Religion Is a Fabrication of Our Minds

I dont believe in the existence of anything supernatural what so ever. I believe in science and nothing else. Everything can be explained with science. Religion that is about how people can live on forever in the afterlife if they behave during their lifetime on earth is just something people believe in because they are afraid to realise that you are gone for good when you die. There is nothing, only darkness. Your brain simply shuts down and your body starts to rot. It is obvious that a community where everyone commend their lives to helping each other all the time works well so religion is also a way for authorities to create productive and cooperative societies.
We have scientific proof that the Earth is not flat and that God did not create it in seven days. We have been to space and seen that god is not floating around out there on a white cloud. There is no gate to Heaven outside the Earth's atmosphere. And there is no Hell in the core of the Earth. The core of the Earth consists of a nickel-iron alloy and a few other unknown elements.
The christian God is imaginary, as are the gods of the other religions. The proof is that God only answers prayers in the form of "yes", "no" or "wait". If you ask for help to get a promotion and you get promoted later it means that his answer was "yes". If you get demoted instead his answer was "no". If you wait and wait and still havent been promoted his answer might also have been "wait". But what if you had prayed to a banana instead and asked it for help with getting promoted? The banana would answer your prayer with "yes", "no" or "wait" just like God. But the banana doesn't do anything and neither does God. He is a fabrication of our minds and has less power than the banana. The banana could choke someone important and change history.

Wraither Wraither
22-25, M
34 Responses Aug 14, 2007

Science itself absolutely debunks evolution and totally supports intelligent design. Look at the laws of science. Look at the SCIENTIFIC,MATHEMATICALprobability ratios for accidental occurrence,or what you call evolution. Are you familiar with the "irreducible complex system". Look it up. If you truly believe in sciene,only, your premise may be on shaky ground. Logically jus sayin....

define super natural?No one ever said the world was flat, its not seven days its seven ages (language changes over the years ) now go compare those seven ages with current science theory,which religion says god is on a white cloud? and how many clouds did you check also define god. going out side of the earths atmosphere is a pretty good way to die you scatter across the universe. gah this is to long if you give a crap and actually want answers pop a message with a question

I forget who said it, but the comments of cells reminds me of a quote:<br />
"I am nothing more than a couple billion cells that decided all at the same time to be me"

The Matrix! Exactly (first one was the best in my opinion ;)) We can only know our own reality and nothing else.<br />
Yeah, I like to think of myself like that too. And when we have an illness, it's a full blown war between the virus/bacteria and our cells with a high death count. Poor buggers.<br />
I need to read that book! It sounds so good. I have it now, just need to find the time.<br />
I was just wondering that about the universe because it's a bit crazy if you think too much on it, but it's kind of tied to the observer effect (covered a little in that video again - "things have to be measured against each other" etc etc)

Yeah we can only know what our senses tell us. I don't mind all that much, even though I still get associations to the movie The Matrix. Don't know if you've seen it.<br />
So I am really wondering how the first cell came into being. And yeah, we are made out of living things as well as being alive ourselves :) I like to think of myself as a walking project being run by a heap of cells who are cooperating with each other to further their own chances of survival and reproduction.<br />
Maybe the answers to the big questions are right in front of us. Makes me thing of The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy :)<br />
In my mind, the universe would definitely still exist even if there wasn't anyone to observe it.

Yes, that's the video I'm talking about. It's scary in a way, because it just shows how little we know and can ever know.<br />
A cell is the smallest thing that could be called living. When I first learnt about cells, I couldn't get my head around the fact that if they can be called living, then we're made out of living things as well as being living ourselves. It's just too weird!<br />
I'm not smart enough to talk about this stuff. I wonder if the answer to "why is there life" is staring us all in the face, but it's so simple and obvious that we refuse to see it.<br />
Another question that bothers me is: If there was no consciousness (life) to observe anything, then would the universe still exist?<br />
Yikes, too much...

The fly in the ointment is a thing There is a place for it but so many discount it.

The video you showed me? Was that the one about how everything is just a swirling mass of atoms that our eyes project into our brain as mental pictures?<br />
I've also been wondering about why there is life at all. But I don't know enough about how cells are created and such. I guess a cell means life, right?

You got it in your next to last sentence. Creation

You already know some of what I think, so I won't bother to bore you with the details yet again ;)<br />
<br />
All I will say is this - I think that evolution is revolutionary and although it has its flaws and cannot yet explain everything, it is undeniable that it's on to something.<br />
<br />
What I'm more interested in is why there is life. Not necessarily "what is our purpose of us being here," but on a whole. What is the point of life? Wouldn't the universe be hunky dory without it? If so, why create it? Wouldn't the galaxies still turn and the stars explode? Or does the universe need life also? Does each part of the universe give everything else purpose? That youtube video I showed you that was about some kind of universal consciousness or connection between everything goes with this too.<br />
<br />
Science is part of our reasoning, but I don't think it can explain truly everything. There is more than meets the eye.

Why life. For love and relationships based in that simple and caring concept. Care,compassion,trust,kindness,friendship,hope....peace.If you were,and no one else was,and you had the power,you might well create others to keep company. And if you had that power,would it not deserve a kind of recognition of you as being worthy of gratitude,or some call it praise. Think about it

i believe in god, but not religion. its far too hypocritical to make any sense. for example, how can god love all his creations but send the vast majority to hell?

Again,God seeks to impart knowledge of love and truth. We decide to believe or rject. He won't force you and can't keep you if you reject it. And since love and hate ,like light and dark ,can't coexist, you choose your own destruction. The one that gives life can take it by allowing you to commit a sort of suicide. He won't force you to be with him. That would be torture,and he loves you. The purpose of life? Why,love of course

You make a very good point. I also believe that science proves things. Cheers.

I like it when creationists shoot themselves in the foot with no help from outside...<br />
<br />
Noah was told to paint the ark inside and out with pitch, a naturally occurring hydrocarbon. But creationists hold that all hydrocarbon deposits come from the rotting of vegetable matter laid down under the silt caused by the flood.<br />
<br />
I think that's called trying to have your cake and eat it!<br />
<br />
Laz resin from certain trees, like pine?<br />
<br />
Enjoy:P<br />
<br />
They seem to have to resort to assuming these and those animals evolved from the same ancestor, but at least they try.<br />
<br />
The real meat of the article is a bit down on the site.<br />
<br />
"Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions."

Fyi, the ark wasn't that much of a sweat.<br />
About 140 meters long, 23 meters wide and 13.5 meters high.<br />
<br />

I agree with you 100% antiyou.

i've always thought that the 'existence of god' debate would be an endless and exhausting one. <br />
<br />
religious people will always believe even when there is no proof, hence faith. and athiests will always choose to not believe until there is proof, hence science. <br />
<br />
and of course, science cant prove everything, but it can atleast offer theories based on facts. what can religion do other than fill your head with fairytales about a man parting the sea and another man building an ark big enough to fit two of every species in the world on it. i, personally, dont need science to disprove that, its just not logical.

"i'm not about to dicount the existance of something that is beyond human fathoming."<br />
<br />
That is one major reason to stay with the faith, for many.. Sadly. Someone makes a story up about something that we cannot cross-check, but which we will suffer severe repercussions for if we don't believe in, and boom. Invincible myth.<br />
<br />
That being said, I do not agree with all atheist arguments in here.. and since the vast majority of the story above consists of _either_ plain claims without explanation or logical backup _or_ arguments like 'we've been to space and seen that God's not there', it doesn't get us anywhere intellectually. Perhaps it gets some people somewhere emotionally, though. Like a mantra.<br />
<br />
Anotherhuman: Great perspective.

i have to agree with anotherhuman on that one. i also think its ridiculous for there to be a better chance for a murderer who found god to be saved versus someone who just questions his existence.

Wow you seem pretty sure. For your sake i hope you are right. Not that i believe in any religion but i'm not about to dicount the existance of something that is beyond human fathoming.

I totally agree with everything you're saying. I used to "BELIEVE" in God because that was the thing to do. Now I realize that it's a bunch of bull crap and only the weak-minded fall for that crap. The only reason people believe in GOD is because they need some meaning in their life to live it. I have pretty much accepted that if for some strange chance there is a GOD, I guess I'm going to hell when I die. Oh well!

Of course there's something there that we can't see, doesn’t mean we should be guessing it. We should be researching it and making estimated guesses. <br />
And it sure as hell aint an intelligent being more complicated than the universe itself...if it is I'll eat my hat.<br />
<br />
There’s the beginning of my response to amman. Which is really a response to the links he gave us. <br />
It's a lot of material to process, I will try to directly answer his questions at some point, or are those questions from elsewhere? I hope not or I'll probably end up answering twice.

AMMAN: Those links you gave look like the biggest load of crap I've seen in awhile, but since I enjoy a challenge I will tackle your questions as well as that lame-*** 'critical analysis' of some editors views on evolution. <br />
Sometimes I get a real kick from websites like that, such laughs they are.

Scientific American's 15 Errors <br />
<br />
In its July, 2002 issue, the magazine Scientific American published an article titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." Yet that aggressive piece of writing actually contained no scientific answers to creationism at all, and merely demonstrated the fanaticism and bigotry of the Darwinist establishment<br />
<br />
An interesting article appeared in the July, 2002, issue of Scientific American, one of the prominent scientific journals. Written by editor in chief John Rennie, "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" contained important examples of Darwinist dogmatism. Beginning with its very title, the article and its aggressive style was a living proof of something we have been stating for years: Darwinists are tied to the theory of evolution in a totally dogmatic manner. Their intolerant reactions to criticism are the result of that philosophical rigidity. <br />
<br />
In this essay, you will find the errors, misconceptions and even the tricks in the Scientific American article in question.<br />
<br />

Peace be on you Brother!<br />
you Said<br />
"I believe in science and nothing else. Everything can be explained with science. "<br />
<br />
For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes. <br />
<br />
I've some Questions for you!!<br />
<br />
The Origin of Species. by Darwin<br />
<br />
Charles Darwin developed his theory when science was still in a primitive state. Under primitive microscopes like these, life appeared to have a very simple structure. This error formed the basis of Darwinism.<br />
<br />
<br />
this "theory of evolution by natural selection" gave rise to doubts from the very first: <br />
<br />
1- What were the "natural and coincidental variations" referred to by Darwin? It was true that some cows were bigger than others, while some had darker colors, yet how could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species? <br />
<br />
2- Darwin asserted that "Living beings evolved gradually." In this case, there should have lived millions of "transitional forms." Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in the fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought to this problem, and eventually arrived at the conclusion that "further research would provide these fossils."<br />
<br />
3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes, ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing?<br />
<br />
4- Before considering these questions, consider the following: How did the first organism, the so-called ancestor of all species according to Darwin, come into existence? Could natural processes give life to something which was originally inanimate? <br />
<br />
Darwin was, at least, aware of some these questions, as can be seen from the chapter "Difficulties of the Theory." However, the answers he provided had no scientific validity. H.S. Lipson, a British physicist, makes the following comments about these "difficulties" of Darwin's:<br />
<br />
On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen.1<br />
<br />
and these types of points keeps on floating inside our head unless we Accept that there is creationist.. named God(Allah)..<br />
<br />
if you are really truthful to logic of Science to understand it more precisely..<br />
<br />
visit..<br />
<br /><br />
<br />
open invitition for the people who support darwin theory.. + are atheist..!!

And yet in the past what we now consider to be 'science' was called magic for the simple reson it couldn't be explained. Contrary to popular belief me are not all-knowing. I think some of the so-called 'magic' of the present is the science of thr future.

I couldn't agree more.

wow, you guys put a lot of thought into this. i, personally, dont know a whole lot about religion or science. i just think its a ridiculous idea that when you die you go to these beautiful pearly gates and end up having this great afterlife. i guess i dont have any 'faith'. <br />
theres another thing that bugs me about the whole 'going to heaven' idea. my sister, a catholic fanatic, says i'm going to hell because of something the bible says about nonbelievers. but some mass murderer who 'finds god' while in prison, asks forgiveness, and he gets to go to heaven. if there is a heaven, and thats how it works, then i wouldnt want to go there anyway. could you imagine dying, going to heaven, seeing your murdered child or lover, and then seeing their killer. sounds like a ****** up place to me.

Yeah. What he said...<br />

I largely agree with you, although I do not agree that science provides sufficient answers <i>at this given time</i>, which is to say that there are natural phenomena which have either not been studied using the scientific method, or are not particularly amenable to it.<br />
<br />
Science, after all, is not a worldview in its own right, rather it is a statement about reproducible relationships and the implications this has for structures and systems as we observe them.<br />
<br />
People's experience of existence is necessarily not well explained in completion by science - science is mechanistic and descriptive, rather than experiential.

I don`t believe in religion, but i don`t think I am an atheist. I have no proof of `god` yet I believe in love. I don't like the idea of `you're dead now and its all over`. Its just too final for me. I prefer to have the idea of my soul, and the idea of eternity. Infinity is proven in science and math, so why not for my own `soul` as well?

I agree with wraither on this, religion provides rules for comformed society. Hope is not God. God is not hope. According to the bible, god is the light and the way-The word and the word is light-according to the bible not me.<br />
PEOPLE ARE REAL. THATS IT, PERIOD. WERE REAL AND WE HAVE HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.That doesnt mean there's some god up there to thank when our hope and our strength and courage etc makes a better day out dispair, no we should thank ourselves, we deserve it.


Just realized i had made an awful lot of typos, should be better now.

Great post.<br />
<br />
Religion is sentience trying to explain itself.