the body”. Just like all things, people never really notice, nor do they even question. If such resurrection is sure, then why the need for hope? If it is certain, again, why faith? And why hope if it is sure and certain? It goes around and around, contradiction upon contradiction. Truth, on the other hand, never contradicts itself, so what's all the be-lie-f about?

Religion, on the other hand, as a devotion to a system of belief or worship of a god or gods, is not about truth, as belief has nothing to do with knowledge or fact, but when our minds are young and pliable they can be shaped by ideas callled 'beliefs' or 'faith', so that we are trained to react to things, rather than override our base instincts, (and they are base), and use reason, which takes the edge off the beast within us. We are taught to be afraid or to feel deficient if we don't have 'faith' or 'belief', as though we must have this unexplained thing to fit in with our society, and be a 'good person'. So we make it up as we go along, adding reactive ideas to our innate fear of being left out, alone, unwanted, unrecognised, which is the greatest of human fears, regardless of what people might wishfully want to believe to the contrary. And on and on it goes, until we think that what we believe is actual fact, merging fact and fiction till we are happy to compromise our very integrity as humane beings for a bucketful of wishes, plundering through life like headless sheep who need to follow an equally headless idology that can only lead to loss and suffering. Then again, religion teaches that "suffering is good for the soul", and it is, but not for your 'soul', but for theirs, as they make sure that you are fed your daily ration of belief induced suffering, like grateful sheep at a trough. The bankers can count on us behaving this way, as they are supportedby the politician and the priests of religion by funding and 'donations' to 'charities', much of which never reaches the plate of the needy.

History shows us, if we bother to study it, that you can easily train people to accept that belief is fact, but no matter how much we wish it to be so, it can not be so, as beliefs are lacking in substance, and are merely mental impressions based on a deficiency of understanding. We can create things called make-believe, but we can't make truth, only search for it, study it, know it, and realise that truth sets you free from the bonds and shackles of self-delusion, which are pretty and comforting, but essentially lacking in worthwhile currency. Sounds a little bit like our national economy really, doesn't it? That's founded on the belief that we could spend what we didn't actually have, and based on promises of demigods in ivory towers who made psychological compromise look so attractive. So, do you not think that belief, as an attitue, and outlook of self projection, is merely following an image, while following fact and reality takes effort, but you can take the cheque of truth to the bank of life and it won't bounce?

4leto

Because there is no spirit in the man, it is a perceived thing by a combination of nerves pleasure, pain, feelings. Our intellect can make us perceive it as separate, but it isn't.

Its even cultural you can move the essence of your consciousness around the body with us it mainly resides in the head, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians it was the heart an acid trip it can be anywhere.

So that is clearly a mental process no spirit.

Our intellect does lift us gently but not to far from our animal instincts, we are not the ghost in the machine, we are the ghost on the machine.

mascaput

Overheal wrote: »

this is turning into the BC&P thread of AH.I could understand, even believe in "God" ... but not "Deities", or even a "Deity". Confused?

It's not so hard to understand really. It's natural for us to identify more readily with an idea of personal 'God', for which you can imagine some benevolent personality, than for multiple entity ideas, as the human mind can't cope with large numbers anyway.

It all comes down to creating an image around a sense of familiarity and security, like a father figure, which is supposed to provide security etc.
The idea of 'God' as a montheist idea, has been succesful, even if there are tens of thousands of different ideologies around this idea of 'God', as it simplifies the idea into a digestible concept. However, the Christian 'God', who is supposed to be the same 'God' of the Jews, is a trinitarian (three-part) entity, whilst the Jewish one is indivisible, and exists as one single 'being'. It can't be both, and it's probably not either one also, as it's not backed up by anything even approaching evidence, but the idea is what matters, and people live by ideas. Some might actually question their ideas, and some may choose not to, but to not question is to be dead whilst appearing alive, so what's the point in being the living dead?

It's all what you want it to be, for as long as you want it to be what you feel you need it to be....simple. The motto of religion is simply "We accept VISA, Mastercard, Access.."...and access is mostly what it is all about, accessing our minds so that the seeds of 'faith' can be planted there, watered and fed by nonsense, and cult-ivated by unreasoned teachings, to fatten us up to breed more 'children of God', fight the wars of kings of religion and belief, and believe that you will receive your well deserved 'reward' when you are dead and can't come back for a refund. Belief is great stuff, isn't it...;)

mascaput

4leto wrote: »

Because there is no spirit in the man, it is a perceived thing by a combination of nerves pleasure, pain, feelings. Our intellect can make us perceive it as separate, but it isn't.

Its even cultural you can move the essence of your consciousness around the body with us it mainly resides in the head, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians it was the heart an acid trip it can be anywhere.

So that is clearly a mental process no spirit.

Our intellect does lift us gently but not to far from our animal instincts, we are not the ghost in the machine, we are the ghost on the machine.

So what does the perceiving you mention? Which came first, the thing that built the body, or the body, which is water and matter? Is the mental process not pure spirit/living energy? Surely, mind is not a thing, but a process?

The ancient Greeks and Egyptians believed it was in the heart because it beats and can be heard banging away, especially when the animal is fearful. The heart can be stopped and blood can be pumped around the body without it, in surgery etc, so we don't stop living when the heart rests, do we? What do you think?