Heart-ache: Religion is hardwired in the brain, scientists theorize
posted at 5:20 pm on February 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Sigh. I was hoping it was a cultural construct, like the urge to reproduce.
That’s the bad news. The worse news? Guess what we probably owe it to.
There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally. People readily form relationships with non-existent others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners. As Barrett points out, this is an evolutionarily useful skill. Without it we would be unable to maintain large social hierarchies and alliances or anticipate what an unseen enemy might be planning. “Requiring a body around to think about its mind would be a great liability,” he says…
The mind has another essential attribute: an overdeveloped sense of cause and effect which primes us to see purpose and design everywhere, even where there is none. “You see bushes rustle, you assume there’s somebody or something there,” Bloom says.
This over-attribution of cause and effect probably evolved for survival. If there are predators around, it is no good spotting them 9 times out of 10. Running away when you don’t have to is a small price to pay for avoiding danger when the threat is real…
Boyer is keen to point out that religious adults are not childish or weak-minded. Studies reveal that religious adults have very different mindsets from children, concentrating more on the moral dimensions of their faith and less on its supernatural attributes.
Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom. “All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away.” Petrovich adds that even adults who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics are prone to supernatural thinking. Bering has seen this too. When one of his students carried out interviews with atheists, it became clear that they often tacitly attribute purpose to significant or traumatic moments in their lives, as if some agency were intervening to make it happen. “They don’t completely exorcise the ghost of god – they just muzzle it,” Bering says.
The whole thing’s worth reading but pay special attention to the experiment correlating religious devotion with loss of control. Oh, and this quote: “It does, however, suggests that god isn’t going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the ‘path of least resistance’, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.” My new slogan: Atheists — we try harder. Exit question for Ben Stein’s next movie: As argued early on in the piece, isn’t a belief in the afterlife evolutionarily disadvantageous? The more comfortable you are with death, the weaker your survival instinct should be. Or is it that the more comfortable you are with death, the more risks you’re willing to take and the more attractive you’ll be to females? Who’s the alpha male, in other words, the believer or the atheist? I … fear I know the answer. Double heart-ache.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
It’s really not obvious. Unfortuantly, fundies are so nuts it’s hard to tell the parodies from the real thing. See poe’s law.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Not you per se. I’m saying that your comment, along with the subject of this thread sounds like a cop out for those in question. There seems to be no question of personal responsibility.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Every adult knows where Christmas presents come from. Where life itself came from? Not so much. And the question has been asked among humans long before the concept of St. Nick.
Silly comment.
L.N. Smithee on February 5, 2009 at 2:32 AM
So, does that mean that reproduction isn’t hardwired–seeing that homosexuals exist?
You seem to overestimate the reach of scientific enquiry. Science can only validly investigate physical phenomena–all other inquiries (ethics, for instance) are beyond its bounds.
Really? Because I lived in Japan for almost four years and NEVER met an atheist. Probably people that don’t belong to the cookie-cutter “theist” straw-man that atheists raise in such arguements, but certainly not atheists.
q2600 on February 5, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Forgive me for, perhaps, being a tad thick, but that was a joke, right?
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 3:46 AM
Ok, I am thick. I’ve just read your post of 11:51 PM. Sorry Bizarro, I had you pegged all wrong. Ignore my railings.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 3:53 AM
Perhaps belief in an afterlife makes the thought of death a little more comfortable, but an alpha male would probably realize very, very clearly the moral dictum that allowing his own death would leave his family unfed and undefended, thus, he would fight accordingly (secondarily, also making him more attractive as a mate). He has an obligation to his creator and his family (if not simply to himself) not to waste his life.
If the male does not realize this moral dictum and fights half-heartedly, he is justly eliminated from the gene pool.
Concomitant with some schools of thought, we are accountable at the beginning of our afterlife and some postulate differing qualities of that afterlife – from hell to purgatory to cycles of kharma to heaven. Who knows? But the idea of accountability to past moral behavior is pretty strong in many cultures.
Another example that morals help select for both survival of the individual AND the group. And as the man said, the function is the promotion of moral behavior more than it is simply the belief in the supernatural.
ElRonaldo on February 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM
<blockquoteNow, please reread my post again before you apologize for missing its obvious point!!! :)
Bizarro No. 1 on February 5, 2009 at 1:16 AM Clearly it wasn’t obvious. Hang out here long enough and you’ll see other posters make exactly the same statements and be dead serious about them.
hicsuget on February 5, 2009 at 7:22 AM
Not going to analyze it. Hard wired? OK–I know a gift when I see one.
jeanie on February 5, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Put less sensationally, human beings have evolved the capability to put themselves in another’s shoes and imagine what they might do. That enables us to better make decisions in terms of our own survival. It also underlies our penchant to intuit intent in other things besides human beings. Like, that rock “meant” to hurt me when it fell from the cliff, or that tree “meant” to drop a fruit at my feet.
It’s too much to claim that we’re somehow hardwired for religion though. It’s more that religion takes advantage of the above inclination to see intent in things that don’t necessarily possess it.
starfleet_dude on February 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM
oh of course…so why didn’t the crocodile evolve such capability?? or the bacteria? they’ve survived pretty well without it…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Romans 2:15
They show that what the law requires is written in their hearts, a fact to which their own consciences testify, and their thoughts will either accuse or excuse them
We all know that God exists until we harden our hearts to his voice. Children intuitively know this. Christ warned against those who would lead these children away from God’s truth. It will not go well for them!
sabbott on February 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Who said crocodiles didn’t have some capability to observe their environment and modify their behavior accordingly? Humans just have a much more complex capability, that’s all. BTW, Darwin made some wonderful observations about emotions in dogs that clearly show they share similar emotions with humans, and dogs are pretty darn good at reading how we express anger, fear, delight, etc. even though they’re not members of our species! And when we take the time to observe dogs, we can see theirs as well.
starfleet_dude on February 5, 2009 at 9:23 AM
And the Faithful Evolutionist Zealot firmly holds hands over ears and says nada…nada…nada…nada…nada…nada…nada…as scientific evidence in Astrophysics, Biology, Math along with basic logic and the human experience explodes the myth of Evolution at every turn! It’s ok…you are free to continue your fun fantasies! Enjoy! The rest of us shall live in reality and shall not bow down to this idol!
sabbott on February 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Religion is hard-wired into evolutionists, that’s fer sure.
Akzed on February 5, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Couch it however you want, be as PC as you want…but you, especially you, feel that if you are right, the other is wrong…therefore you feel that your thought process was superior to your opponent…if you think your opponent is smarter and wiser then you, you would go to their side.
Here is an example:
I think your post is wrong, I am right…therefore on this subject I feel your ideas are inferior to mine, hence on this subject you are not as smart…now if you convince me otherwise, then I would say, “You have a better idea”…however, seeing you post for awhile, I know that will never happen, no matter how wrong you are, you won’t relinquish your argument, not a sign of intelligence, but of tenacity.
I am not saying a liberal can not be intelligent, maybe even a genius…just in political analysis they are weak. In there choosing the “progressive” movement, they are choosing a wrong path, even after being told…that to me speaks of someone not smart…tenacious, but not smart.
right2bright on February 5, 2009 at 9:28 AM
If it turns out that Liberalism is hard-wired into some people’s brains, THAT’s IT — you’ll see me embrace the dark side of Calvinism.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on February 5, 2009 at 9:31 AM
anthropomorphism
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Anthropomorphism is attributing human qualities to animals, as CC does in a tounge-in-cheek way with his collie sayings. Dogs do in fact have emotions that we can observe (and Darwin of course observed) as well.
starfleet_dude on February 5, 2009 at 9:36 AM
and of course crocs observe their environment…try going to a nice riverbank in africa…and take a nice dip in the river…and see if they don’t notice you!! and they do modify their behavior…they wake up from sunning themselves…and slip into the water very quietly….and then sneak up on you…
thats where humans evolved muggings from…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Are you joking? Leaving questions of biology aside, every last shred of evidence in astrophysics points to a universe that is roughly 14.7 billion years old. Maybe you can deal with the contradictions inherent in the notion that God created life 6,000 years ago on a planet that’s been here for 4.5 billion years, but I find it completely absurd.
What “scientific evidence in Astrophysics” are you referring to that “explodes the myth of Evolution at every turn?” Evolution is, after all, a concept in biology, and it is atypical for one science to explode myths in another.
hicsuget on February 5, 2009 at 9:40 AM
praise DARWIN!! we wouldn’t know nothing about nothing without the hairdog (god) sorry of evolution!
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Blogger depressed at “defective brain” diagnosis
eeyore on February 5, 2009 at 9:47 AM
really?? every last shred huh??? what about this?
link
but no evidence was offered for those reservoirs..but they MUST EXIST or else its a problem for the hairgod of evolution…
solar wind depletes the methane and converts the remainder to ethane and complex hydrocarbons…so there should be oceans of ethane on the surface after BILLIONS of years…but no just some lakes…hmmmmm..
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 9:48 AM
It’s not as if animals hadn’t been observed prior to Darwin, but sadly the popular conception was that they weren’t really conscious beings with minds of their own. Darwin greatly helped to change that misconception and we’re better off for it.
FWIW, I was talking with a dog trainer recently who related to me a story of how one of her mentors (an elderly trainer from England) told her that the most important thing he could tell her about dogs was this: there’s a mind in there. It’s not mind just like ours, but it’s a mind nevertheless. Recognizing that opens up our own perceptions about dogs as well as other animals.
starfleet_dude on February 5, 2009 at 9:53 AM
oh I can agree they have emotions..all animals do…but concious beings?? what is concious?? knowing right from wrong…then how can we eat and own, and make coats out of concious beings???
you make it sound like they’re humans on four legs…
yeah crocs have a mind too…so? bacteria do not…but they survive very well..don’t they? so why evolve a mind??
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I really didn’t want to respond to you, because I don’t think you’ll give me the respect that I’ll give you. I decided to respond, to clarify my comment.
When referring to the make-believe, I was not referencing God or religion. I had earlier stated that I had read a study about fear of the dark (and the results were similar to what this study is saying). Many people have a fear, or at least a dislike, of the dark. Why? Because something might be there. So, the make-believe (a bogey-man, a tiger, a murderous person that isn’t there) warns us about the danger of the dark (we can’t see, we might hurt ourselves, that tiger/person might actually be there). I’m working from a faulty memory here, so I’m probably not explaining it well. Here’s the excerpt from above that relates to this:
Every day, we use the unknown and the non-existant to determine our course of action for that day. I called it make-believe, because that phrase works well with the word reality. It was not a slam about religion at all. I don’t believe in God, but I do believe that to those who do believe in Him, He’s very real to them. Just like my beliefs are real to me. I was being more abstract, that’s all.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I reread all of your comments, and I’m not really sure where you stand. I’m not intelligent (right, right4life?), so forgive me if I’m confused as to whether you’re mocking atheists or not.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Julian Jaynes wrote in “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” that religion may have been an artifact of a lack of development in the brain, the software, you might say. The brain’s two hemispheres are physically connected by the corpus callosum but they did not communicate with each other well until about 3000 years ago. The ancient humans interpreted thoughts from the other hemisphere of their brain as the voices of supernatural beings.
They also didn’t know what dreams were. They thought they might be another reality, the afterlife, perhaps. When one of their dead friends appeared in their dreams, they thought he had come back to life. One theory is that this is why humans began burying their dead and including grave goods with them, so that they would not come back from the dead to pester people for their belongings after they were dead.
Both of these things led to religion. The software of our brains has evolved enough so that we don’t hear voices anymore, except for the insane. We don’t consider dreams to be a view into another world. Now we can rationalize what was considered supernatural and religion whithers away as a result.
Tantor on February 5, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Which is, of course, not happening.
Or were Stalin & Mao at the pinnacle of this evolution you posit?
Akzed on February 5, 2009 at 10:23 AM
He confused the heck out of me, too, on the Stein thread. He has a weird sense of humour, but is on the side of reality.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Now I feel silly, but I’ve never been able to tell these things, especially online.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM
You know it’s true, Allahpundit.
AllahPundit is better than the AP.
Aronne on February 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM
another obsessed cyber stalker desperate for my attention..
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 10:37 AM
oops sorry, the last post was meant to be directed to anna…..
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Hey, could you find another photo for these posts? I know you’re trying to illustrate the “red meat for crazies” thing, but some of us are vegetarians and don’t appreciate you forcing your meat-eating beliefs on us by making us look at that picture. Why, it’s just as bad as a religious fundy yelling on a street corner. You’d think that eating meat was hardwired or something.
MochaLite on February 5, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Is this sarcasm? I really hope so for your sake.
My 2 cents on this thread (no more please. Stein thread exhausted me yesterday!):
This doesn’t change anything I said yesterday.
I do hate when new intriguing data comes out & everybody starts postulating about it-WHAT COULD IT MEAN?
Some of these hypotheticals can be quite logical sounding, others quite stupid. But in the end WE DON’T KNOW.
More data, please.
BTW- It doesn’t matter what atheists etc believe. What matters is what’s at the end of the road when we die.
We all eventually get to find this out.
So atheists are betting on there is no God & believers are betting on that there is a God.
Everyone’s still betting & unsure & we all find out in the end.
I think I know, you think you know-but in the end, the truth is what it is.
So what. I’m betting to live my life ‘knowing’ there is a God. I have experienced things that make me believe this. If it’s in my DNA, so be it. But I still believe it & it helps me live a better life & so it works.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM
The only problem with your scenario is that, if there is no God, we won’t know, we’ll be dead.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM
So, I disagree with you, and you whine. I agree with you, and you complain. Can’t have it both ways, sweetcheeks.
By the way, you neglected to inform me as to why I have no honesty and integrity. I may have a bad memory, but that’s not something I’d forget. Of course, Obama will turn out to be a decent president before you answer this, so I’m not holding my breath.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM
First, a note on epistemology: All science is not invalidated just because science cannot accurately describe some certain phenomena with information currently available. Such phenomena simply require more data, or new and better theories. When I say that every shred of evidence in astrophysics supports the notion of a ~15 billion year old universe, I mean just that. If you’ve been neglecting your science education, that’s your problem, and it’s a problem that I cannot fix in a comment thread.
As to your statement regarding solar wind blowing away methane or converting it to ethane, care to provide a link to something that describes this phenomenon? I haven’t the time today to go chasing rabbits.
Even accepting your statement at face value, there are a number of possible explanations why methane still exists on Titan, and ethane does not exist in liquid form on the surface. First, cryovolcanism, which Cassini did observe, explains the replenishment of methane on the surface and in the atmosphere. Second, Cassini also did observe liquid ethane on the surface. Third, Titan spends much of its orbit inside Saturn’s magnetosphere, so its exposure to solar wind is limited.
Last, the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth are two totally separate fields of study. The “Big Bang” model in cosmology has nothing to do with evolution in biology. They are combined into one unified edifice of Godless Evolution only in the minds of Creationists.
hicsuget on February 5, 2009 at 11:17 AM
This explains Al Gore
entagor on February 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Yeah. But that isn’t a problem in my opinion. You just gotta wait for it.
In the end, someone will be right.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM
I’m sorry, did I say NEARLY fifty percent are atheists, I meant according to polls, over fifty percent believe in no Gods.
According to a poll a couple years back, it’s over sixty four percent. Countries can thrive, be civil, and be happy without God. In fact, they wrote an entire book about the health of Godless countries.
I don’t think all theists are insane. I just also happen to know that God isn’t necessary for a healthy, civil society.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM
newsflash: the big bang supports creation.
in other words, you lied, or you’re just ignorant, obviously.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM
get a life.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
so you’re saying those scientists didn’t take that into account when they came up with that 10 million year time limit! you need to school those po dumb astronomers!!
and I didn’t find anything about cryovolcanism in the space article..or a more detailed article (below)…but you know best!!
uh huh.
thought an astronomer like you would know this…
link
yeah I just made that part up about methane being destroyed…..
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I see how one could make that argument. What one cannot argue is that the big bang model is consistent with the Biblical account of creation, or with a young universe.
Not only is that a complete non sequitur, and not only will insulting my intelligence won’t get you very far in an argument, but also you’re the one making claims contra to accepted, established fact–you’re the one who needs to prove them. You want to know what I think on the topic, and why? Borrow a textbook from your local university library.
hicsuget on February 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Apparently you missed the link I included with my previous post–that’s why the text over the phrase “Cassini did observe” turned blue. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7489
One cannot be expected to know everything–gains from trade and specialization preclude it. Knowledge of basic processes is adequate for someone who does not work in the field in question.
hicsuget on February 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM
but its ok for you to insult my intelligence.
first your article is from 2005…and did you miss this at the start…
so you’re saying these scientists who wrote the article I cited, either didn’t know this, or were too dumb to take this into account…
right.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM
and this from your article..
so that volcano has been spewing for BILLIONS of years…nice!!
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Depends upon your definition of ‘healthy’. Just sayin’.
I can appreciate your passion, but you really are kind of a mean turd.
Anna & others have viewpoints to be respected. Why do you have to come off as being such a sphincter?
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM
oh but before you knew enough to say:
maybe you should start chasing some of those rabbits..you might learn something.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:23 PM
go take a flying leap. I’ve never noticed you complaining about anyone else being mean.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Yea, it would only make sense that if a group of people, especially those who inter-marry, pray to Mecca 5 times everyday, that their DNA would hardwire ‘religion’ in our brains. Duh…Christianity, a religion that’s based on LOVE is actually good for the body, mind and soul…religious people live longer, healthier lives.
No wonder your heart aches, AP: you’re an atheist for crying out loud. :-(
Christine on February 5, 2009 at 12:25 PM
lets see hicsuget can say:
but thats not mean…only when I *dare* to respond in kind is it *mean*
please.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM
“our brains” should be ‘their brains’
Christine on February 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I don’t have to read every other insulting person’s comments to say you outta lighten up.
We’re talking about you right now.
My students very often like to point out the same flaw in others behavior when their own has been brought into question. It’s a cute evasion tactic, but it still doesn’t explain why it’s right for you to be obtuse.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM
the whole point is there is a lot we don’t know…and of course the age of the solar system is supposed to be billions of years…but the lack of methane oceans on titan belie that…
link
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:31 PM
it seems like every thread someone comes in and tries to make it about *me*…why is that? anna comes in an mentions my name, and I wasn’t even talking to, or about her…
I’ve noticed that usually its people who can’t argue the issues tend to try to diver the conversation to my many perceived or actual failings….
I’m just not as good as you, make you feel better??
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Well I think I can actually argue the issues pretty well.
And I have never tried to place myself above you in intellect. I’m confident enough to see this comment for what it is-a distraction.
“I’m just not as good as you, make you feel better??”
Petulant and childish.
This kind of comment comes from one who seemingly has no intelligent comeback.
I always will respect your right to have an opinion.
As far as the feeling so many are picking on you:
How’s the old saying go?
If one person tells you you’re a camel, don’t worry.
If two people tell you you’re a camel, don’t worry.
If three people tell you you’re a camel, better go buy a saddle.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Like yesterday, how you jumped in and insulted me, when I had yet to even engage you in conversation? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, dear. Or, here’s another one for you: You attract more flies with honey than crap. Maybe if you weren’t so quick to insult those of us who don’t agree with you, we wouldn’t be as likely to use your own tactics against you.
I really miss St. Olaf. At least his insults were creative.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM
BTW- I have. But it’s hard to take ever single turd-bucket to task on this place.
I have only so much time.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 12:46 PM
oh yeah you’re the nice flower that says stuff like this:
but you brought me up first, by lying about me:
guess you ‘forgot’ that….yeah…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM
:) how sweet of you.
I only bothered to call you to task bcs of everything I saw you saying on the Stein thread. And now I see it here again.
So it is purely by the enormous stream of epithets you have left in your wake yesterday & today that you have even caught my attention.
Just as you do not have to justify yourself to me in your rebuttal talents, neither I do to you.
If we were all standing in a room saying this stuff, you would still stand out from all the others bcs of the sheer magnitude of nastiness & condescendion (sp?) directed at others.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Reading comprehension: I’m not Ann NY. I’m Anna, and I live in Virginia Beach, for that matter. Secondly, I was replying in kind to the person who has harassed me for months because of my previous handle. I’ll take my apology now, please.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM
oh yeah let me put in the link
link
as far as I can tell anna, I didn’t address you at all, before you started to lie about me…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM
you’re right, I will apologize.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM
How about this:
Miller’s Experiment has been debunked by Molecular Biologists. Life absolutely cannot have arisen “spontaneously” from non-life! To believe this requires more faith than those of us that believe in God.
Darwin’s Tree of Life is a dismal failure. Natural Selection would act “slowly”… Scientists have found in the fossil records that major groups of animals appear suddenly! The rapid appearance (Cambrian Explosion) have turned his theory upside down! The Cambrian Explosion was the biological big-bang gave rise to most animals alive today. These animals appear suddenly and fully formed and different from each other! This turns the Tree of Life upside down! Nobody can call this a branching tree!
sabbott on February 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM
why don’t you post all these epithets I must have missed them!!
so when I respond in kind, then I’m dreadful and evil and nasty..but its OK to be that way to me!!
nice!
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 1:01 PM
I posted twice on that page, once to kirkill, and once to jp. Ann NY posted to you. Two different people, two different times.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Thank you! : )
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 1:02 PM
DOH!
Hmm. So Anna is NOT Ann NY
I would definitely say I’m sorry if I’d made that mistake.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM
He did, it’s all gravy. It happens, I used to get him and right2bright confused. In monster threads, every blends after a while anyway.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 1:06 PM
The epithets are on this thread & the Stein thread. I’m not linking when you know what you said.
This suspiciously feels like an argument I’ve had with a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
At least you didn’t really use filthy language, for which you are to be commended.
Good Christians from what I gather should not be responding to nastiness in ‘kind’.
This is what I try to emulate when I talk with people.
I realize I’m not perfect that way & truly no one is, other than Christ himself.
But dude- stop running around in circles on me here.
You’re being a douche. When I’m a douche I’ll admit-my bad!
When douche bags give you $hit, you’re making a better point & impression when you don’t act like another douche bag yourself.
Isn’t there enough douche bags in the world?!
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM
FIFY, but still nominating for QOTD!
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM
you can’t because you’re lying.
well I’m just not as good as you…you should feel very proud of yourself!! you’re a good little pharisee!
but you lied about me I haven’t used epitaths a good ‘christian’ like you would apologize!
check the mirror.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Anna see why I don’t teach English?
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Out of all the languages I’ve studied, I still suck at English the most… and it’s my native (though not technically my first).
QOTD= quote of the day. Prior military, I still use lots of acronyms.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 1:19 PM
OK-Me liar liar pants on fire?
OK-epithets, meaning the ‘not-nice’ stuff. There’s no need to waste space to resurrect the ‘not-nice’ stuff you say.
In the mirror on the right day, I may be the douche.
Today I’m not.
Are you my husband’s ex-wife?
It sure is beginning to sound like it.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I get ya.
Education constantly uses them. I still don’t know what they are beyond NCLB NEA NDEA blah blah blah!
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I probably knew this from before, but when I read that, I was “Badger’s a chick?”. So I apologize if I’ve ever called you dude.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 1:21 PM
oh I’m not nice to people who aren’t nice to me…that makes me EVIL VILE AND TERRIBLE…ok.
you’re so much better than I am…..now that you’ve justified your holiness in your own eyes, why don’t you get a life, and not worry about what I say, or what kind of person I am?
because I don’t really care who you are, or what you think about me, or much of anything else you say or think.
clear?
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM
You’re not the 1st.
My husband said I used to be a dude in my last life.
And no, not bcs I look like one! LOL!
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I don’t think you’re evil & terrible, just being a douche lately to other people who don’t really deserve it-even if they are being douches to you.
WOW. I’m only guessing, but you must live in a big city.
I realize close quarters make many people angry.
I used to be angry a lot. Then I got away from the hustle & bustle. Not so angry anymore.
If that isn’t true, I’m sure there’s lots of other reasons for you to be so angry.
It was never my intention to make you pout like this.
I care about lots of people who don’t care that I care.
I’m not into peace & love & obviously you aren’t either.
I already got that you don’t care what I think.
It’s pretty obvious you don’t care much about what anyone thinks of you.
I have a nice life. Your suggestion to go out & get one is not necessary.
I think you are projecting. Or something.
Yikes.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM
And we feel exactly the same about what you think or say.
Clear?
MadisonConservative on February 5, 2009 at 1:49 PM
This thread certainly went downhill while I was out to lunch.
hicsuget on February 5, 2009 at 2:06 PM
It’s your fault, then!
/sarc – these threads get like this when they die down.
Anna on February 5, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Kind of reminds me of Congressional meetings on CSPAN sometimes.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 2:26 PM
I like watching the British House of Commons. Those people make American politicians look level headed.
justfinethanks on February 5, 2009 at 2:38 PM
usually I don’t talk to this ‘thing’ but I’m bored…so
obviously YOU DO moron, or you wouldn’t be here sniffing around my backside!! loser
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Here we go again.
*SIGH*
The douche-baggery never ends.
Yawn.
Off to educate young ones!
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM
are you as ugly on the outside as you are on the inside??
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 2:51 PM
btw: get some professional help! seriously.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Badger, if right4 thinks you’re “ugly on the inside” and need “professional help”, then you should probably feel pretty good about the type of person you are and the state of your mental health. Know what I mean? ;)
dakine on February 5, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I, for one, don’t know if God made us *poof* in six days or used evolution. And frankly, I don’t care. But what I do know is that theologians have been saying, at least since Pascal, that man is “hard-wired” for God. I’m glad that science has finally caught up.
This evolutionary “explanation” for man’s need for religion is, however, laughable, a bad guess at best “because we need to imagine…uh…and another mind…and…uh…overattribution. Yeah, that’s it!”
A need for God is one of the primary motivations of pretty much ever person ever born. A motivation that can trump other “evolutionary imperatives” like sex and self-preservation. And it’s just an artifact, an accidental hanger-on mish-mash of other real needs? Please.
This perfectly illustrates what religious people have been saying about the scientific community for quite some time now. Their refusal to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God directs and limits their conclusions.
Man feels hunger…why? Because we need food.
Man feels horny…why? Because we need sex to perpetuate the species.
Man feels lonely…why? Because we need community to survive (unless we’re bloggers).
Man feels religious…why? I dunno, something to do with hunting or war or something.
The needs that we have we have for a reason and all can be fulfilled except for God? C’mon.
29Victor on February 5, 2009 at 3:26 PM
I didn’t think any of the Evolutionist Religious Zealots wanted to argue the science behind their faith and I see that I was correct. LOL!
sabbott on February 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM
speaking of sick cyber-stalkers…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »