excreationist

Well an animal can analyse its environment/desires. People are often capable of being aware that they are analysing their environment/desires (thinking). The most straightforward way is to have this analysis automatically trigger words so that the train of thought is commentated using words. And then these words can be analysed. Once you talk or think about analysing your analysis then you are at an even higher stage. But after a while you'd forget how high up the ladder you are... To be consciousness, I'd say that you'd have to be aware that we have thoughts - in an explicit (language-based) way.

luvluv

koya:

I think you mistake my tone. Your points about the impossibility of a complex system ever simply "becoming" conscious, and your point about the machinery of the brain system needing a "driver" are excellent well-thought out arguments.

Your arguments about the "soul" being some kind of disembodied psyche-twin abiding in another dimension is not frightening (to me at least). It strikes me as somewhat silly conjecture, and if one were to construct a materialistic explanation for self-awareness perhaps that would be better left to people in fields like cognitive science. Sheer speculation, even that which is defined by rigorous argument, is not science. You are engaging in myth-making

I, as someone who advocates Christianity, would be nothing but enthralled if you were to submit to intelligent, undecided people that the soul, or "self", is a real thing that cannot be anticipated or explained by sheer materialism, and then offered your String Theory explanation as to where consciousness comes from. If you think that theory, which has no more claims on "truth" than any religious notion of the self, could compete with the religion of Christianity, that is your opinion. I, on the other hand, am not at all afraid of it. (But I do marvel at how exactly one can interpret and assign emotional intent across the message board.)

Furthermore, I guess you go through your diatribes for your own entertainment or for that of others on the message board and not for me. I, for one, have heard them and have never found them to be particularly useful or informative. They are basically emotionally-charged rants with no objectivity or rationality whatsoever. At the end of the day, your description of what constitutes the religous person are strawmen that would not entirely fit any of the religious people I know (and excepting 6 months in Brooklyn, I have lived in the Bible Belt all my life.) Everything you say amounts to something a bigot would say about "all black people" or an anti-semite would say about "all Jews" or a mysoginist would say about "all women". I respect and admire your intelligence, but when it comes to religion sir I must say with all due compassion that you appear to me a single-minded bigot. Nothing you say is relevant except to the most stereotypical concept of a Christian or a religous person. Even if this were true of SOME religious people, to say that your strawman concept of what it means to be a Christian is a sufficient explanation of ALL religious expressions EVER is obviously to go far beyond the strength of the particular argument you seem intent on making. Do you really think that you can put St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, Martin Luther King, Martin Buber, Martin Luther, and Gandhi into this category of stupid, naive individuals who were forced to believe out of physical terror of eternal punishment. If you are engaging in scientific assesments of religion, then you should be the first person to admit that significantly large expressions of religion fall outside of the context of you explanation (so many, in my experience, as to refute your explanation altogether. I hope your theory is not unduly based on your own personal family experiences) You need to go to a Unitarian Universalist meeting where there is no authoriatarian structure and all decisions on official church decisions are reached by a two-thirds majority vote, and where their practiced motto is "an open and honest search for truth" and which, while I believe it was founded as a Chrisitian doctrine, it is now pretty much evenly populated by all religous sects (even atheists). Your opinion of the roots of relgion are entirely too invested in the particular authoritarian manifestations of the Catholic Church and of Fundamentalist Southern Protestanism. It would not apply to most manifestations of Eastern religions, it crumbles entirely in the face of Buddhism (a religion whose ultimate goal is the DESTRUCTION of the self, whose ultimate reward is to cease living), and is insufficient to explain any religion whose primary expression is solitary and reflective (Yoga and the spiritual dimensions of Chinese martial arts like the chi as practiced in Tai Chi and the "soft" forms of Chinese Kung Fu). The earliest manifestations of Judaism had no notion of Hell at all, or of the afterlife as a place of punishment. Their afterlife was Sheol, ghost-like spirit world that God was apparently not very interested in. Yahweh was treated as a deity that was primarily concerned with the living and whose punishments and rewards were for the living. So the origins of the very religion in which you most firmly base your critique did not originate with anything like the strawman scenario you draw out. The belief in the soul was not originally promoted under threat. Jews had a concept of the soul long before they had a developed concept of an afterlife. Sheol was analgous to Hades, the good and the bad went there and suffered identical fates unalterable no matter how one might live.

You fail to acknolwedge and express how LOCAL your conception of religion is and how little it is even aware, much less inclusive of, forms of religion that do not fit your explanation. One of the first duties of the honest scientist is to admit data that does not fit his or her hypothesis and to seek to remedy whether or not the data is statistically insignificant or whether the data disproves the hypothesis. Furthermore, you would have to admit that the TONE of your protestations in regard to religion resemble more the tone of the propagandist or the demagogue (you refer to people as liars who may have only been deluded. You also assume that the soul is the property of a sole inventor who knew he was lying, rather than a wide spread conclusion that was drawn nearly simleltaneously by many peoples all over the planet who had no contact with each other. I wonder whether or not anthropology would support the claim that the concept of the "soul" had one inventor who knew he was lying. More on that later.)

I doubt a psychologist would endorse your opinion that a person who is self-deluded is "lying" to himself. It is at least as possible that a self-deceived person has no conscious grasp on reality and isn't really responsible for the manifestations his self-delusion would produce. The person who invented the existence of the soul (though it is extremely doubtful that it was a single person), even if he WERE self-deluded, could not be said to be lying. Again, granting the unlikely hypothesis that the concept of the soul was invented by a single human being, the person could have just GUESSED at the existence of a "soul" from the first sight of a corpse. He could see a lifeless body, which is the person but which is not, and assume that life itself is not present in the body but in some thing that inhabits the body temporarily. Many posited that this was a soul, others that it was a "life-force". But it seems to me a radical hypothesis to suggest that for mankind to have come to agree on the notion of the soul there must have been a dishonest authoritarian author. It seems a conclusion that could have rationally been drawn by anyone who had seen a dead body.

In any case, whether or not the self-deluded are in any sense of the word lying or attempting to decieve others when they speak things their conscious self BELIEVES to be true is not even a question for you to answer unless you are a psychiatrist with experience in this area. Whether or not the concept of the soul was the invention of one person with the intent of deceiving and controlling others is not a question for you to answer but for an anthropologist who has studied the phenomenon to answer. It seems to me that many of the conclusions you draw are far outside of your field (unless you are a trained psychologist, anthropologist, and theoretical physicist who has conducted extensive research into all the areas you are discussing) and, worse, outside of anything approaching extensive research. They seem to be the results of casual reading, parochial experience, and excessive extrapolation. If you do indeed base your theories on scientific theories, then you need to research whether or not the experts say that self-deluded people willfully lie and whether or not the concept of the soul really originated from a single author.

Materialistic conjecture is not science, forming conclusions based on extensive relevant data is science. As I said, most of your opinions amount to science fiction. Basing something on what might be science and then subjecting it to critique is not science.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself in saying that religion is immutable and then saying that it has changed over the years. Religious expression is subject to critique and change (heard of the 95 Theses). If religion is remediable by questioning and evolving knowledge, then it is obviously NOT a cult mentality maintained by fear and dogma. If religion can CHANGE, and further be changed from the BOTTOM UP (heard of the Reformation?) then the phenomenon is not TOTALLY a top-down structure interested only in control. It is due AT LEAST AS MUCH to individuals searching for a greater truth. The field of theology is a field of intense theory promotion and critique. It is not a field of dogmatic assertions maintained by fear and intimidation. Through the process of questioning and discussion religious beliefs change. (Many, many of my own personal beliefs have been changed by reading and questioning. More on that later.) How then can you say that any (much less ALL) religious doctrine is the result solely of top-down authoritarian attempts at control?

I do not NECESSARILY believe in substitutionary atonement, but I am still reading and forming an opinion on it. (I am reading opinions from both sides, as I do on most religous issues, so my opinions are not the result of being informed to believe a certain way by my "masters"). I believe it is possible that Jesus crucifixion was important solely as a pretext for the ressurection by which men could have reason to believe in His authority. I am undecided on the issue, but I don't believe that Jesus's death on the Cross necessarily is a meaningless event without the doctrine of original sin.

I didn't bring into the discussion the other beliefs of Christianity because I did not then, and do not now, believe they are relavent to the discussion of where the concept of a soul came from and whether those who believe in the soul do so because they are being forced to by a controlling liar. We can divorce a discussion of the soul from an angry diatribe against Christianity, but you seem to be unwilling to divorce really anything from an angry (and a decidedly unobjective) diatribe against Christianity.

It is a shame because I intended to start this thread today saying about how much respect I have gained for you by seeing you argue with other atheists. You are obviously a very intellligent and thoughtful person and I would love to hear what you say about just about anything except religion. It is not because your arguments against Christianity are so brilliant that they frighten me, its that your anger against Christianity completely obstructs anyone from seeing the thoughtful person that comes out when you are discussing subjects other than religion.(while I am thinking about it, I totally agree with you again about totally abolishing the pledge of allegiance in schools. I think it is fascist.)

So that we can continue this without further digressing this thread, I'm going to start a thread on which you can respond to this and link it here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000416" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000416</a>

Meanwhile, I am enjoying your posts on this particular subject and will continue to read them.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

DRFseven

So, luvluv, getting back to the discussion on intent, I'd like to know your opinion. Physiologically, for intent to occur, we know that our cells respond to stimuli by changing and that this change is transmitted to the "conscious cortex". When I asked before, you never answered (probably you were overwhelmed by some of the other posts!), but maybe you could answer now. Physiologically, what do YOU think happens during intent? Specifically, when sensory impulses come in through the senses (let's say you notice your gas tank is on empty and have to decide what to do), what happens to these impulses?

luvluv

No idea. I'm not ashamed to say that some of this has started to go over my head, and I'll need to do some background reading just to be able to keep up. I had kind of reconciled myself to watching the more educated people continue this debate and I would just follow along as best I could. Remember I did tell you I knew next to nothing about cognitive science or how the brain works. My objections to determinism are more or less philosophical; I'm not even qualifed to offer an opinion on the biological side.

DRFseven

I understand that, and I don't expect you to dive in to detailed study of the nervous system. What I'm saying is that I have given a simple outline of what happens physiologically (plus a good educational link on the subject so that you don't have to just take my word). In addtion, ex has provided an explanation in graphic form several times in some of these discussions. Basically, it describes a pattern of impulses begun by a stimulus and directed according to code. This system results in a process that is the antithesis of freedom, since all of the movements depend upon other factors and the final decision is a translation of impulses that have been narrowed and narrowed down to one point by various constraints, biological as well as experiential.

If the decision-making process IS a physical process such as has been described (and all evidence shows it is), how can you continue to describe the decisions produced by it as free? It is motivated by feelings generated by the replaying of past experiences (memory). If the process is NOT necessary for decision-making, what is it for? Why do patients with lesions in areas associated with these processes show corresponding problems with decision-making?

I would just like to know the role that you think nerve impulses play in the decision-making process.

excreationist

I guess you mean this diagram:

This shows what I think are the key processes in an aware brain (e.g. of mammals). I hope to study other people's cognitive framework theories - e.g. the one at <a href="http://www.armory.com/~moe/8psyu.htm" target="_blank">this</a> one. (Maybe you might like that site DRF7)
Through my occasional readings of neuroscience-stuff it seems that the "conscious" parts of our brain can inhibit instinctive reflexes, like jerking away from a hot surface. Making instinctive reflexes happen automatically without any invention of the decision-making parts would help with survial a lot but I'm not sure if that is required to create something with mammal-type intelligence... (which still hasn't quite been done yet) I had previously had it that the decision maker has to initiate all of our muscle movement...

luvluv

DRF to be totally honest I was a little preoccupied with my response to Koy and I wasn't keeping up with the stuff you linked. I'll have to look over it and get back to you.

DRFseven

Great site, ex. I was wondering if you could explain your take on the emotional motivation system for decision-making. Also, when you refer to the "decision-maker" are you referring to the person, him/herself, or to a functional element of the brain?

Koyaanisqatsi

Always a problem, I agree, from both ''sides."

To be clear, I made no such points. I do not consider it "impossible," I only conjecture that there is a "missing link" to the school of thought commonly refered to (by myself, at least) as "emergent qualities."

Thank you, with my correction.

That wasn't what I was referring to.

"Silly?" In what way? Forgive my own "tone," but how is what I postulated any more "silly" than belief in a magical fairy god king who blinks the universe into exitence in order to worship him?

You mean, people like DRF and excreationist; the two I was largely positing my theory to?

Am I? How so? I would contend precisely the opposite; that I was (and am) engaging in the deconstruction of myths.

Indeed, I thought I went to great lengths to detail precisely the difference in my last post.

Well, then, you're correct. I did indeed mistake your tone, since nothing you posted prior admits any such thing, nor do I see the "enthrallment" you claim.

Actually, it does, since it seeks to deconstruct and explain such claims, not merely accept them.

So, your counter response to everything I carefully detailed and deconstructed for you is simply, "That's your opinion?"

Again, that's why I so carefully detailed exactly what my arguments were and offered your post and the words you chose in support of what I was arguing in the hopes you would actually then retrun the favor in kind through counter-argumentation.

No, actually I did not, which is why I addressed every part of your post in detail specifically for you. In that way, I hoped, you would see exactly what I was arguing and why I was arguing it so that you could in turn detail your counter-arguments in kind.

I'm sure you agree that saying, "That's just your opinion" is hardly counter-argumentation.

Then perhaps you would detail which arguments you're referring to and provide some sort of counter refutation?

As I'm sure you know, I disagree. They may indeed be "emotionally charged," but they are hardly "rants." They are, in fact, highly detailed arguments showing quite clearly precisely what I am arguing and why I am arguing it as well as (this would be the most important part) the logic behind them offering you (or anyone) the opportunity to show how the arguments aren't sound.

Instead, you have (so far) decided to simply pretend they aren't arguments, rather some personal vendetta of mine; an easy out, wouldn't you agree?

After all, if it were nothing more than what you seem to paint them out to be, I would just take the easy way out as well and say, "That's just your opinion."

Then you're basing your post on people you know, as am I, and conveniently ignoring all of the points based on history, doctrine and logical progression.

Well, isn't that an even easier out, not to mention demonstrably untrue, had you actually bothered to address my arguments point-by-point.

As I clearly stated repeatedly, there is "good" and "bad" within all institutions; but the case with christianity is that the bad outweighs the good.

Curious that you decided not to address that argument and opted instead to call me a bigot.

Perhaps now you understand why it is I detail my posts so carefully so that people such as yourself do not attempt to avoid the issues in this manner?

Again, had you decided to actually address the arguments I made and offered some form of counter-refutation instead of name calling, the "respect" you claim to have of my intelligence would be returned.

Your hyperbole is rather absolute, don't you think? As I argued previously, you can be the most reformed member of the KKK, but you're still a member of the KKK; that one should hate the sin, not the sinner.

That point is rather salient, yet you choose to avoid it rather than address it. Worse, you choose to falsely accuse me of being a biggot in order to avoid it.

Now do you understand why I see fear in your posts?

Since you seem intent on arguing absolutes that I do not argue (unless discussing the ultimate "good" vs. the ultimate "evil" of cult mentality as I clearly delineated), I cannot offer anything cogent beyond the observation that you, again, seem intent on avoiding issues rather than addressing them.

Why? If you claim respect for my intelligence, then address the intelligence behind the arguments, yes?

Talk about strawmen! I never have and never did. Please respect my intelligence and go back to my post for specific arguments to counter instead of this pointlessness.

And what would the "context of my explanation" be? Considering (as I do and did) that there were many different contexts clearly and carefully delineated.

My explanation of what? My theory regarding consciousness? Or the fact that christian cult mythology is used to control and manipulate people?

If you're going to falsely accuse me of things, please be specific.

It is not as I went to great lengths to explain. My theory comes from many different fields of study.

Oh, you're talking about my observations regarding christian cults, not my theory.

So, you're arguing that I need to go to a reformed branch of the KKK to correctly understand the overall concepts and doctrines of the KKK?

Yet based on the acceptance that Jesus was "the Christ," yes, as described in the New Testament?

Un hunh...

Would this be a good time to use your chosen counter argument? That's your opinion?

See how useless that is?

Since I never argued this, who cares?

And Jesus/God told you (through the authors of the NT) to fear him precisely because he could destroy both body and soul in hell.

Now where are we?

Again, since you are constructing your own strawman, perhaps you could localize my arguments that this claim would address?

It would also be nice if you could specify precisely how my "explanation" (I'll assume you're talking about the detriments of cult mentality) is derived "locally."

As I've admitted freely and explained was the purpose of my posting my theory, but since we're apparently not discussing my theory at all and off on some imaginary strawman of your own making, what's your point?

What data, for example, are you talking about that would support your own claims?

No, actually I would not "have to admit" that. Quite the contrary, but since you seem incapable of directly addressing any of my arguments on a point-by-point basis and prefer to group everything into one giant strawman of your own making, it's difficult at best for me to offer you anything intelligent in response, so have at it.

No, I clarified that I was referring to those who concocted the mythology as the liars.

Isn't it easy to just reword and reconstruct my arguments to your own liking rather than directly addressing what it is I actually wrote? I stated repeatedly that I consider the concept of the "soul" to be based upon the innate sense of "self," and that my theory regarding where that comes from is the idea that all matter is conscious in the same manner that we say we are conscious and that this basic possible truth was then taken over by cult leaders as the grain of truth used to manipulate and control.

I then posted several examples from christian literature that I felt supported my theory and offered logical arguments as to how that snake oil salesmanship manifested itself in the historical context of the christian cult.

In other words, detailed deconstruction of cult mythology and how I thought it illustrated my conjecture.

That would be "my opinion," by the way.

All of which (if true, and I don't grant this sweeping nonsense for a second except for argument) would be readily explained by my theory.

Don't bother. The liars were the ones who took that innate understanding--that matter is conscious--and concocted a cult intent on controlling and manipulating humanity into believing that a magical fairy god king blinked the universe into existence in order to worship him.

You keep trying to pretend that this is precisely at the heart of your reformed beliefs, but it won't wash and you know it. You believe that Jesus is God, yes?

So long as you believe such a thing, you will always be little more than a reformed member of the KKK in my book.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Boy, I sure hit a nerve, didn't I?

I'd quote Shakespeare again, but you won't address that either, I suppose.

Which is why we have social programs and psychologists to help such people and should not have institutions who foster and assist in the self-delusion as you seemed to be arguing, yes?

Since this is your argument and not mine, you go with it.

Again, since I never made that argument, you go with it.

I agree, which is where my deeper deconstruction comes from; the notion that the idea of a "soul" is actually a clue to the "true nature" of existence; ie, that all matter is conscious.

The "lying" part was in telling people that gods exist and that you should fear them for they have the power to destroy both body and soul in hell.

Or weren't you following that clearly and carefully delineated part?

Well then, I'm exceedingly glad I carefully explained how such conjecture was never an argument I was making and freely granted to you that a person who believes they know the "truth" could not be said to be lying in the sense you seem so intent to rehash.

Since I never argued it, I'll just agree with this pointlessness (as I did prior) and move on, yes?

And it seems to me that you have problems with remedial English reading comprehension, since I granted this so many times it is literally impossible that you never saw it.

And since I stated that repeatedly, you're afraid of that why?

Why? I've never made either of those points.

Do you understand what a hypothesis is? What a theory is? What it means when someone freely grants right from the start that everything they are posting is incomplete and conjecture based upon A, B, C, and D?

Carefull your nose doesn't start bleeding from that soap box you're pontificating upon.

Well, since you aren't a scientist yourself, perhaps you should look in a mirror while reading your post and support that, yes?

Actually, that's exactly what "science" is. It's called "theoretical science."

Curious how you seem so free in telling me what is or is not science when you have no qualifications yourself.

At least I freely admitted several times over that I was no scientist in every single post I've made and that the entire purpose of my posting my theory was to subject it to scientific scrutiny from people who do have qualifications (namely DRF).

What's your excuse? I can only reiterate Shakespeare on that.

No, I do not since I did not, but you're obvioulsy not capable of understanding the distinctions I made regarding the ultimate qualities all cults share, but then, why should this point be any different than all of my other points?

Really? Is Jesus the Son of God who died for your sins?

Answer that and you've answered it all so far as any of the 20,000 sects of the christian cult are concerned.

Is Jesus the Son of God who died for your sins and was resurrected from the dead, thereby giving you eternal life or just a guy who taught radical anti-Judaism?

Enough of this bullshit. The basis for the cult is immutable as you well know, so please stop this pointlessness and get back to my theory regarding miindmatter.

So long as you believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for your sins in order to give you eternal life, you are a member of the christian cult, regardless of what divisional faction your particular sect believes in.

That's the delineation and always will be the delineation and everything else is just "reformist KKK" in fighting no matter how you slice it.

Hate the sin, not the sinner, remember?

No, it is not, since it is based on an ultimate falsehood.

Regarding the accepted truth of divinity. How that breaks down from that central falsehood is irrelevant.

Bullshit. Pure, unmitigated bullshit. Perhaps not in your little world, but I live in the real world, where fear and intimidation is rapant throughout the entire christian cult dogma; throughout all cult dogmas, whether the members selectively decide to deny that is nothing more than self-delusion IMO as is borne out constantly throughout the entire cult dominated societies we all live within.

If you want to rewrite it yet again, be my guest! It's time for a third testament, I agree. So pen it and make your cult spread it, but you'd better damn well destroy the OT and the NT first.

Because that is the nature and purpose of a cult as well as the historical result of cults, so by all means, prove me wrong by your actions and deeds and take your own lead by throwing out the Bible entirely.

You will have no greater champion than myself.

So, you're allowed to read and cull from various sources and form your own opinions, but I am not?

End of discussion.

Congratulations. You're a member of the reformed Jesus cult.

That makes two of us.



What a shock.

Great. Can we move on now or do you have more false accusations you wish to hurl my way based on arguments of your own creation?

(oops, wrong one moved to luvluv's new thread, though perhaps this one should be moved over as well - Koy)

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

luvluv

I don't know where I ever got the silly idea that you were a demagogue...

I'm not at all afraid of your attacks on religion either, I'm just tired of them. We went through the "fear God"/"fear not" quote wars on another thread a long time ago. You therefore cannot be doing it for my benefit. So why are you doing it?

Strawman.

No. I meant if you felt that your theory was anything to be afraid of, that's your opinion.

Koy, I've made them! On several different threads! Most of them were on that thread where we had the quote wars. That's entirely my point. How many times do we have to go through the same thing? You seem to go into these knee-jerk diatribes anytime a theist responds to a thread that you are involved in. It's usually pointless to the topic at hand, but it is excessively pointless to do it with someone who has already had the conversation with you.

So then it would be fair to say that you consider Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Cornell West to be reformed members of the KKK?

My guess is far-sightedness. Failing that, self-conceit.

Me:

You:

You have continuosly maintained the position that all religious expression is either a) a lie used to intimidate and control or b)a response to that intimidation and control. Which of these explanations is true in regards to St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, Martin Luther King, Martin Buber, Gandhi, and Martin Luther? Or is there a third explanation for why someone might become "a reformed member of the KKK" like Gandhi or Martin Luther King?

Just so I don't misquote you, you are saying that the most liberal wing of the Christian church is equivalent to the reformed branch of the KKK? Is this what you are saying? I don't want to misquote you in the future.

Have you ever been to a Shaolin monastery? Been to any Hindu worship services? Study the Chinese concepts of Chi? Spoke to any Jainists, Macheanians, or Zorastors lately? Ever have any first hand knowledge of the motivations behind any religion except the monotheistic relgions? Do you understand that there are religons without an afterlife, without top down control structures, etc. Religion is a global and nearly universal phenomenon with thousands of specific interpretations but the bulk of your objections only apply to 3 of them.

How do you know?

Koy, for me it's usually your bitterness that hits a nerve. Your arguments are usually swallowed up in it. I've had intelligent conversations with atheists on this board who were at least as intelligent as you are. None of them race towards pointlessness with the speed with which my engagements with you do. Were actually pleasant and respectful to each other for entire pages. It is your personality, not your arguments, that is the basis for our difficulty. You say you are a nice guy, I'd love to see it.

Your welcome to post your theories and I heartily support that. Like I said I was enjoying your posts on the subject.

However what you don't understand is that I, and probably most other theists who have come into contact with you, object strenuously to your continually demeaning and insulting strawman mischaracterizations of Christianity.

In case you still fail to understand: I do not object to your theory, I object to the manner in which you repeatedly reffered to the creators of ancient religion as liars, controllers, manipluators and cult members.

My zeal to confront your idea in the same context was what you confused with fear. If you presented the same argument and ommitted the dozens of unnecessarily insulting remarks there would have never been any need for this pointless digression.

If I went on such a diatribe, and said that all atheists are only "reformed members of the KKK" I'd be banned from the board (and rightly so). Most Christians who object to you so strenuously do not do so because of your arguments but because of your attitude.

Actually, I was referring to the field of theology. Perhaps you'd like to go to a theology class at Harvard and tell everyone your opinion of where theology comes from. Theology is a scholarly and competetive field, and there are an awful lot of atheist or agnostic theologians. That's (another) entire realm of religion where your theory does not apply.

I don't call people who do not agree with me liars or cult members. I respect their opinion.

Where you go off the map is you assume automatically that everyone who disagree with you about the existence of God is wrong. Therefore, they are all either deluded or liars. I begin with believing in a God but admitting that though there is not a scintilla of doubt in my belief, I may be wrong and am therefore respectful of other opinions. You have no room for doubt in your opinion that there is no God (no harm in that alone) and therefore judge everyone else in the world from your own opinion.