On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:18:08 +0000, Pax attempted to confuse the issue
further by squeaking:

Humans are story-tellers.

Why?

I don't know. It seems likely that it has something to do with our
ability to talk.

Talking is in no way unique to humans, *all* living things "talk" in some
capacity or other. Just because we can't understand their conversations
doesn't mean other living species don't "talk" each other.

So, again, why are humans story-tellers?

How do you know those other species aren't also storytellers?

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:18:08 +0000, Pax attempted to confuse the issue
further by squeaking:

Why not tell stories about some extremely powerful, imagined being.

Why envision one in the first place? What would initiate such a concept?

I guess you were never a very young child.

Alright, explain the world-based examples behind the imaginary jump to an
omniscient God Who made it all, is greater than it all, and is intimately
involved in every aspect of it all.

The Vedics, the ancient Greeks, the Vikings, the Sumerians -- all had
pantheons with creation myths which covered that nicely. Then along came
Zoroaster, who introduced monotheism to the Middle East, and when the
polytheistic Hebrews encountered his cult during the Babylonian
Captivity, they eventually chose to re-model their pantheon in a most
drastic fashion, with the result that they wound up pretending they'd
always had only One True God, one with many names, and a bunch of
angels, devils, and "false" gods. It's fun when one can change facts to
suit one's new tastes, isn't it?

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:18:08 GMT, in alt.atheism=20
"Pax" <SherriFWhite@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<4tZ0h.24670$7I1.3319@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message=20
news:3eq7k2p8s6s9ub2vfihr4r2hmc2nk3d0vg@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:33:51 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Pax" <SherriFWhite@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<zNR0h.17477$TV3.4730@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:o8f7k21h96fp991ues52997n16r297dkao@4ax.com...

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:41:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
"Pax" <SherriFWhite@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<2oO0h.17411$TV3.13152@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>:

...

What caused man, above all the other animals, to evolve past the
hunter-gatherer stage?

Cultural memory.

Prove it.

What alternative is there?

That you give up your attempts at rebuttal.

=20
That's not an alternative explanation. You haven't offered a testable
one.

...

The great apes are remarkably humanlike,
and very close to our DNA equals. They are also self-aware. They =

capable of complex language, enjoyment and creation of art, =

selflessness, tool usage. They, like us, live in advanced social =

and form intense emotional bonds. Yet, despite all of that, they =

found it necessary to evolve as we have in order to survive.

Modern human society is a cultural change, not a biological one.

Of course it's biological, since we are. You side-stepped.

Why do you think that society is biological? We aren't ants or bees.

I'm beginning to think you're very young. Look up the definition of=20
"biological"... it stems from "biology" which concerns...?

=20
Life. Yes, living creatures form society, but that doesn't make =

life.

Biology relies on chemistry, but we don't call it chemistry or try
to understand it exclusively from the chemical reactions.

There is no evolutionarily adaptive reason man should have =

nuances of personality he displays that force him to reach out
philosophically. The limbic system is not unique to man, and its
functions,
complicated though they are, have no reason to culminate in any =

metaphysical development. There is certainly no physiological =

should have ever even conceived of much less reached out to God.

Humans are story-tellers.

Why?

I don't know. It seems likely that it has something to do with our
ability to talk.

Talking is in no way unique to humans, *all* living things "talk" in =

capacity or other. Just because we can't understand their =

doesn't mean other living species don't "talk" each other.

=20
Storytelling is more than just talking.

So, again, why are humans story-tellers?

Why not tell stories about some extremely powerful, imagined =

Why envision one in the first place? What would initiate such a =

I guess you were never a very young child.

Alright, explain the world-based examples behind the imaginary jump to =

omniscient God Who made it all, is greater than it all, and is =

involved in every aspect of it all.

=20
Remember that the conception of the God in the above paragraph is a =

recent one in the history of humanity. Polytheism -- with magically
powerful, but not all-powerful, gods was the norm. Even today, only =

Abrahamic religions fit your description.

Point to an example somewhere to base such a fantasy on. Below you =

pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, both of those have =

from everyday life to draw on to begin the fantasy. What thing from=20
everyday
life was used to come up with the concept of God?

Initially, the gods were the sun and the moon, the seasons, the =

the spirits of those who had lived before, the god of the hunt, of =

harvest, and of other very obvious manifestations of nature.

It's logical worship of the natural elements that dominate human =

might evolve... if you first accept the possibility worship of any =

would evolve for purely survival and procreative reasons, which is=20
doubtful... but why spirits? Why would such a concept as "spirit" ever =
emerge?=20

=20
Why not? What name do you give to the inexplicable?

There is no biological basis or necessity for such a belief, neither=20
is there any practically applicable indicator that would lead man to=20
conclude something such as the spirit exists. In other words, there is =

need or physical cause that would initiate a belief in spirits of any =

in order to assure survival of the species.

=20
Ever listen to the wind on a stormy night?

It is the concept of spirit which ties directly to God.

=20
Not really.

Why is there in human nature the need for a God? All cultures have =

version(s). Why? Why is it built into man to seek out and worship a =

being? How does it improve the chances of survival of the species?
Pragmatically, what possible benefits are there in belief in God, if
survival of the species is the only purpose of man?

Man seeks God because God built it into us to seek Him.

That hypothesis has the problem that there is no evidence for any =

Quite the contrary, such evidence is blatant within both biology and=20
cosmology, for instance. Even noted former atheists like Stephen =

have become at least agnostic due to findings that can't be explained =

by applying the rules of chance.

=20
Please provide a citation.

The most interesting thing about it is=20
that, as scientists discover more, the evidence for there being a =

becomes more and more overwhelming. Science is discovering God, not =

He doesn't exist.

=20
Where? What evidence can you point to?

Without any one of those
elements, a man is not complete and can't live.

How would anyone know if a spirit went missing?

Have you ever seen a dead person, doctor?

I'm not a doctor, but I have seen dead people. Spirit isn't a =

part of humans before or after.

Your proof...?

No one has offered any evidence to show that spirit exists as a =

part.

That we believe in spirits at all with no earthly reason to have ever=20
conceived of them is proof... but I doubt you'll accept that. :)

Okay, let me try this...

Physicists have concluded that our universe is comprised of ten =

dimensions plus time, yet we are aware of and can manipulate (as far =

know) only three physical dimensions. What of our existence within the =

seven physical dimensions that we can't see, feel, or perceive in any =

other than mathematically? What part(s) of us exist in those seven =

(to us) dimensions?

=20
I don't see how string theory works for this.

There is no evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist =

that the Flying Spaghetti Monster won't tough Her noodly appendage =

you, either. Just because someone makes up a story, that's no =

demand that others disprove it.

uhhuh. Since you're arguing against, then you have chosen to do just =

Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. I didn't initiate this =

with you, you chose to reply to me.

The facts are plain: Some believe in God, others don't. Either camp =

religion of sorts.

The lack of a religion is not a religion. That is a fundamental =

that anyone who has taken the simplest logic class would not make.

Dictionary.com states as one of the definitions of "religion": =

one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or=20
conscience."

=20
The lack of a religion still isn't a religion. Don't start playing
Humpty Dumpty here.

As an aside, The Jargon File states that "religion" is defined among =

as "Agnostic. Atheist. Non-observant Jewish. Neo-pagan. Very commonly, =

or more of these are combined in the same person. Conventional =

Christianity is rare though not unknown." [[The Jargon File is "a=20
comprehensive compendium of hacker slang illuminating many aspects of=20
hackish tradition, folklore, and humor."]]

Further, when one chooses to proselytize and seeks to institutionalize =

beliefs, he is treating those beliefs as his faith. His adherence to =

beliefs defines them as his religion, which he staunchly defends.

In addition, if people of similar beliefs seek out like-minded others =

form groups for the purpose of bolstering each other in their beliefs=20
(alt.atheism for example), their beliefs become formalized into the=20
equivalent of a religion, and that group becomes a "church". =

since the word "church" has nothing to do with any building but rather =

the congregation(s) of like-minded people who come together for the =

of strengthening their commonly held beliefs through fellowship with =

another.

So far, your arguments in favor of your beliefs are
terribly lame. "Just because..." and "Because I said so," are =

small children stop accepting fairly quickly.

I never made those arguments though.

Words to that effect suffice. Noncomments do not a comment make. :)

=20
You misrepresent what I said.=20

Going back to Freud, one thing that proves faith in God is a good =

how pleasingly it harmonizes and satisfies all three elements of
personality, which is quite a feat. God doesn't make us perfect, but =

make us better able to function on a personal level as well as on a =

one.

It's not at all clear how you came to that conclusion.

That's as clear and I can make it for you. You have to seek further =

on your own... or not... as you choose. :)

And there is where the Bible tells us what happened to the souls =

those who died in the days of Noah [1 Pet 3:18-20].

That is a claim.

Okay.

I want to add here that you used an example from the same Book I used =

give you the answer. If you won't accept my use of the Bible in my =

don't use it as the premise for your argument.

=20
I use it to make comments about how people have understood the God of
Abraham.

I'm not anthropomorphizing at all. I'm pointing out the problems =

teachings.

Not really... at least not so far. All you've really done is express =

personal disbelief.

Sensible scepticism as a place to start has worked quite well over =

True enough. I agree.

If you paint God with a human brush, you're trying to bring Him down =

human level, and that can't be done. If I were to state the obvious: =

ways of the universe are not our ways," could you comprehend that? =

can accept that, then suspend your disbelief for a minute and try to =
imagine
One Who made the universe, higher even than anything we know... =

by any sort of human standards. Can anyone limit the universe? No. =

can anyone limit God.

Why should I accept any claims about any gods. All of the claims are
made by people.

Only if you refuse to accept scientific evidence.

=20
What scientific evidence in support of gods exists?=20

Many modern physicists have come to the conclusion there is =

Design" behind the universe, because the probabilities are so =

against creation by accident as to be completely out of the realm of
possibility. Even Hawking came out in favor of Intelligent Design a =

years ago, something I never thought would happen.

Please name such physicists.

Besides Hawking? Okay, here are a few, but by no means all. (If you =

more names, find them yourself.) You should at least recognize Paul =

he's rather famous, even among lay-persons.

=20
Please tell me exactly where Hawking came out in favor of Intelligent
Design. Did you actually read the article or did you read a quote =

by Creationists?

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological =

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); F. Bertola and U. Curi, =

Anthropic Principle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); =

Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988); =

Denton, Nature's Destiny (New York: The Free Press, 1998); George=20
Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1988); =

Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3d ed.(Colorado Springs, CO: =

2001); Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth (New York: =

2000).

As a final exercise, ponder these simple questions:

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into, since =

is
only on the inside, not the outside? As far as anyone knows there's
*nothing* on the outside. Have you ever considered what *nothing* =

the ultimate brick wall, because there is absolutely nothing there, =

dimensional space to expand into. Consider a point in front of you =

bigger
than a pin's tip. That point is bigger than nothing. Yet, many =

say our entire universe is not only contained in nothing it's =

into
nothing. This in spite of the fact nothing can't hold anything, much =

the universe.

Why would you claim that the universe is expanding into something?

I see conversation on that level isn't for you, okay, I accept that. =

pull it back a notch.

=20
No, you made an assumption that isn't valid based on the physics we
know. As far as we know, there is no 'something' for the universe to
expand into.

Of course the Clashing Branes Theory could be the answer to that. =

the fact one must wonder what the branes are contained within that =

them to clash in the first place. (There's that *nothing* again.) =

that, whatever caused them to begin clashing in the first place?

Jesus is Lord - Pax

Or not.

That's for each of us to decide.

Our opinions about it don't change reality.

Oh, SO very true!