I love religion!

[Zagreus]

I think I read something on what you mean- it seems to me to fit very well with the idea that social evolution happened alongside biological evolution of the human brain. Idea being that as the religion "meme" was spreading it was probably upped the survival rate of communities in that groups which are "related" are more likely to aid each other. This comes back to the idea of altruism (or gene selfishness) which is actually helping others which have your gene survive. So groups with common belief systems may have tended to propagate better than those without. So perhaps that area of the brain which promotes or is involved with "being religious" became more potent over the generations since and redoubled the rate at which the religion "meme" spread. If this is the case, then religion should be something we can indeed "get away from" in that the meme is not biological- it's more like a program which is reaaally good at "occupying" a certain part of our brain hardware.

That's not Dawkins is it? It looks familiar to me, and sounds like something I read of his not so long ago. It's a good point whoever said it!

Whilst I'm sure that there is a social element in the development of religion, and it could indeed play a part in tribes' or groups' survival, I think there are probably other elements too. I actually think hallucinogens have a part to play as we see them in primitive tribe cultures, and there's no real reason that I'm aware of to consider our cultural ancestors to be that different. The general social construct could be as the theory you said suggests, but the initial trigger could be more substantial than merely a way to hold a community together.

Regarding the selfish gene bit, there are always exceptions to the rule, and that’s something that has begun to interest me lately. If religion is a survival issue, then why does celibacy come into it? Mother Teresa didn’t pass on her genes, yet her actions as a result of her religious beliefs helps the passing on of others’ genes; people she wasn’t even related to. Maybe on a human scale it’s just larger and we subconsciously look after our species rather than simply our genes? I think there are examples of altruism in apes too, but I’ll have to look into that.

---

First thing you’ve said that is interesting. You’re also wrong. Religion is an idea, a set of beliefs, a philosophy; it is not a thing that can do wrong in itself. People do bad things because they choose to do so – if they justify this due to religion, or their upbringing (religious or not), or anything else, it is them that is to blame, not the idea. Again, natural selection, via eugenics, did not cause the holocaust, regardless of whether someone claimed this to justify it.

Yes, and where do those beliefs live?

In people,no where else.

Take away the people and there is no religion.

Religion was created by people who use it to control other people.

And it is used as the ultimate get out of jail card, I did it in the name of God so it is ok.

And it is used repeatedly as an excuse not to think.

So yes I laugh at religion.

Yes I know, it is a strange thing to find on an atheist forum.

Someone who doesn't take religion seriously.

Take away people and there is no art, philosophy, literature, etc. either. Religion is just ideas and beliefs, nothing more. You might as well have a go at philosophy, or to an extent, economics, or some other theoretical belief system our species has come up with.

Religion isn’t simply there to control people, no matter how much you insist it is. Guru Nanak was not simply trying to control people; something more complex is involved, like social issues, thought, belief, and so on.

You say that people use it as an excuse not to think, but that’s the person’s flaw, not a theoretical construct’s problem.

You are very critical of theology, but yet you are repeating the same basic things over and over, and then ignoring the comments that disagree with you. You’ve even tried to ignore the dictionary and re-define what a religion is! You are essentially just trying to make things fit your world view regardless of the evidence that is presented, which is as bad as what you accuse fundamentalists of doing.

I'm not asking you to take religion seriously. I'm not actually asking you to do anything at all. I was simply stating that I think there is more to religion than I think many atheists give credit to. You are proving me right with every post.

---

Suffice to say that people of all religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky.

No they don't. Religion =/= Theism. To be technically accurate, no people of religions believe in a great big Santa Claus in the sky; they believe in some form of a deity who exists non-temporally (whereas Santa is a magical human from the North Pole).

A large majority take the Bible literally, except for the bits that are metaphorical(how this distinction is arrived at is a mystery).

A large majority do not take the Bible literally. Christians make up less than a third of the global population (2.1 billion according to: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ). Most of these (approx 50%) are Catholic, who take very little of the Bible as literal. Indeed, the Roman Catholic church has been one of the few churches to actively support the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of the Big Bang as the best explanations of how everything came to be.

And BTW Buddhisam is not a religion as it does not subscribe to the idea of a supreme being.

The definition of a religion is not the same as the definition of theism. Religions are collections of beliefs and philosophical ideas that are used to help an adherent find meaning in their life's experiences. This meaning can come from belief in some sort of God, but, like Buddhism, it can also come from some sort of "ultimate truth".

If buddhism is a religion then the case could be made that Atheism is also a religion.

No, since atheism doesn't contain a collection of beliefs that lead an atheist to some sort of meaning, nor does it contain any "ultimate truths". Atheism is a disbelief, a "rejection" of a belief. Disbelieving in X does not mean you automatically believe in ¬X (or Y, or Z, etc).

An excellent post in my opinion. See Zen Badger? This is an example of well informed, which is why I said you are seeming to be ill informed so far. I hope you're not though, and start proving me wrong soon. Thanks for the comment Adrian, some interesting points in there.