"If mere pretense is enough, why can't we just decide to see our lives as meaningful in the first place, and skip the positing of god in whom we don't really believe."
It seems to me that it would be a lot more natural to imagine that a meaningful fiction is true than to imagine that an objectively meaningless universe has a meaning.
Pretending that there is a god on the Christian model, e.g., gives you all sorts of contentful meaning built in (my life is significant in the eyes of an awesome eternal being, "I" and those I love will not be annihilated at death, etc.). This kind of pretense seems at least natural to me; I can relate to a fictional story like that.
然而，假装生活有无神论的意义，而实际上却不为这种意义的设想提供内容，这在叙述上是如此不自然，甚至是毫无意义的。小说应该有一个观点，如果宇宙被叙事规定为无意义的，我无法想象假装所描述的宇宙有一个观点或意义意味着什么。(首先，如果你能对其假定的虚构含义给出一个令人信服的叙述，那么我认为你已经描述了实际含义!)

也许，最后，上帝唯一需要存在的地方就是人，就像现象学。如果一个人相信，在一生中，在养育，教育和宗教实践的历史之后，上帝的经历和存在可能会在人体内建立起来，如果只是通过大脑的通道过程。然后，当生命结束时，一个人可能会真正与上帝在一起……甚至可能在最后的时刻有一个幸福的愿景。例如，我们有理由推测，当意识逐渐消失到死亡时，教皇约翰·保罗与上帝在一起。
I'm reminded of this passage from Wittgenstein's Tractatus:
"6.4311
Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through.
If by eternity is understood not endless temporal duration but timelessness, then he lives eternally who lives in the present.
Our life is endless in the way that our visual field is without limit."
Subsequent to a well established history of faith and belief, being with god in life or eternity is forever present, if only in a final moment, when "Death is not lived through."

60 minutes of pure enjoyment listening to the human creatures with their bicameral brains possessing the limited gift of reason discussing whether I made them. They have the ability to exploit each other, consume the ecosystem and even melt the polar ice cap. But let's see them try to move the planet's rotation off it's rotational axis ! At least the rest of the universe is still safe.

Hey Ken,
Here are a few comments from a believer?s point of view drawing from what has been called recently ?Reformed Epistemology? (i.e. Plantinga, Alston, & Wolterstorff).
It certainly seems correct to say that most believers do not believe in the existence of God based on reasoned arguments (or evidence). They may have a ?reason? in the singular sense but believing in God based on an argument is mostly likely uncommon.
You say;
?As a philosopher, I tend to want my beliefs to be based on either direct experience or reasoned arguments?And I'd like to think that if it were to be decisively settled that some belief of mine could not be so , I would more or less spontaneously surrender that belief, more or less without regret or remorse or wishful thinking of any kind. It seems to me one could and should have much the same attitude toward religious belief.?
The general principle then is one ought not to believe in things that are not based on arguments or direct experience. As for the former it seems that this has been shown to be an overly stringent view of rationality. If we have learned anything in our introductory epistemology courses it is that arguments for other minds, induction, the external world, that the world wasn?t created five minutes ago and so on and so on are not knock down winners and the dark shadow of skepticism constantly looms. Still this seems to most to be a problem for those arguments and our need for them not for belief in other minds, etc. If our belief in other minds, etc. is rational then it?s not based on arguments, rather most likely experience (or rather it is a basic belief).
The latter then is most likely where I would place belief (rational belief since it seems rationality has extended beyond ?reasoned arguments?) in God, it?s a matter of perception and experience. Your objection here seems to be that the experience is not great enough. That experience is not enough to ?dispel doubt?. This seems arbitrary at best. How much experience is enough to continue on in belief? If there is something else that we have learned in our intro courses its when you find that most of the arguments run out pretty much everything is in the realm of doubt. It seems pretty stringent (Descartes stringent!) to rule out a belief because doubt can still creep up.
As for pure faith, the ?I believe because its ridiculous?, it seems to me that the fideists were trying to get to something like rational belief based not on reasoned arguments but on experience and that has been the project, to a large degree, of Reformed Epistemology. I think Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Turtullian would have liked Plantinga and his cohorts.
One last point. You say;
? And I'd like to think that if it were to be decisively settled that some belief of mine could not be so , I would more or less spontaneously surrender that belief, more or less without regret or remorse or wishful thinking of any kind. It seems to me one could and should have much the same attitude toward religious belief.?
This seems unlikely, if this standard is held I would love to hear your arguments for belief in other minds, induction, the external world, that the world wasn?t created five minutes ago. Assuming you?re not a solipsist I doubt you would cease to believe in your loved ones if your arguments were refuted. Most likely your belief in other minds is based on experience and perception. What if, like your account of the experience of God, that experience just isn?t good enough. Who gets to say that? Especially when all of the evidence or arguments for other minds, etc. probably just aren?t good enough to dispel doubt. Again this doesn?t so much seem like a problem for your beliefs in ?other minds, induction, the external world, that the world wasn?t created five minutes ago?, instead it seems it?s a problem for your views on rationality.

好的，我们可以看看一个人是如何构思，比如说，一架飞机，然后进行设计、建造，最后驾驶它。由此我们推断，至少在某种程度上，存在依赖于有一个创造者，创造者的前提是有一个设计者，设计者的前提是一个构想者。
在这个前提下，我们通过观察物质宇宙推断，它一定是由某人或某事构思、设计和创造的…我们称这个构想者/设计师/创造者为“上帝”。"
But if we proceed from this same premise, then "God" must have been conceived, designed, and created. Question: by what or by whom?
Faced with this First Cause question in a philosophy class decades ago, I was unable come up with an answer suitable to support a belief in God.
后来，在经历了一些我无法从理性或一致的唯物主义角度解释的经历后，我重新审视了造物主理念中蕴含的各种信仰，最终发现了《道德经》和“永恒之道”的概念。对我来说，说道并没有假设有一个神，但它也没有否定生命和存在的神秘，假设有某种线索——我们不断寻求理解——贯穿所有的存在，在一个永无止境的阴阳循环中统一和连接所有的表现。
For me, contemplating the Tao does not answer the question, "Is there a god." For that matter, it doesn't answer any questions definitively. Rather, it keeps me questioning and questing, which enriches my life immeasurably by expanding my experience of life and all it offers.
Thanks for your program. I look forward to it every week.

I enjoyed the show and found enough of interest in what Phil Clayton said to ask him some questions, but I am not expecting that he will overcome my impression (shared by caller Paul) that there is no meaningful content to the question of existence or non-existence of the god that Phil appears to be talking about. In the end, talk of such a god seems to amount to no more than the naming of an apparently unanswerable question and no matter whether we call it 'God' or 'Tao' or something else, it has no moral (or other) implications. (This is not to imply that thinking about it in an "appropriate" way might not have some kind of beneficial calming effect on the human mind - but then so might thinking about any other abstract problem in mathematics or philosophy.)
Another concept of god, which arose in Ken and John's response to Rob's conundrum (about the comfort of acting as a believer despite not believing), was as a "flag" or symbol for the body of shared human values.
To me the confounding of these two concepts (reason and "purpose" for the existence of the universe, and "purpose" or values of human species and individuals) seems highly presumptuous, but Phil appeared to be claiming some linkages so I have asked him about that in response to his follow-up posting. Perhaps it is true that finding some consoling sense of substantiation re both is a common human need, but that doesn't imply that they both require the same "god" (and perhaps some religions - eg Hinduism - are closer to recognizing this distinction than others).
In fact, the "source of values" concept is what strikes me as being closer to what most people seek from religion, so I want to follow up with you, Ken, about some aspects of that.
First, in response to part of what you say in the blog posting, I think it exemplifies a kind of faith that is not in conflict with reason. In fact it *is* possible for a rational person to believe things not based on reason - so long as those beliefs do not conflict with reason. One way to achieve this is by having the beliefs devoid of empirical content (as I have suggested that belief in Phil's god may be). But this does not preclude meaningful content. For example many beliefs are exhortatory in nature. Commandments have impact but are not empirically falsifiable. Whether encouraging such beliefs is a good thing is something I would question (in fact I would strongly deny it, but that's not the topic here so I must hold back), but I don't believe that they can be successfully challenged on purely rational grounds.
Second, and this may be a simple question for you to answer, but I was unable to see a clear distinction between what is represented by the "fictionalist" label you used for Howie Wettstein's "positing", and the "semantic agnostic" applied to Rob's finding comfort in faithless participation (and in fact, if I was going to make a distinction, I'd be inclined to reverse the labels).
Either way, I was disappointed by the comfort you gave to Rob. He should, I believe, have been supported instead in his apparent willingness to acknowledge and deal with the fundamental dishonesty of his position. To adjust the semantics so that a statement of faith is not a lie to oneself does not avoid the misleading effect that making that statement might have on others. In the case of religion, those who find comfort by making a statement that means something different to others than it means to themselves do harm in various ways. One is by undermining and discouraging the truth-seeking of others who may be in a similar doubting position; and another is by lending credibility to the words themselves rather than the concept you mean by them, which empowers those who would turn the same words to a vastly different (and often quite evil) meaning.
This happens all too often with scriptural religion, so I think we need to do all we can to encourage the overt rather than covert denial of literalism.

I haven't had time to read all of the other posts on this topic, but I will go ahead and state my humble opinion. There is a God. I believe that if you ask people what God is then you will receive many different answers. Thus, God is what believe it is. People have believed in God in some form or fashion since the birth of civilization. I believe that several things can be learned from holding a belief in God. And, depending on your beliefs, a belief in God can foster advances in all realms of human activity. Looking to the past, our ancient ancestors perceived God in many different forms, and each form deserved respect. However, in the scientfic age of today 'things' have been reduced to numbers and all sorts of complex calculations that I won't pretend to understand. But, what do those numbers and calculations represent? The explanation of the physical/quantum world we live in does not make it any less spectacular. I believe that God exists in everything. However, if there was/is no God that does not mean that we should treat the world differently? Should we not pay respect to world we live in and the universe that created it? What would happen if we no longer believed in a God (different from the abolishment of religion)?
总之，上帝似乎只是一个词，人们用来描述他们周围的伟大力量的协调一致。然而，这些力量是否在.....不管是不是音乐会，他们都要为我们所知的生活负责。因此,实体/ ?我们知道上帝值得我们尊敬。我们不需要给他什么，但是当对任何事情缺乏尊重时，不好的事情往往会发生。

I think that if you want a good definition of God, you need go no further than St. Augustine's Confessions. Sure, it's a "starter level" book, but St. Augustine's idea of God, Good, Truth, and so forth, is mirrored throughout time by a multitude of thinkers.
And my cynic side has to mention that if you can sum up your religious beliefs, that is, you can infer why/how the universe was created, how you worship God, and so forth, with a single world like "Christianity" or "Judaism"... that's just plain silliness.

The original question being, "How can smart people still believe in God?" either means god believing people are not smart (as they may think they are), or to answer the "how" in the question (and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are smart) I offer the thought that these "smart god believing people" have been brainwashed. Society promulgates the god myth so incessantly that very few people can think beyond the thought that god must exist. In the way of analogy, if there are intelligent people that do believe that humans exist as separate races, and not one human race (due to very effective societal brainwashing), then why should we not see that brainwashing by societal beliefs is behind other incongruencies?

Even ultra-rational folk can share beliefs that are not based on solid evidence or rational argument. For instance, NASA has spent many millions searching for extra-terrestial life, despite no evidence that such life exists, nor the slightest idea how probable or improbable the spontaneous origin of life may be. Given the lack of evidence, it seems just as reasonable to assume that ours is the first and only planet in the universe yet pregnant with life, as to assume that life is so ubiquitous that it is lurking under the martian ice caps, sloshing within the frozen void of Europa, or stirring in the methane lakes of Titan. Though I share the fervent hope that life is present throughout the universe, I don't fool myself that this belief is based on anything but wishful thinking.
肯暗示相信上帝的人主要依靠信仰，而不相信上帝的人主要依靠理性。正如一位来电者所言，无神论者的信仰与相信上帝不存在的信徒一样。考虑到无神论者和有神论者都没有足够的证据或无懈可击的论据来证明或驳斥上帝的存在，我们有理由假设，从根本上说，争论的双方都同样依赖于信仰。
I suspect that if you scratch any argument hard enough, probing mercilessly with why questions, you will eventually scrape down to a bedrock of irrational and unsubstantiated belief. For even the most rational thinkers, reason and evidence alone are not enough to stir the passion of true conviction. Superficial beliefs are easy to flip with argument and evidence. Deeper beliefs have a protective coil of emotion encircling them like a devouring serpent. Our core convictions will not go down easily, simply because the light of reason is shone upon them.

The question should be "How can smart people believe in a single religion?" Belief in a God is between God and oneself. Belief in a religion requires suspension of all doubts and questions that challange a religion's writings and belief systems.

This is in response to David Chilstrom's comment above.
While it is true that absolute belief in the non-existence of all gods appears to lack convincing rational support, this does not contradict Ken's point that the unbeliever relies mostly on reason. In fact the typical unbeliever may simply not believe in either the existence or the non-existence of a god. Having been unconvinced by any argument pro or con myself, I have a lot of sympathy with that position.
The question at hand at the start of this discussion was "How can smart people still believe in god?". I don't think Philip Clayton answered that question for me because I did not find his argument compelling, but I do think that if the god concept is sufficiently abstract then it can be believed in without too much offense to reason.
Perhaps the more challenging question is that raised by Jody - "How can smart people believe in a single religion?"

In approaching the subject of "How Can Smart People Still Believe in God?" might I suggest that everyone read C.S. Lewis's ideas on this found in "Surprised By Joy," "Mere Christianity," and "The Problem of Pain." "Surprised" catalogs his quest from athiest to agnostic and then to believer. He called himself the most "reluctant believer in England, dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven." If any man proved that you can be smart and believe in God, Lewis did. The movie "Shadowlands," was about him and, of course, "The Chronicles of Narnia," are nothing more than Christian allegory. Lewis's contention was that the Jews, our No. 1 source for God-knowledge in the West, never pointed to proofs from nature to prove the existence of God, as the Greeks did. God, the Jews said, interjected himself into their lives and insisted on being listened to, like a jilted lover. God came looking for man, not the other way around. In the same way Christianity's uniqueness is not taken from great philosophical debate and argument. Christians simply said that God, who created the whole darn shabang we see at night in the sky, chose to enter our history through the birth canal, the only way in, and exit through the grave, the only way out. While here he showed us what God is really like. The Creator took the form of a lowly Jew in Roman times. As Lewis pointed out, he was who he said he was or he was a raving maniac. There is no middle ground. You must decide. You must believe or not believe. It is an act of the will, not based on reason. Reason will carry you so far, but we all must stop at the cliff, and yes, leap into Jesus Christ's arms, for safety. Is it a leap of faith out into darkness with no supporting evidence. That is exactly what it is and why God has made it so, no one will ever know until they go to him and he tells them after they have exited through the grave. The debate will never be solved to anyone's satisfaction. To the true believer, God, or Jesus Christ, as the Christians would say, is reality. The physical universe is only a stage of arranged and ordered particals or building blocks that makes the stage on which human history is acted out. That is why drama grips us so deep down in our minds, because we see something on the silver screen that we have oursleves experienced. Reality is not out there or in here, it is us, we; we ourselves are true reality and the world was made for us to inhabit, to grow and to mature in, until the time for our processing into the next universe comes. And Christ, our only reality and anchor, showed us how it is done. When the Jews and Romans attacked his positions and statements, he did not answer them. I wonder why?

RE: belief
Belief Puzzle
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2007/01/belief-puzzle.html

Please visit "http://www.squidoo.com/deepcontempthought/" to see a point of view that also supports this article.

In the absence of a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, whether by 'Big Bang' or not, there is no other option but to believe in a Creator who is outside of the need to have been created Himself - i.e. a god.
God - an eternal being without beginning or end - is the only reasonable conclusion, however difficult it might be for some people to accept, for whatever personal reason they might have for not wanting to accept it.
But even Stephen Hawking (an atheist) admits that science cannot explain the beginning of the universe and he himself says: "for that, you would have to appeal to God."
He clearly doesn't believe in God, being an atheist, but he is honest enough to admit it is the only conclusion which exists to man to account for it. I believe that this is one of the reasons why God says in the Bible: "Only the fool has said in his heart, there is no God."
This in itself puts those who believe in God in a superior faith / belief position to those who do not. Which God is the true God is another matter, which I don't have the space to go into here.

我非常聪明。只是问我。
I have wrestled with this question for over a decade, and have often remarked, "I would be an atheist if it weren't for this whole belief in a god thing I can't shake."
同样，我把自己描述为，“一个被灌输了无可救药的非信徒。”在很长一段时间里，我都是这么给自己找借口的。如果我能不信，我就不信。我常常认为宗教的存在仅仅是因为:a)孩子们被教育要接受它，就像他们被教育要接受权威一样;b)发生的无法解释的善需要答案，就像“神圣”允许存在的未受遏制的恶一样。
(有趣的是，所有宗教的一个普遍特征是对祖先的尊重，无论是对你个人的祖先，还是对宗教本身的尊重。宗教是权威人士获得无可辩驳的支持的一种方式，这是有道理的，即你死去的亲人/上帝不会同意的!There is no earthly way to controvert this and so submission to the 'belief' assures your continued acceptance in society and eternity.)
事实是，所有的宗教，一神论或不要求你做一件事:接受公然的不可证明。唯一的变量是你需要在多大程度上“表现得像是你接受了”它。It is impossible to gauge what one believes save for watching their actions, and religion has built in 'actions' that 'prove' you believe, but not that 'prove' your belief is justified.
And so it goes. I think this is the main hesitation (smart) people have with religion: the way in which you are required to subjugate your rationalizations about the world in order to accept the religion. Some people are able to strike an internal balance between the un-explained good and the unbelievable bad. Some cannot and cast off everything for lock-step causation which STILL manages to brilliantly NOT explain a great many things (good and bad).
It seems to me that BOTH ways of doing it are acts of... faith.

因为十字架的道、在那灭亡的人为愚拙、在我们得救的人为神的大能。For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
聪明的人的聪明，我要挫败。"
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
弟兄们，想想你被呼召的时候是什么样子。按人的标准，你们中间有智慧的不多;有影响力的并不多;贵族出身的人并不多。神却拣选了世上愚拙的，叫有智慧的羞愧。神拣选了世上软弱的，叫那强壮的羞愧。他拣选了世上卑微的，被人藐视的。那些不是的东西呢?要废掉现存的东西。”1 Corinthians 1:18-28

我才12岁，我不相信上帝。现在我知道我只是一个孩子，我不会说话，但我很聪明，我的年龄。几千年来，上帝一直是人们谈论的话题。没有人能给出正确的答案。这就是为什么我认为相信上帝是好是坏，为什么人们相信上帝。
Beliving in god is good because it gives a good balance in your life. Imagine if no one belived in god. People would be killing, slaughtering and

Im Gian,
im 16 years old and i do believe in God. No true believer should see science as something tha limits faith, knowing the meaning of faith i know that Science and God are the same. Science is just the study of God's creation ,ne?

我想这些天没有什么新东西可谈了。试图理解无限究竟有多大意义?从定义上讲，这是一种徒劳的做法。
The current argument against "God" seems to be, "since I'm not smart enough to comprehend the Divine, or you're not smart enough to explain it to me, then it must not exist"...
How reflective of our time, when everything is seen through the lens of the "self".
道金斯等人只使用犹太教和基督教共同的上帝概念作为他们论证的基础，这仅仅表明他们有限的知识或能力来构想神。世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区
I recognize the Divine in all things, and just because humans aren't happy with events, simply means that that humans are not the center of creation.
也许把这些精力花在教育人们他们不是创造的焦点上会更好。一旦实现了这一点(如果可以的话，那么也许我们可以继续前进。

How Can Smart People Still Believe in God?
They can't !
If one was to look at the complete reality, the complete truth, then one would have to then step back over and look off to the side to be able to look at a belief, since a belief is an attachment to less than complete truths, hence it is a belief.
现在，如果完全的真理在某个时候被像耶稣基督这样的人所陶醉，人类会立即拒绝这样的表述，因为完全的真理是在信仰体系的限制和限制之外的。
The consequences of this is that the complete truth would then be classified by the believers, as a lie.
The Jesus Christ would then basically have been crucified, once again !
现在，另一方面，聪明的人意识到信仰的实践，抑制了心灵能够直接面对真理。聪明的人不相信上帝，而是通过与真理直接接触来与上帝直接接触。
And so as long as belief is still practiced, complete truths can not be seen, and hence complete truths are not believed !
You don't believe this do you ?

To Smart Guy,
The subject of the discussion was the existence of "God", not the validity of "belief". Sure, there is a difference between believing and knowing, but the current crop of "smart people" are not allowing for this, either.
I don't believe in God, I know Divinity exists from direct experience, and that has nothing to do with the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition or religion. Religion is totally seperate from the existence of Divinity.
In addition, I know and believe that the Judeo/Christian/Islam religions exist, but IU also know that they have nothing to do with God, but are a socio-cultural control mechanism.
除非“聪明的人”受到教育，使他们能够从这种有限的视角中分离出来，否则就没有任何成长或实现的希望。
-zz

是的，我也有我的经验。
Mind expanded to point of absolute. Met the opposition. Came back to defend mankind. Wrote a web site. Did some Bible code decoding to remind myself of my other self on the other side. Then ran into a bit of a problem when I discovered that complete truths were aways rejected by mankind.
当真理呈现在人们面前时，人们会以为这是一个疯子说的。Click on Smart Guy for a peek at the Bible Codes such that you too can shoot the truth in the head !

i do not believe in god.i want to know whether there is a society/organisation for non/dis-believer on god or any supernatural power.pl email me thanks
my email ads :-
akgghu@yahoo.co.in

before we argue on existence of god we have to define god
what is it god
off course Moslems will tell you what is god then christens will tell you something else or Jews but that?s not the point
what I want to explain you my friends is that when you look around you wherever you you are
you see miracles
lets start by putting in some seeds in the send and after a month or so there something growing
was there any human being that can come up with some formula that he puts in a plant and it starts to grow
and lets go in alittle deeper
since creation of the universe does anybody know about a story that someone planted apples and it came out oranges instead
howmany times do we humens make mistakes even the smartes amung us
that proves my friends that there is some kind of power that?s beyond human understanding
and this is what I call god
if anybody can deny it ? im ready for argument

你不必相信地狱的存在;你还是会去那里。许多人不相信万有引力，但它仍然使他们留在地球上。真理是一切知识都始于对上帝的敬畏;没有它，所有的人都是愚蠢和失败的。如果你将永远为你的怀疑而燃烧和折磨，那么你认为你有多聪明或你赚了多少钱都无关紧要。这是多么的愚蠢。有趣的是，人们受的教育越多，他们就越笨。在我攻读硕士学位的时候，我觉得很多教授都是彻头彻尾的白痴。我无法相信一群怪人在我们的大学里教些什么; and they push their atheistic view on the students. Misery does love company. Wake up before it is too late.

I graduated from Harvard with a 4.2 GPA.
我在巴厘岛eve in God.
你是说我“不聪明”吗?

>> I graduated from Harvard with a 4.2 GPA.
我在巴厘岛eve in God.
你是说我“不聪明”吗?>>
sure - why not![?]

not only does no smart person believe in god, nobody else does either. religion is all a goofy social dominance game, as the policies that issue therefrom clearly show.

1) We are animals first, humans with imaginations second. We live in a dangerous world, in an unsure world where death is just around the cornor. Try to remember your own anxiety as an infant or notice the fearful stages of growth in your children, especially when they realize how dependent they are on the adults. Humanity was also in this state of anxiety in our early history. Tigers were big and all we had were spears. Part of us feels this all time. We feel vulnerable in our animal natures and limited. We strive for growth, mastery and propagation just like every living thing that has ever existed. We crave and greed for anything that represents more abundant and secure biological life - even when it is actually taken care of in our advanced civilization. In the following essay remember we are animals. Thinking animals but animals nevertheless.
2)然而，我们是群居动物——像一些群居动物，但完全不像大型猫科动物、鲨鱼或鹰。我们需要彼此和团体来与其他动物和大自然竞争。但我们也会与人类同胞争夺控制权和地位。了解自己的位置可以让我们在团队中承担特定的工作，感受目标和意义。我们测试和衡量自己在团队中的地位。我们不断地用精通的文化标准来比较自己(并评判他人)。在历史早期，我们的身体技能是重要的衡量标准，但很快就变成了社会技能。外部直接知觉的功能是衡量我们在群体中的安全、保护和价值水平。获得人类同伴的认可和尊重会增强这种保护，因为有人真的在保护你。在一个足够先进的文明中，当食物供应、医疗保健、住房和教育得到解决时，成长的冲动——拥有更丰富的生活——不会消失。 That is because the emotional part of us knows we are still limited and vulnerable without our cultural and group protections. So we unconsciously compare worth, significance and power in our society - to find our place in it and to gather as many protectve affliations around us as possible.
3) As our brains evolved and abstraction and symbolic abilities developed we imagined we could be gods! Our situation was so perilous in the wild we tended to make false correlations in nature, thus creating "magic" to allow us to feel more in control. Eventually, our egos created complex systems of symbols representing physical skills. We created institualized ritual to control the environment and its ceremonies to control each other. Magic turned into religion. Religion turned into divine states. Divine states turned into secular society and political philosophies. Thus, magical ritual, religion and its decendent instutions allowed for defined heirarchy, castes, classes and organizational efficiencies.
4)我们的自我意识不喜欢听到我们有弱点，或者只是寻求地位竞争的动物，或者我们是自己受苦的原因，或者我们是脆弱的，有限的，有一天会死。因此，我们通过抓住任何能让我们感到安全、有信心一切都会好起来的人或事来寻找消除内疚和脆弱感的方法，在他们的照顾下，我们会繁荣、成长、变得有意义，过上更充实的生活。这就是“英雄冲动”。它普遍存在于所有文化中，除了最简单、最平等的文化。我们重视并承认那些会让我们感到安全或让我们感觉自己是赢家的符号(而不是现实)。当然，这在森林中有大量的生存价值，因为有些人确实拥有真正的英雄技能——作为狩猎采集者——但与“英雄”扯上关系的冲动被扭曲到了荒谬的地步。对财产、头衔、地位、大家庭的获取，以及对与实际生存需求相去甚远的符号的依恋，是推动我们的文化和政治的动力。追求更多、更多、更多的冲动推动着我们的经济体系。事实上，正是我们对更有保障的生活的需求，以及我们对自己为何渴望更有保障的生活的无意识，创造了这个经济体系——这个体系依赖于每年4%的经济增长，尽管我们生活在一个资源有限的有限世界。与其他物种相比，人类为死亡的恐惧而进行的不受约束和不加反思的思考是使人类变得疯狂的原因。 The fundamental confusion is taking mere words or concepts to be reality.
6) Biologically, abstracting egos arise from the left hemisphere of the brain. The symbolic processors of the left brain take fear arising from the amygdala and rationalizes an insulating symbolic defense - many of which are words or concepts. The left hemisphere also tends to mask perceptual realities of the right hemisphere since this holistic part does not harbor linguistic processors. The right hemisphere cannot argue for itself even though it harbors many intelligences! This effectively removes feelings of vulnerability and fear from our thinking selves but it also veils broader realities and perceptions that could have survival value. This is a necessary condition for mental health and negotiation in a highly symbolic environments which most people live in. Cultures are systems of symbols that reinforce a consensual strategy against this fear of death. Or, at least, a "social symbolic death" with insignificance or loss of approval among our fellows. Cultural values change as the demands of survival from the environment change. We create complex symbolic absolutist views and cultural sanctioned rituals, rules and behaviors that institutionalize the strategy against death because total faith brings the most confidence. That is why suicide bombers say they love death as much as we love life - they are assured at place in paradise. These emotional displacements provide order and sense of meaning to our world and provide confidence. The value of the concept of immortality, gods and single great hero, God, has provided the greatest sense of relief for many cultures.
7) Furthermore, We create conflict and suffering through mutual exclusive competing symbols within and between our arbitrary rule-bound cultures. Thus, individuals will constantly compare who's up and who's down, one street gang will fight another over graffiti, how clothing is worn, territoral encroachment; soceer games will erupt in violence over a game, republicans and democrats will demean and "symbolically" fight each to other's social death (the inability to influence others). Our egos constantly strive to strengthen its stature compared to others. Our egos are willing to defend, belittle or even fight to the death any symbol or person who threatens our unconscious immortality symbols because our ego's imaginary life is at stake. The impulse to prove oneself right and the other wrong is simply the defense of the ego against imaginary death.
8) Whether it be God, Nirvana or our imagined legacies on earth, or our political philsophies our egos find something to latch on to, no matter where we live. Cultures, religions and all absolutist philosophies exist to provide approval-seeking humans ways of organizing, encouraging, coping, prospering, staving off fear of death and moving civilzation forward toward some imagined good life - even at the expense of present happiness. We are social beings that create our own environments whose need for a sense-of-belonging and self esteem is universal so convienently adopt the prevailing notions that imply worth. The need for human-connection and approval is primary and real, cultural values are secondary and imaginery. This is a very important point!
9) Our egos can be exploited, controlled and abused by those who use our needs, hopes and dreams to suit their own agendas or by those that insist to withdraw their respect unless we tow the cultural line. We all, quite naturally, give our loyalty and our lives to those who best can communicate to our emotions the symbols that promise security and strength but most importantly - a sense of belonging. The sucess of leadership is proportional to the level of alignment of culturally adopted values to the real demands of the environment. Blind following often leads to disaster. Following, a worldview, hero or personal expression is only useful to the extent that it actually haromonizes with the reality of others, other cultures and the physical environment.
10) So, we only contribute more suffering in the world when we allow the ego unbridled comparison, identification and power-seeking or when we let our egos get competitive, huffy and violent over whose coping mechanisms, behaviors, opinions are best. Judgment and negativity is the primary diagnostic of absolutism - whether it is ubridled praise or criticism. Acceptance (tolerance), enjoyment and enthusism is the primary diagnostic for awareness of the extreme comparative activity of the ego.

在某些发展阶段，人类绝对需要发展一些“健康的”焦虑置换，以在成长过程中培养自尊和信心。孩子们需要确信有一个“守护天使”在保护他们免受壁橱里的“恶魔”的伤害。
Religion and absolutist belief has its place and function. However, when the displacements become rigidly absolute as the world gets more complex and subtle these psychodynamic strategies become mal-adaptive. The fact that people will become very aggressive in defending absolutist belief is - in itself - a major self-inflicted insanity in humans.
There seems to be a healthy arc of development that involves a increasingly generalized worldview.
1) Identification with parental heros and development of self esteem by their early unconditional love and approval from successful negotiation of the social rules they present.
2) Differentiation from the parents by successfully negotiating their familial rules and structures. Then, successful introduction to symbolic social strategie s that provides their own power to influence people and social environment.
3) Getting a sense of approval and belonginess from subcultures that are relatively more aligned to broader accepted cultural values. Choosing heros, beliefs, activities and groups that allow some sense of security, direction, personal expression and sense of worth and significance. That is, following arbitrary cultural rules or societal expectations - or "world of symbols" representing security and approval
4) Final realization that cultural symbols and expectations go beyond survival needs and begin to become vain, wasteful or even maladaptive to the real environment. We begin to search for security, meaning and a sense of approval, belonginess, direction from many alternative strategies. We accept no world view is absolute. Finally separating imaginery status symbols from the actual biological requirements of healthy and happy social life.

We tends to believe GoD as one who is not seen, I can show you God, Please listen with a open Mind.
God is Fire, Water, Air. God is the Life, Existance of Life , and Death. These have immense power which does not have a shape. We can see it, We can fell it but we fail to reliase it, We tend to look for answers womewhere else.

The Insanity of Unbelief
by Dan Delzell
Who could ever create a story as wild as the one in the Bible? What mastermind could put together 66 books by more than 40 authors and have it written over a period of 1500 years? Incredibly, all of these authors point to the same two ultimate destinations: first, an everlasting paradise offered as a free gift to those who believe; and second, a place of eternal torment for those who reject the gift.
What could this many authors possibly gain by coming up with such an extraordinary story on their own and then presenting it as truth? It certainly didn't make their lives any easier. Why would some of these same authors allow themselves to be tortured to death rather than recant their message? These clues provide healing from spiritual insanity for anyone who is open-minded. Are you open-minded or close-minded about Christ?
Who would ever make up a story that a God of love sent His only Son to suffer torture at the hands of men? How loving is that unless God really did love the world so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins just as the Bible states? Why out of thousands of religions in the world does only one religion offer forgiveness of sins as a free gift? Why does this one religion just so happen to be the only religion that has each of these 40 authors over 1500 years describing the same reality? How did they all get their writings to fit together so well and with so much consistency?
这些作者除了在天堂、地狱和弥赛亚的问题上意见一致之外，是不是每个人都疯了?如果他们不是疯子，那么为什么几个世纪以来所有的作者都参与了这样一个关于神话般的上帝和一个牵强附会的救赎故事的阴谋呢?你有足够的信心和足够的证据来真正相信这只是一场世界性的骗局吗?你是否足够清醒地看到，拒绝基督比接受他作为你的主和救主需要更多的信心，而不是基于更少的证据?
How insane is it for you to live 80 years upon this earth for yourself just hoping that the Bible is wrong about Jesus and about heaven and hell? How crazy is it for you to risk spending one year in agony, yet alone forever and ever in unimaginable torment? Who would ever lie and make up such a place? In a postmodern age where people are brainwashed to believe that nothing is absolute, are you absolutely, 100% sure that Christianity is a lie and that Jesus was a fraud?
If you don't believe in absolutes, then you are not really positive that Christianity is wrong, are you? Please read this next sentence slowly and carefully: Are you really willing to risk spending billions upon billions of years in hell rather than repent of your sin and accept a free gift from a loving God who has given us a written revelation of eternity? What if you really were insane on this issue? You wouldn't know that you were insane, would you? Are you willing to admit that it is possible that you are insane about Christianity and about your need for salvation?
How can you be absolutely sure that Christianity is wrong and that you are right? You! Not the 40 authors over 1500 years, but you! What makes you the right one? ?There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.? (Proverbs 14:12)
引用一位1990年著名的励志演说家的话?“s，我恳求你阻止‘疯狂’?趁现在还不算太晚。你知道为什么神允许你现在在你生命中的这个时刻读这篇文章吗?如果你不愿意治愈你精神上的疯狂，那么你赢了?对你所读的内容没有线索。拒绝神给你的好消息会给你提供不信的疯狂的证据。你是疯到连自己的疯狂都认不出来，还是今天你的灵魂里还有一丝精神上的理智?

聪明不代表诚实。这甚至可能意味着你是一个聪明的骗子。虽然有诚信问题的聪明人有可能假装信仰上帝，即使是聪明人——任何现代受过教育的人，如果诚实地、毫不回避地询问上帝是否存在的问题，都会得出否定的答案。
But that's been the case for near a 1000 years now.

God is nothing but a fragment created by the human mind so that they can live their lives believing they are safe.

The God in whom I believe has created an infinite universe which is growing at an infinite speed. The God in whom I believe has an unlimited control over us, he doesn't need us. The God in whom I believe has created an automated instant punishment system that he doesn't need an end day. The God in whom I believe lets the death being a transfer to another life, better or worse depending on our yields. The God in whom I believe is the center of the universe, he has created himself from nothing and created the universe instantly without suffering.
This is the God in whom I believe!
我相信的上帝不需要我们为他而战。我所信仰的上帝不会让我们为了他而自相残杀。我相信的上帝不需要我们相信他。
我相信上帝了解我们，因为他创造了我们，他不需要考验我们!
我所信仰的上帝不需要限制我们的自由，因为我们不会冒犯他人。
The God in Whom I believe has created an automated instant rewarding system and an automated instant punishment system that he doesn't need to do it himself at a verdict day.
我所信的神是公平的，所以如果我们的实际情况不同，那是因为我们前世的收益不同。我们值得拥有真正的生活!
The God in Whom I believe is clement. He can't put us in the hell forever for any reason. He just doesn't mind if we believe in him or not because he has all the control over us.

这种废话根本不应该有什么争论。没有上帝，没有魔鬼，任何人或事物都没有灵魂。任何相信上述任何一种观点的人都肯定是在妄想。我无法相信这种废话已经持续了这么长时间，已经塑造了我们生活的世界，我们遵守的法律，我们打的战争……这一切都是因为很多人坚持虚构的故事，因为他们太害怕面对自己的死亡和无意义。
All religions are retarded. I respect people's right to pursue happiness, and if that is religion, then so be it. But in no shape or form do I have to respect their choice. You do not even have to be smart or articulate to argue the case of the non-existence of religion. It just is not so. I strongly recommend any person with a sliver of self respect to stop believing in religion, souls, magic, energies, ghosts, or anything of the kind because they do not exist and I will not listen to anyone's argument that they do, because anyone who wants to argue that these things are real is a moron with mental problems and I would rather enjoy sushi, wine, or sex.
God can suck my phallic rod, well actually no, he can't, because he does not exist.
我可以免费把我的灵魂卖给你，但你不会得到任何东西，因为它不存在。
也许我会在地狱见到你，但肯定不会，因为地狱不存在。
Ok, well I am done here. I'm going to go to the homeless guy on the corner and buy him a forty, because I know that it will make me feel good inside, and he will get drunk and forget his life sucks for a minute.

To that guy that claims to have a 4.2 gpa from harvard: There are different types of intelligence and different ways you can get good grades. You may be have a certain strong suit ... maybe you are good at remembering lots of facts that you read and good at regurgitating them for example. If you believe in god however, rational thinking is not one of your strong points.

我爱耶稣。故事到此结束，别想太多了，这就是简单的道理!上帝是真实的，如果你不相信我，那么你可以在审判日和他争论，一个不相信上帝的人必须承认，在他生命的某个时刻，他的心有一种被咬的感觉，但他不知道那是什么，我是对的，你知道!如果你请求圣灵，你会得到它，他会引导你，不，我不服用任何药物，作为一名护士，我知道这会改变你的想法。每个人，诚实地读圣经，它会告诉你为什么不好的事情会发生，等等!!!!，哇!难以置信为什么我们人类总是需要物理证据!?作为一个年轻的女人，我已经明白我永远不会比上帝聪明，你需要和平，只有耶稣会给你，我不是说你不能没有上帝的生活，这是可能的，但最好的祝福给你!如果我没有耶稣，我也会痛苦，顺便说一下，这不是一种侮辱。我宁愿死，发现没有上帝，也不愿把我的生命交给他，发现地狱是真实的。在我的生活中，太多的祈祷得到了回应。我在教堂里祈祷，牧师描述我的情况时一字不差地说了同样的话。魔鬼是狡猾的，他很聪明，不要低估你的对手。 " greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near. I'll be praying for u. Jesus loves u.Jesus loves u!!,oh, i forgot, Jesus loves u! nd hell is real. oh my=p. Wake up from ur sleep all u nations!, jesus is moving across america and worldwide, and coming to a town near u!!,well ok hes already with u.

要判断谁是“正确的”，最简单的方法就是找出那些前后连贯的论点。它们似乎大多暗示着缺乏一个独一无二的上帝。圣经有所有的答案，因为它是完全矛盾的。这里的电视上有一个宗教节目的广告，屏幕上的男人说“来加入我，享受上帝无条件的爱”，然后我说嗯……无条件的?
Hell? Commandments? Pillar of Salt? Unconditional?!
为什么宗教之间要互相争斗?所有的宗教不都宣扬和平吗?
什么矛盾的圣经经节是一个好的反驳?

I do not 'believe' in either god or man, because since 2400BCE man claimed himself to be god and demanded to be called Lord. Then he subjugated one gender to the other gender BY LAW. Patriarchy and slavery blossomed into full feudalism. For 4000 years patriarchy was free of checks and balances and developed language to fit H/his control. Yes god exists: H/he is man.

迈克，如果讨论还没结束，那就结束了。除了“阿门”，人们还能对这个铁板钉钉的论点说什么呢?

我相信上帝的存在。因为如果你在圣经旧约中看看犹太人能吃什么，不能吃什么，例如犹太人不能吃螃蟹，猪，以今天的技术，我们可以看到螃蟹是底层饲料，如果它们不煮熟或储存得当，它可能会有健康问题，猪肉也一样，你可以吃未煮熟的牛排，你可能会食物中毒，但猪肉可以让你讨厌的东西，如寄生虫或它的上帝。or they were smarter then what we credit them