Here's one for the religious..

[6string]

i think the fact that we are even thinking in this way and debating it proves spirituality / eternity is built into our minds somehow ?

[carosio]

I always thought that Buddhism was more of a philosophy than a religion.

[Lockjaw]

Would you humour me please and honestly answer this questionaire?:

 

http://themachine1.110mb.com/spq.html

 

It's a schizotypal personality test. These are my results:

 

Ideas of reference: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 6.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 3.5 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 0.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 1 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 14.5 out of 74

 

It seems my schizotypal personality is that I'm a nervous public speaker with a moderate number of eccentricities, but generally I score very low, hence why I don't need religion in my life.

 

I think Dr Sapolsky's suggestion is that religion provides a sanctuary for people who score moderate to high on these categories. He suggests that the structure of religion in general- the need for rituals that inspire thought rather than for rituals sake, the shared solitude and a 'safe' space to share with others in- was invented by people who would have scored highly on this test, but not necessarily to the extent that they were debilitated by their social issues. This is what has dictated religious behaviour, if I'm understanding what you mean by 'religious behaviour'.

 

 

Ideas of reference: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 0 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 2 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 1 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 2.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 0.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 8 out of 74

 

Wossit mean?

[Cavegirl]

Ideas of reference: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 0 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 2 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 1 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 2.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 0.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 8 out of 74

 

Wossit mean?

 

That you're very unlikely indeed to be religious.

[PaliRichard]

First of all can we qualify what you really mean? It's easy to see religion exists just by looking - at a church, mosque, synagogue etc, so I presume you mean the existence of a 'God' or an 'afterlife' which all religions, I believe, have at their heart and also which people can believe in without the benefit of a temple or church. (I'm one of these.)[/Quote]

 

A religious building doesn't necessarily mean that there is a religion, just like a painting doesn't necessarily mean there is a (living) artist.

 

Da Vinci is long dead but the Mona Lisa still exists, so religion in this sense is the essence, the claim, made by religious people, not representations of religion.

 

1. The fact that people can ask this question and have an area of the brain designed simply to provide them with an answer seems strange to me. A part of the hypocampus; the oldest, lowest part of the brain which functions without the benefit of reason or imput can be stimulated to induce visions and the like. Why? What is the reason for this? It would seem totally pointless that one of the most basic functions of the brain is to recognise a Godlike figure, or a sense that there is more to this world than is visable, if it were not so. I know this theory can be turned round on itself, but compare it with 'love', which can also be stimulated in a particular part of the brain, cannot be seen and defies logic. Who would say that love doesn't exist?[/Quote]

 

I've had the love argument on here before in a different context.

 

As far as I'm aware love cannot be stimulated in the brain. 'Love' cannot be seen in the brain directly (as anger can, for instance) but relies on secondary characteristics. The question, in my mind, would be what is love? Is it a strong feeling of attachment mixed with desire (either sexual or compassionate)? I'm not sure love does exist when we really go into it, I would be even more doubtful about God.

 

2. The testimony of millions of near death experiences: A respected scientist and accademic (sorry can't remember his name,) has spent his life studying these by applying full scientific rigour, and has concluded that there is something to them other than the 'brain starved of oxygen' theory. They cross all religions and are common to the entire human species regardless of belief and circumstances. He's written a very good, scientific book on the subject. It suggest anyone struggling with this question read it.

Ands he's not the only one, a good many scientists also believe in 'God' for some very profound reasons. And of course there is tons of annecdotal evidence of all sorts of strange occurances. Not all can be fake[/Quote]

 

Those scientists believe in different 'Gods' though, and this is where it gets difficult. I once had a discussion with a Hindu where he cited many scientists who believed in Hinduism as proof that it was the correct religion, but there are Buddhist, Muslim, Christian and so on scientists who believe in their faith. The scientific method is not the same as a scientists opinion. It seems many people forget this.

 

The same difficulty lies in your 'they cannot all be fake' argument. There is anecdotal evidence for Jesus as God, the teachings of Allah and Brahma, yet they cannot all be right, so something has to give, and that something is that in all probability none of them are right but they are interpreting a similar experience in a different way (or they are brainwashed).

 

3. Science itself: As scientists search for a unified theory of everything, they are turning up more and more anomallies that defy explanation; Dark matter, the god particle, multiverses, particles which blip in and out of existence, membranes, veils, string theory, black holes, electromagnetic fields and so on. Some will surely be explained in the future, but more will be discovered. The more we find out, the less we seem to know. Surely that gives way to at least some doubt that this is all there is?[/Quote]

 

There is nothing wrong with science itself, its job is to point us in the direction of the truth, as understanding grows those 'truths' will change. I'd be more concerned if 'it' started saying 'right , that's it, nothing left to learn'.

 

Not scientific proof, but enough for me to at least believe in a possibility of an existence after death[/Quote]

 

The thread wasn't set up to question individual beliefs, it was set up to question those who claimed they had evidence for their beliefs - two very different things.

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2013 at 00:29 ----------

 

Would you humour me please and honestly answer this questionaire?:

 

http://themachine1.110mb.com/spq.html

 

It's a schizotypal personality test. These are my results:

 

Ideas of reference: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 6.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 3.5 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 0.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 1 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 14.5 out of 74

 

It seems my schizotypal personality is that I'm a nervous public speaker with a moderate number of eccentricities, but generally I score very low, hence why I don't need religion in my life.

 

I think Dr Sapolsky's suggestion is that religion provides a sanctuary for people who score moderate to high on these categories. He suggests that the structure of religion in general- the need for rituals that inspire thought rather than for rituals sake, the shared solitude and a 'safe' space to share with others in- was invented by people who would have scored highly on this test, but not necessarily to the extent that they were debilitated by their social issues. This is what has dictated religious behaviour, if I'm understanding what you mean by 'religious behaviour'.

 

My score

 

Excessive social anxiety: 1 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 3 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 1 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 0 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 0 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 7.5 out of 74

 

What does that mean?

 

---------- Post added 27-05-2013 at 00:38 ----------

 

I always thought that Buddhism was more of a philosophy than a religion.

 

In my experience (and I have a fair bit of it) those who make this claim tend to be attracted to the ideals of Buddhism without actually implementing aspects of it (especially those surrounding the moral precepts) into their life.

 

They either think they have already 'got it' or they are interested in those aspects that don't impinge on certain behaviours they might enjoy (most commonly taking intoxicants).

 

In short (and this may be a little blunt and also not as black and white as it seems) these people tend to cherry pick the bits they like, or agree with.

 

You'd be surprised at the amount of people I've met claiming to be Buddhist who believe that something is a Buddhist teaching when it is not in, or even contradicts the Buddhist teachings.

 

I have to say though that this is up to the individual. I'm not saying they are 'wrong' for holding these views, only that they, from a technical point of view, aren't Buddhist points of view.

[El Cid]

It has always confused me when people have tried to prove the existence of god.

 

Can you prove the existance of PaliRichard, the original poster?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Who knows? - Are you sure he's really 'Palirichard'?

 

Are you sure he's not Mi-cha-El (I am like God)

 

Ra-pha-El (God's GP) or

 

Ga-bri-El (God's enforcer) ?

[Jabroni]

That is a bad point and you should feel bad for expressing it.

 

Nope, not at all. Why should I feel bad? My conscience is free from association with the control and murder of fellow human beings, do the main religious groups feel bad about the atrocities and persecution committed in the name of their 'God'?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Probably not. Why should they?

 

If you do something outrageous, then one might hope that you would feel guilty.

 

If somebody you know does something outrageous - and you had nothing to do with it - why should you feel any guilt whatsoever?

[Jabroni]

Probably not. Why should they?

 

If you do something outrageous, then one might hope that you would feel guilty.

 

If somebody you know does something outrageous - and you had nothing to do with it - why should you feel any guilt whatsoever?

 

Perhaps no guilt should be felt, but you have to question your association with the religious nutters.

 

I'm not totally against spirituality, the human consciousness is wonderful and should be celebrated & explored, but with perhaps an open mind and the right to individuality.

 

Religion, however, is a run away cancer on humanity. It divides societies for no other reason than people believing in a different fairy tale to their own.

 

Makes me laugh when people discuss a crime in the name of Allah, and question whether the act was religiously motivated, or whether the suspect has a mental illness, as if there is any difference between the two.