It would seem that man has always been a serial inventor of gods and
religions so presumably religion served some important social or
evolutionary need.  It has certainly been used as an effective means of
social and political control. Was its main function to explain and
overcome our fear of the unknown? or to satisfy some inner need to be
told what to do?  

The idea of worshipping a god goes back to primitive fears that the god
would otherwise make life more difficult and of course it provides a
meal ticket for the clergy.

The themes are often very similar and Christianity reflects aspects of
the saviour religions while the Eucharist seems to be a form of
ritualised human sacrifice which goes back even further.

Many of us no longer have any need for religion so the basic question is
what useful purpose does religion now serve?

-- 
********
David WG
********

On May 5, 4:48 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> It would seem that man has always been a serial inventor of gods and
> religions so presumably religion served some important social or
> evolutionary need.  It has certainly been used as an effective means of
> social and political control. Was its main function to explain and
> overcome our fear of the unknown? or to satisfy some inner need to be
> told what to do?  
>
> The idea of worshipping a god goes back to primitive fears that the god
> would otherwise make life more difficult and of course it provides a
> meal ticket for the clergy.
>
> The themes are often very similar and Christianity reflects aspects of
> the saviour religions while the Eucharist seems to be a form of
> ritualised human sacrifice which goes back even further.
>
> Many of us no longer have any need for religion so the basic question is
> what useful purpose does religion now serve?
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

REPLY: http://www.articleclick.com/religion-benefits.html      . (Even
the secular religion of atheism can be seen in these benefits).

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 5, 4:48 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
>> It would seem that man has always been a serial inventor of gods and
>> religions so presumably religion served some important social or
>> evolutionary need. It has certainly been used as an effective means
>> of social and political control. Was its main function to explain and
>> overcome our fear of the unknown? or to satisfy some inner need to be
>> told what to do?
>>
>> The idea of worshipping a god goes back to primitive fears that the
>> god would otherwise make life more difficult and of course it
>> provides a meal ticket for the clergy.
>>
>> The themes are often very similar and Christianity reflects aspects
>> of the saviour religions while the Eucharist seems to be a form of
>> ritualised human sacrifice which goes back even further.
>>
>> Many of us no longer have any need for religion so the basic
>> question is what useful purpose does religion now serve?
>>
>> --
>> ********
>> David WG
>> ********
>
> REPLY:  <snip>

The purpose of DiLV seems to be to be as annoying as is humanly possible; to 
open up discussions which eventually prove the myths of Christianity to be 
untrue and/or impossible, and to display his own lack of education and 
willful ignorance, which he promotes as being in tandem with his alleged 
"salvation": - And after all that he wonders why people should choose not to 
be Christians!

"David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote

> It would seem that man has always been a serial inventor of gods and
> religions so presumably religion served some important social or
> evolutionary need.  It has certainly been used as an effective means of
> social and political control. Was its main function to explain and
> overcome our fear of the unknown? or to satisfy some inner need to be
> told what to do?

I think the basis of religion is in trying to understand the world around 
us. With a reasoning mind comes the urge to try and understand what we see 
around us - how the sun stays around in the day and then buggers off in the 
night. Those sort of questions make a primitive mind come up with the simple 
solution - someone's controlling things. As we've seent he vistiges of this 
view are still apparent today.

> The idea of worshipping a god goes back to primitive fears that the god
> would otherwise make life more difficult and of course it provides a
> meal ticket for the clergy.

It's easy for us to forget how difficult life could be in the past. We have 
ready access to food and water and are pretty comfortable. Back in time it 
was pretty crucial that crops didn't fail. Praying is just putting forward 
the hope and desire that things will go OK for you. In those days it was a 
life and death situation so you'd want to express what you needed pretty 
firmly.
I think an easy life for clergy came later as these people were seen as 
being closer to the controlling elements which brought about success for 
farmers, armies or whatever. If things went the right way for these guys 
then it was assumed god was on their side.


> Many of us no longer have any need for religion so the basic question is
> what useful purpose does religion now serve?

It's a comfort blanket for those that can't cope with life on their own.

Steve M

"Steve Marshall"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
1pqdnSkS4Oyk5oLVnZ2dnUVZ8tWvnZ2d@plusnet...
>
> "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote
>
>> It would seem that man has always been a serial inventor of gods and
>> religions so presumably religion served some important social or
>> evolutionary need.  It has certainly been used as an effective means of
>> social and political control. Was its main function to explain and
>> overcome our fear of the unknown? or to satisfy some inner need to be
>> told what to do?
>
> I think the basis of religion is in trying to understand the world around 
> us. With a reasoning mind comes the urge to try and understand what we see 
> around us - how the sun stays around in the day and then buggers off in 
> the night. Those sort of questions make a primitive mind come up with the 
> simple solution - someone's controlling things. As we've seent he vistiges 
> of this view are still apparent today.
>
>> The idea of worshipping a god goes back to primitive fears that the god
>> would otherwise make life more difficult and of course it provides a
>> meal ticket for the clergy.
>
> It's easy for us to forget how difficult life could be in the past. We 
> have ready access to food and water and are pretty comfortable. Back in 
> time it was pretty crucial that crops didn't fail. Praying is just putting 
> forward the hope and desire that things will go OK for you. In those days 
> it was a life and death situation so you'd want to express what you needed 
> pretty firmly.
> I think an easy life for clergy came later as these people were seen as 
> being closer to the controlling elements which brought about success for 
> farmers, armies or whatever. If things went the right way for these guys 
> then it was assumed god was on their side.
>
>
>> Many of us no longer have any need for religion so the basic question is
>> what useful purpose does religion now serve?
>
> It's a comfort blanket for those that can't cope with life on their own.

To understand this, all we need to do is see religion within the framework 
of evolutionary psychology, as an adaptation, or byproduct of said 
adaptation, to properties of the 'real' world we live in. Steven Pinker sums 
it up well:

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm

Who's Pinker? (I suppose some readers might not know ....)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3926387,00.html

pga

On May 6, 1:15 am, "PG"  wrote:
> "Steve Marshall"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> 1pqdnSkS4Oyk5oLVnZ2dnUVZ8tWvnZ2d@plusnet...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "David Wynne-Griffiths"  wrote
>
> >> It would seem that man has always been a serial inventor of gods and
> >> religions so presumably religion served some important social or
> >> evolutionary need.  It has certainly been used as an effective means of
> >> social and political control. Was its main function to explain and
> >> overcome our fear of the unknown? or to satisfy some inner need to be
> >> told what to do?
>
> > I think the basis of religion is in trying to understand the world around
> > us. With a reasoning mind comes the urge to try and understand what we see
> > around us - how the sun stays around in the day and then buggers off in
> > the night. Those sort of questions make a primitive mind come up with the
> > simple solution - someone's controlling things. As we've seent he vistiges
> > of this view are still apparent today.
>
> >> The idea of worshipping a god goes back to primitive fears that the god> >> would otherwise make life more difficult and of course it provides a
> >> meal ticket for the clergy.
>
> > It's easy for us to forget how difficult life could be in the past. We
> > have ready access to food and water and are pretty comfortable. Back in
> > time it was pretty crucial that crops didn't fail. Praying is just putting
> > forward the hope and desire that things will go OK for you. In those days
> > it was a life and death situation so you'd want to express what you needed
> > pretty firmly.
> > I think an easy life for clergy came later as these people were seen as
> > being closer to the controlling elements which brought about success for> > farmers, armies or whatever. If things went the right way for these guys> > then it was assumed god was on their side.
>
> >> Many of us no longer have any need for religion so the basic question is
> >> what useful purpose does religion now serve?
>
> > It's a comfort blanket for those that can't cope with life on their own.> To understand this, all we need to do is see religion within the framework> of evolutionary psychology, as an adaptation, or byproduct of said
> adaptation, to properties of the 'real' world we live in. Steven Pinker sums
> it up well:
>
> http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm
>
> Who's Pinker? (I suppose some readers might not know ....)
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3926387,00.html
>
> pga- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

REPLY:  Does his studies include the religious Faith of
atheism ???   :

Atheists often espouse thier disdain toward religion or Religionists
and wish that all religions were banished from society so atheism
would gain greater ground , and,  because they look at the world
religions as 'evil or unecessary' .  And perhaps especially, the
Christian Faith...as it seems to get persecution like no other
religion does.   But, wouldnt it be very hypocritical of atheists if
Atheism were based on FAITH also .  So..lets see if Atheism exudes any
form of FAITH :

1. Humanism which at its core are atheistic tenets...has been formally
defined as 'a Religion' by the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. Atheism believes and teaches that instead of a personal Creator
bringing forth all forms of life , an accidental one celled Pond
Protozoa (scum)  came on the scene which eventually led to the
enormous amount of life forms we have today including THE most complex
things such as Human DNA -- a speck the size of a pinhead is more
complex than a major U.S. City according to Scientists.  Has anyone
seen this One Celled Pond Protozoa ?  Was anyone living at the time it
allegedly popped into existence ?  No !  It is believed on 'By FAITH'
that it occured this way.  Despite the enormous real scientific
evidence to the contrary.

3.  Atheism teaches that the start of the Universe happened
accidentally by no one and is not purposed.  Did the atheist see this
occur, or..is it also believed on 'by FAITH' ?  It is by FAITH that it
occured this way...despite the enormous precise fine tuning of our
universe needed for us to live on earth. (over 250 razor edge precise
Anthropics show it couldnt have been 'by accident and without
purpose' ).

4. When an atheist gets up in the morning , does he/she live 'by
FAITH' that they will return home at the end of the day ?   Yes.

5. When an atheists gets in a plane , does he/she presume by FAITH
that it will arrive at its destination in one piece ?  Yes.

6. When an atheist lives out his/her full life , does he/she presume
by FAITH that they will cease to exist and that there is no eternity ?
Yes to that too.

Summary :  What the atheist follows and what the atheist lives out on
a daily basis...is centered largely on FAITH .  Atheism therefore,
qualifies as a 'RELIGION' , albiet a secular one.  Many more explicit
examples can be given to show atheism is every bit of a religion as
The Christian Faith is. And, this additional info is available upon
request.

True to form our dimwitted troll instantly displays his ignorance of reality 
with his opening line:

> REPLY:  Does his studies include the religious Faith of
> atheism ???   :

<snip>

zzz

On May 6, 5:10 am, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"
<fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> True to form our dimwitted troll instantly displays his ignorance of reality
> with his opening line:
>
> > REPLY:  Does his studies include the religious Faith of
> > atheism ???   :
>
> <snip>
>
> zzz

It MUST takes such great faith to be such an insane fundy asshole

Each of dimwitted dumbfuck's dumbased assertions have been repudiated
at one time or another YET he persists in spouting the same dumbassed
lies and statements over and over again, perhaps thinking eventually
they will become true....

Albert Einstein........Insanity: doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results.

"Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> a écrit dans le 
message de news: tsudnV_h8fcF173VnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> True to form our dimwitted troll instantly displays his ignorance of 
> reality with his opening line:
>
>> REPLY:  Does his studies include the religious Faith of
>> atheism ???   :
>
> <snip>
>
> zzz

He doesn't realise what a joke he appears to not only the atheists here, but 
also to any theists with a minimum of intelligence - or else he would be 
crawling off into a hole to hide. Poor fool.

The perfect example of the evolutionary dead end aberration mentioned in the 
link provided.

pga

On May 6, 11:02 am, "PG"  wrote:
> "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$" <fem...@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> a écrit dans le
> message denews: tsudnV_h8fcF173VnZ2dnUVZ8sSrn__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > True to form our dimwitted troll instantly displays his ignorance of
> > reality with his opening line:
>
> >> REPLY:  Does his studies include the religious Faith of
> >> atheism ???   :
>
> > <snip>
>
> > zzz
>
> He doesn't realise what a joke he appears to not only the atheists here, but
> also to any theists with a minimum of intelligence - or else he would be
> crawling off into a hole to hide. Poor fool.
>
> The perfect example of the evolutionary dead end aberration mentioned in the
> link provided.
>
> pga

REPLY:  ha ha....Staunch athest Dr. Francis Crick CoDiscoverer of the
DNA structure puts macro evolution at 10 to the 40,000 th power .
Now, thats what i call GREAT FAITH !   You atheists are incredibly
religious with that kind of FAITH  !!!    The faith of Atheism is for
very very 'special' people indeed.

On May 6, 3:56 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
 On May 6, 11:02 am, "PG"  wrote:

 > True to form our dimwitted troll instantly displays his ignorance
of reality with his opening line:
> > He doesn't realise what a joke he appears to not only the atheists here, but
> > also to any theists with a minimum of intelligence - or else he would be> > crawling off into a hole to hide. Poor fool.
>
> > The perfect example of the evolutionary dead end aberration mentioned in the
> > link provided.
>
> > pga
>
> REPLY:  ha ha....Staunch athest Dr. Francis Crick CoDiscoverer of the
> DNA structure puts macro evolution at 10 to the 40,000 th power .
> Now, thats what i call GREAT FAITH !   You atheists are incredibly
> religious with that kind of FAITH  !!!    The faith of Atheism is for
> very very 'special' people indeed.

CCPed from elsewhere:
I'm not sure where you dredged up this little tidbit of knowledge but
without some sort of citation it's meaningless. I have no idea if
this
is taken out of context or not but given you agenda I would think it
is

As far as the supposed probability of the brain evolving versus the
number of electrons in the universe, there is absolutely no
correlation
between those two numbers and is absolutely meaningless.

That being said, here's a quote from Crick concerning the function of
the brain with respect to emotions, the soul and all that.
'In his 1994 book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis,'' he outlined an
empirical approach focusing on visual consciousness, something that
would lead to the death of the soul. "You, your joys and your
sorrows,
your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and
free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly
of
nerve cells and their associated molecules.''
"In the fullness of time,'' he continued, "educated people will
believe
there is no soul independent of the body, and hence no life after
death.'' '

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24495-2004Jul29.html
Wow! I was right!

Irregardless of whether your Crick quote is true or not, here's a
link
to an article on the evolution of the brain entitled "Scientists Find
Brain Evolution Gene" from Faux News. I'm sure that Fox is where you
get
all your news from because it's tends to cater to religious nutjobs
such
as yourself.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Aug16/0,4670,BrainEvolution,00.html

Like I said, no citation from you but a clearly cited quote from
Crick
by me.
Your so called "ultimate moral accountability" is nothing more than a
fear of retribution from your imaginary god.

The fundies seem to have a big problem with evolution.  Is it a question
of education because almost all those who have had a comprehensive
scientific education accept the reality of evolution?  Is it because
they think the bible is inerrant and they want to defend the veracity of
the account of the creation in Genesis ? or is it because they think
that if their god was not the creator its function and purpose is much
reduced?

-- 
********
David WG
********

The message 
from David Wynne-Griffiths  contains these words:

> The fundies seem to have a big problem with evolution.  Is it a question
> of education because almost all those who have had a comprehensive
> scientific education accept the reality of evolution?  Is it because
> they think the bible is inerrant and they want to defend the veracity of
> the account of the creation in Genesis ? or is it because they think
> that if their god was not the creator its function and purpose is much
> reduced?

I should have added is it because their IQ is less than their waste
measurement and they are unable to think for themselves?

-- 
********
David WG
********

On May 7, 7:31 am, David Wynne-Griffiths  wrote:
> The message 
> from David Wynne-Griffiths  contains these words:
>
> > The fundies seem to have a big problem with evolution.  Is it a question
> > of education because almost all those who have had a comprehensive
> > scientific education accept the reality of evolution?  Is it because
> > they think the bible is inerrant and they want to defend the veracity of> > the account of the creation in Genesis ? or is it because they think
> > that if their god was not the creator its function and purpose is much
> > reduced?
>
> I should have added is it because their IQ is less than their waste
> measurement and they are unable to think for themselves?
>
> --
> ********
> David WG
> ********

As Dimwit's at least 50 pounds overweight, you're giving his IQ an
needless boost, but his inability to think for himself (or anyone
else) has been well established

David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
> The fundies seem to have a big problem with evolution.

The main reason is that their one remaining cast-iron requirement 
for the very existence of their god is that something had to create 
life.

Complex life = need for a god

Once evolution appears on the scene, this whole justification falls 
to pieces.

That is why it has to be fought, hence the wedge strategy, hence the 
"science" of intelligent design, hence the drive to get creationism 
taught in schools, hence the denial of "macro" evolution. Evolution 
must not be allowed.

regards, Ian

On Wed, 07 May 2008 21:14:53 +0100, Ian Smith
 wrote:

>David Wynne-Griffiths wrote:
>> The fundies seem to have a big problem with evolution.
>
>The main reason is that their one remaining cast-iron requirement 
>for the very existence of their god is that something had to create 
>life.
>
>Complex life = need for a god
>
>Once evolution appears on the scene, this whole justification falls 
>to pieces.

More than that. No Garden of Eden means no original sin. So the very
foundation of their being collapses like a house of cards.

>That is why it has to be fought, hence the wedge strategy, hence the 
>"science" of intelligent design, hence the drive to get creationism 
>taught in schools, hence the denial of "macro" evolution. Evolution 
>must not be allowed.

They know they're lying through their teeth. But lying in the service
of their religion is a sacrament not a sin.

But they're too stupid to understand that outside their religion, all
we see is the lie whatever their "justification" for it.

>regards, Ian