The five "R"s that probably inspired the invention of god and religion:

[Faith No More]

Absolutely. As much as any theory can have evidence, anyway. Each of the conditions I presented are present in religion today. In fact, lots of historical evidence exists, as books such as the Bible, Quran, and the Bagvadhgita all include these conditions.

But what evidence is there that those are the reasons religion was invented?

I completely disagree with you here on several levels. First of all, it's a theory, and not one that is unsubstantiated, and one that has been widely speculated about for many thousands of years.

Further more, many well accomplished scientists, philosophers, and other related experts, have theorized and published many similar speculations. It's not as taboo as you make it out to be.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'd just like to see some links to research papers or some surveys or something. I don't really see much of a difference from this thread and one where a theist simply states that atheists are only atheists because they hate god, etc., etc., without any further justification.

Secondly, like you, I was a member of religion, therefore, I can speak from first hand experience about certain motivations, practices, and experiences.

Haha...don't be fooled by my username. I was never a believer.

I am, however, a big fan of these guys, and thought their band name made for a good atheist forum name.

These not only include my own experiences, but those shared with me by other members, including several different levels of congregants.

That's fine, but when you leave out the fact that your statements are based on observations and experiences, it comes across as if you are stating brute fact.

Thirdly, what stereotype are you talking about? As a former member of the Christian faith, I don't recall any such stereotyping going on?

The believers here certainly seem to think that we don't understand religion.

And, even if it did, why should any non-believer care?

No reason, really, but if we demonstrate that we do understand religion better than they think we do, that gives them one less reason to simply dismiss anything we say without meaningful consideration.

Besides, these points suggest that I do get religious motivations, as many of these points are made by religious people all the time:

Regulation: "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman" - Former US President, George Bush.

Reunion: "I can't wait to see my grandfather when I get to heaven" - typical quote

Reason: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - The Apostle Paul

Retribution: "I hope you burn in hell" - Random fan mail for Richard Dawkins.

Reward: "God will prepare everything for our perfect happiness in heaven, and if it takes my dog being there, I believe he'll be there." - Evangelist Billy Graham

What you call unsubstantiated speculation, I call careful observation.

The motivations behind religion are complex and cannot be simplified so easily. Here's one psychologist's observations.

To sum up. The universal propensity toward religious belief is a genuine scientific puzzle. But many adaptationist explanations for religion, such as the one featured in Time last week, don't, I think, meet the criteria for adaptations. There is an alternative explanation, namely that religious psychology is a by-product of many parts of the mind that evolved for other purposes. Among those purposes one has to distinguish the benefits to the producer and the benefits to the consumer.Religion has obvious practical effects for producers. When it comes to the consumers, there are possible emotional adaptations in our desire for health, love and success, possible cognitive adaptations in our intuitive psychology, and many aspects of our experience that seem to provide evidence for souls. Put these together and you get an appeal to a mysterious world of souls to bring about our fondest wishes.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/m...ligion.htm

But I have to ask, why does this subject offend you so much?

The subject doesn't offend me at all. What bothers me is when complex issues are simplified and no corroborating evidence is presented for an argument, especially when said argument is attempting to show a person's motivations behind a belief. Were you here for jstrodel?

---

I went back and re-read your OP to make sure I was understanding what you were trying to say. I see now that you put the word "probably" in there, so you can ignore my objections about stating brute facts.

I still contend, however, that you are simplifying a complex issue.