If belief in gods had been made a punishable offense at the time concept of gods was new -could have saved the world from religions?

okay, so are you dead against religion per se, or are you dead against what was done in its name?

BOTH....It's a waste of time and a far bigger waste of human life......Not to mention the needless cruelty to countless billions of animals world wide that need to have thier throats slit to slaughter them....
Religious people apparently love knowing animals killed this way will suffer fear and pain before the die....

The three things you have mentioned "waste of time ... waste of human life.....throats [of animals] slit to slaughter them" are done in the name of religion and you are against religion because of them. I asked you whether you re against religion per se, that is even if those things were not done in its name.

Yes....totally against all and every part / form of  religion.. How many people would be alive today or been able to live their lives if religion had never been invented 

hmmm, I think the only conclusion one can draw is that you are not against religion per se. You're against religion only because of the things you associate with religion and only because you see all those things as negative.

How can anyone worship some thing that doesn't exist, or can ever be seen...

Well "that doesn't exist" is an opinion. If you can establish it as a fact beyond all doubt then you'll carve yourself a permanent name in history. 

"can ever be seen..." is no problem. Even you must be believing in several things that can never be seen...


"worship"? We all do it at one level or another to one or more things we are devoted to or deeply attached to.

Is there any tiny grain of evidence mythical beings ever existed.....daft stories from thousands of years ago when writing wasn't invented is no proof of anything....    

"mythical beings" are by definition mythical

We have no means of discounting with absolute certainty metaphysical or spiritual realms or dimensions beyond the four dimensions that our existence and minds are trapped in. We know for certain that all of the senses we humans use to experience, know or make sense of our existence are limited. Our hearing, sight, senses of smell and taste are all limited. Our intelligence is the highest of the beings we know of but we cannot say that there isn't anyone of higher intelligence than humans anywhere in the universe. Sometimes we make bold statements like there is no x or y doesn't exist anywhere in the universe as if we know everything tiny thing there is to be known in the universe and out of it. That is verging on sheer arrogance. We have certainly come a long way on the path of knowledge and what we now know as a species is phenomenal. However, it is quite possible that what we know is only a tiny fraction of what is knowable.

edited to include a justified reference to human capacity for arrogance


This post was edited by CLURT at May 16, 2018 8:08 AM MDT

Never seemed fair that writers could make up all kinds of stories to create religious texts and call them "Holy Books" to support belief in deities and supernatural stuff -but no one able write evidence based literature to support non-belief during those early times. This post was edited by Kittigate at April 25, 2018 7:54 AM MDT

"no one able write"? perhaps you meant something like "no one was allowed to write" as that would also give meaning to "Never seemed fair"

'No-one was able to write because no-one was allowed to write'.

That was not universally so though. To imply that it was universally so is to go against "evidence based literature"

Evidence based literature confirms that for nearly eight centuries, that's more than half the life of Qur'anic Islam, followers of the religion of Islam were able to and did write evidence based literature to support the findings of their investigations and study of natural and abstract phenomena during those early times.

1. bur men, even in the good honored scientific tradition still use "best guess at questions they [lack] the tools to answer otherwise". So that makes them primitive?

2. "there are those who are just hard-wired to believe" does that mean those who transit from belief to disbelief have broken the hard wired connection and those who transit in the other direction have made that connection?

3. "many others lacking in the initiative to challenge beliefs imposed on them at tender age." is truly a great pity over which we join hands and lament together.

4. Voltaire was wise. He knew that God was necessary and will be with us for as long as He is necessary. Shame many anti-God atheists don't understand that.

1. Their methods and conclusions were primitive. It’s sad that so many haven’t moved past them. 

2. This is not a blanket statement, I don’t use such broad generalities. Every one arrives at their positions by their own choice. It describes a portion of the whole. 

4. God is necessary, as a default for those who aren’t wanting to address hard reality. If it wasn’t a god it would be a “Great Spirit” or other such wishful fantasy. 

1. My point is that we still use best guesses at questions we lack the tools to answer otherwise. There is no shame in that. However I'll agree that "It’s sad that so many haven’t moved past them" where "them" is beliefs that have been certainly, conclusively and unanimously disproved.

2. So belief in God is not necessarily hard-wired then. People can arrive at belief [and disbelief] in God.

4. That all is "wishful fantasy" has to be put down as your wishful fantasy unless you present evidence for your assertion that all of it is wishful fantasy.

2) I think you’d agree Human thinking is filtered through our perceptions, and clearly there are those more inclined toward valuing faith, then that will fuel their bias, whether consciously or subconsciously. This is Psychology 101.  

4) Lacking further (really, Any) corroboration, I have nothing to disprove. Fantasies have common characteristics, and it’s hard not to see them contained and exploited in religion  
This post was edited by Don Barzini at May 15, 2018 6:49 PM MDT

2. I'm afraid you're conveniently ignoring the fact that this argument cuts both ways. If it's true one way then it's true the other way too. Unless atheists are not humans then for atheists too "Human thinking is filtered through our perceptions, and clearly there are those more inclined toward [not] valuing faith, then that will fuel their bias, whether consciously or subconsciously. This is Psychology 101."

4. Unless you have concrete evidence for doing so you shouldn't go around calling people's beliefs "wishful fantasy". If people believe that there's gold in them there hills you cannot credibly call that belief "wishful fantasy" unless you have established beyond all doubts that there is no gold whatsoever in any part of them there hills.


This post was edited by CLURT at May 16, 2018 12:57 AM MDT

I disagree.
...and you have the whole “Burden of Proof” premise, backward. Again. 

I call it the way I see it, as you should. That's the privilege and right of a free mind in a free country. Being concerned whether my opposing view is agreeable to people I entirely disagree with is entirely ridiculous, and it’s not me. You wanna troll my posts, deal with that.

And who are you, Oh Believer, to speak to
me about “concrete evidence”?
I might be a believer too, except for an overwhelming lack of said concrete underpinning that flimsy construct. 

Once again, Clurt, you’ve travelled to that place of “No, YOU are!” absurdity. 
I won’t ride down this trail with you. Adios. This post was edited by Don Barzini at May 15, 2018 9:01 PM MDT

You still hold the record of being the first to run away from our discussions.

When two people are engaged in a discussion and one says "You troll me" then you know who's beginning to get uncomfortable.

So according to you the call for concrete evidence has been registered as a copyright for the exclusive use of atheists and cannot be used by theists. Have you got concrete evidence for that? :) :) :)

Take it easy, DB, take it easy
Don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy


This post was edited by CLURT at May 15, 2018 8:59 PM MDT

Gods were primitive man’s best guess at questions they lacked the tools to answer otherwise. ---indubitably  (And a mildly interesting aside, Chrome did not have that word; I had to go to Bing to find it to check the spelling.)

Now the question that fascinates me is whether that inability was some sort of a glitch in evolution or---if we are created beings---did a / the "creator" put that inability there so that we would be looking for him. 

We could get into a conversation about forbidding eating of the fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge”, but that isn’t really pertinent. :)

I think it fair to say that evolving our understanding has been by dint of human initiative and ingenuity. Galileo was the first to gaze at the universe through a purposed lens, and (coincidentally?) his findings got him arrested, stifled, publicly condemned and excommunicated.
God, ...is that you?
To what I am certain was Galileo’s great relief, the Church un-excommunicated him 350 years after he died.     I digress. 

I do think science, in it’s way, is actively seeking signs of life or sentient existence (mortal, divine, or what have you) in ”the heavens” in more effective ways than ever before. 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at May 15, 2018 5:45 PM MDT