Because early man knew God Gopher. I mean Adam and Eve. They passed down the knowledge of God, and also the nephilim. So you have stories of the true God in the Bible, and the demi-gods in other literature.
As far as a third eye gopher, I think it's more like God has his prophets in every age.He always has a few around who absolutely know the truth, a remnant and the prophets so to speak.
Because early man knew God Gopher.
As you say, that is why there are thousands of religions with inconsistent beliefs. Indeed in early times polytheism was mode du jour, so presumably you believe those people not only knew God, they knew many other gods as well!
I do think there must be a "god gene". My parents and grandparents and great grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins and nieces and nephews and my children and grandchildren and friends and neighbors all seem to have it.
The priests and nuns tried to instill (actually, "drill") it into me. But it was hopeless. God made me the exception...no such god gene. I remain a kind-hearted, hard working nice guy...that and a freethinking existentialist.
Even so, it looks like jet skiing on the Lake of Fire (along with a cold brewski and a hot babe) are in the cards for me. But the Devil better watch out...I'm going to break his balls. 
There is no literal lake of fire. Just a seperation from God.
Spoil sport! I was looking forward to the Lake of Fire.
Prove to me it doesn't exist. Hah!
re: Book of Revelations:
And death and Hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
Spoil sport! I was looking forward to the Lake of Fire.
Prove to me it doesn't exist. Hah!
re: Book of Revelations:
And death and Hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
It's just a metaphor. Like most of the Old Testament was before it.
Bah!
Jesus is called the all consuming fire. Fire means judgement, that's all.
Well, that's all very well and good. Meanwhile, Merry Christmas!
http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=ER13610552
Now, on a more serious tone...
This one's for you, e99:
"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" –Mark Twain
Well, bobyyy, I do see your viewpoint. Over a beer, I suspect that you and I could have many things in common...age, military veteran, atheism and probably more.
And you are one who "calls a spade a spade". I visited your thread on evolution. Read through much of it. So, I know a little bit about you. From that and what you've just posted, I can also see why Erik locked your thread.
Goodbye, old boy. Sorry about that.
Yeah. It's a shame because he's partly right, but there's no need to be uncivilised.
Anyhow, back on topic, could you elaborate on where "the Selfish Gene" was lacking? I sort of take it as what it is, which is a book that covers all sorts of fascinating aspects of evolution from an angle unlikely to be seen in a nature program or, in most cases, an introductory class.
bobyyyy - I think your comment has been removed...
It is still there, #737.
Interesting fact: 100% of Muslim terrorists are evolution deniers.
Another interesting fact: The Islamic State, also known as the idiots who like to cut off heads while the victim screams, ban the teaching of evolution in every city they control, which by the way is exactly what America's dip**** science-deniers want to do here.
My point: America's idiot science deniers are equal to Mulsim terrorists, equally insane and equally brain-dead.
Hey Christian scum, how do you explain all the things you have in common with Muslim terrorist scum? You uneducated morons have my contempt.
bobyyyy - Such mindless, blind ignorance and hatred is amazing. Here is what at least 1 Christian has to say on the subject. From Francis, Bishop of Rome:
“When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
The pope avoids gesturing at the thorny issue (at least for some Christians) of whether humans descended from apes. Atheists argue, moreover, that understanding the Big Bang and what emerged from that cosmic moment obviates a need to believe in a deity. On that count, Francis obviously disagrees. He repeated the idea of God not being a “magician,” an entity that conjured all into being.
“God is not... a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
Anyhow, back on topic, could you elaborate on where "the Selfish Gene" was lacking? I sort of take it as what it is, which is a book that covers all sorts of fascinating aspects of evolution from an angle unlikely to be seen in a nature program or, in most cases, an introductory class.
Well, Elroch, I hope that I can briefly give you my viewpoint.
Let me first mention "On the Origin of Species". That book was not written for the layman. It was written for the orinthologist, botanist and paleontologist. In this regard, I would rate it an "A". For the layman? No. I have read it and had to skim over much of the laborious technical details because that is not my field. Saying that, I wish that Darwin's very vocal critics would at least get the book and determine for themselves.
Now, "The Selfish Gene" is written for the layman. It fails in that regard because, although Dawkins may be an expert at microbiology, it is tedious and often difficult to comprehend. He could have benefitted from the assistance of a technical writer and editor...if his goal was to inform the layman.
Saying that, during my 50 years in "the work harness", I spent eight of my earlier years as a techical writer and editor. I have published a dozen technical manuals about electronic engineering instruments such as oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, pulse generators, etc.
The design engineer was good at designing but poor at communicating and "knowing his audience". Technical writing is a developed skill. I would go to a design engineer and ask him "How does this circuitry function?" Often I'd get "Well, I know in my head, but I don't quite know how to explain it."
It was my job to write a manual to explain exactly how, down to the component level, all the complex circuits (including schematics) work, how to repair and calibrate and how to operate the equipment and various applications for its use. Later, I was a technical editor and had five technical writers working for me.
I didn't want to get into my background but there you have it. (Of course, that was just eight years; I have been involved in many other things since.)
Dawkins isn't too bad as a communicator of technical data. But his book, although apparently lucid for you (it appears to me that you aren't a "layman" on the subject), is tedious and fuzzy to a layman.
He could have benefitted from the use of a technical writer/editor who would have had the reader (the #1 consideration in technical writing) in mind.
If it had been written more as a technical manual, with ample illustrations along the way, edited more tightly, it could have been produced in under 100 pages instead of about 500 with ramblings, armchair philosophy (especially about religious opinions such as religious "memes").
That and the book is 30 years old and the only apparent update is at the end where he offers footnotes in response to those who have, over the years, offered criticisms.
You may think otherwise because of your background. But if this book is to convince the layman of his opinions, he offers much in the way of conjecture and hypotheses and misses the mark.
The book gets off the track of the subject and, in the end, appears unconvincing to the theist as anything more than an attempt to solidify his views as an atheist.
All that said, a "B-" "ain't too shabby", but I do think that there are those (e99 and hapless, for example) who would rate it an "F".
bobyyyy wrote:
Interesting fact: 100% of Muslim terrorists are evolution deniers.
Another interesting fact: The Islamic State, also known as the idiots who like to cut off heads while the victim screams, ban the teaching of evolution in every city they control, which by the way is exactly what America's dip**** science-deniers want to do here.
My point: America's idiot science deniers are equal to Mulsim terrorists, equally insane and equally brain-dead.
Hey Christian scum, how do you explain all the things you have in common with Muslim terrorist scum? You uneducated morons have my contempt.
ref: 345257T367 (Post Comment #737)
bobyyyy - Such mindless, blind ignorance and hatred is amazing. Here is what at least 1 Christian has to say on the subject. From Francis, Bishop of Rome:
“When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said. “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”
The pope avoids gesturing at the thorny issue (at least for some Christians) of whether humans descended from apes. Atheists argue, moreover, that understanding the Big Bang and what emerged from that cosmic moment obviates a need to believe in a deity. On that count, Francis obviously disagrees. He repeated the idea of God not being a “magician,” an entity that conjured all into being.
“God is not... a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
Interesting question, gopher, which I am sure I have seen discussed. Certainly, it is reasonable to believe that the potential to believe in supernatural things is genetically influenced. This does not mean it is selected for: what it means is that genes that cause it are selected for.
And I think that is the key. It looks like the genes that gave human beings the capabilities that allowed us to develop language, civilisation, education and so on also gave us the potential to make music, write novels and have supernatural beliefs. This does not mean these are (necessarily) fitness benefits, just that they are (at least partly) the result of genes that are (since the fitness of genes is determined very largely by the fitness of their hosts).
"Partly" is needed, because these things have developed in modern history. It might be accurate that we don't know of societies without religion, but it is also true that we know of ancient societies without evidence of religion, music, literature and so on.
We also know that religions with virtually any type of belief you can imagine have existed, so if there is a gene for religion, it is not a gene which provides access to truth.
If there is some solid evidence for supernatural abilities, it may be confirmed scientifically. This hasn't been done convincingly yet, although I've been open to believing in some kind of telepathy for a long time and have been impressed (or is it fooled?) by work on the subject by Dean Radin.