You do understand that Dawkins does not actually believe that, but uses it as a much more plausible (given what we know of the universe around us) version of a "creation" than that a tiny insignificant god of the hebrew people (one among thousands at the time) is the actual sole god and created everything with his magick?

the nervous system did not create religion. humans created religion.
the human nervous system, because it is eelf-aware, had no explanation for thw rodl around it, and thereby created supernatural beings who were responsible for the unexplained. all this got codified into one creator being. The old testament talks about how YHVH was one god among many (for at the time mono-theism was not practiced most anywhere. It was in egypt when they worshipped the sun for about 70 years but that shit fell off. people like their personal deities.) sometime betwene that and the new testament the hebrew nation codified their beliefs into there being just one god, Jehovah, and none other.

and sure religion helps people sometimes. nothing is truly all bad or all good, but much of humanity's suffering over the last 2000 years has been cuased in the name of religion and gods, or suffered because of differences in religion or gods. abolish the whole shit I say.

with their livers?



that's a historical/humanistic explanation, not an evolutionary explanation. symbolic thinking predates modern humans, and ritual behavior is found in other mammals.


we'd find other excuses without it i'm sure

i agree, and i rub my rabbit's foot in expression of my good wishes for the cause, and in hope of bringing about its end sooner.

what I meant was that religion is a collective creation, not an individual creation.

I think so too.

In France, and maybe in whole Europe, religion has been removed from the political field: it's clearly politically incorrect.
Yet it didn't prevent politicians to do whatever they want, like invading other countries, in the name of "Human Rights", or freedom, some jolly atheists beliefs.

right-- my approach is that most common traits of human culture are a product of our genes rather than a conscious, purposeful choice-- i'm referring to the basic impulse, not the particular cultural/social/historical manifestations of it. we don't "decide" to eat, acquire language, mate, make war, pray when in need, etc-- our genes decide for us most of these things. consciousness is a very thin thin layer painted on the surface, and it has the delusion that it has control over the writhing mess of the flesh and millions of years of acquired atavisms, instincts and automatic behaviors. we don't make religion-- it's made with us.

of course, there are mutants, albinos, and such.

but i do you yell at the tv when you favorite team is playing football? ehhhh? do you put send them "energy" to help them win? do you cheer even though they are 1000 miles away? yeah... fess up.

i know that's not "religion" but it's the same principle in my eyes. propitiatory prayers, rituals, etc. and it's deeply ingrained in the human nervous system. some people have a mild case of it and some people go wackadoodle with it, yeah.

when did France invade people in the last 45 years?

good point, but yelling at the TV when yr team sucks is not the same as deciding that a being we have no proof of and no response from is a supreme being and that everyone who does not believe so will be eternally damned. that is at least 8 levels up on preposterous.

that's the exploitation of a human instinct by those who know how it works.

imagine if by some scam the tv announcer told you that the outcome of the football game is not decided by the players but by your prayers. suppose that you're not allowed to ever go in the stadium. only "the priests" can visit the inner sanctum. everyone else must watch via tv and pray. meanwhile, the games are being arranged. players are raised as monks and told that their streigth comes from the prayers of the fans out there. oh yeah. sounds like a bad science fiction novel, but that's kinda like it works. organized religion is a huuuuuge scam to control people by appealing to a weakness of their nervous system-- the need to compensate uncertainty with symbolic answers, actions and beings. it's the origin of poetry as well if you think about it. ok ive rambled too much and i leave myself exposed to jinxes.

I was refering to the napoleonian ( 1,2,3 ) wars, mostly n°1.

dont' forget colonizing various brown peoples in the name of "civilization"

those colonial wars were fought until-- what ended first, algeria or vietnam?

Back to school. As far as I know, I should be reading Gilgamesh, Brothers Karamazov, Andre Dubus, and Freud.

Hmm, I don't remember..
maybe you do?
You're 102 years old, maybe you were personnally involved? (Vietnam war..)

But don't forget the (sub) topic: is it religion *only* who creates violence and hatred.

was no napoleon fully supported by the Roman Catholic vatican?

I think not.
I've read that the pope was reluctant to crown N1 as an emperor, so N1 did use political pressure on him.

fucking pope.

Ok, I am done with Section 1 of Crimes and Punishment. I know it goes without saying, but so far, this is GREAT. I have to say though, I feel like I'm watching a Woody Allen movie...

In which case it'd be Whine and Punishment.

Or Crimes and Misdemeanors...

I finished Franny and Zooey today. I liked it, although the dialogue did wear a little thin toward the end. I will be starting Good Omens tomorrow.