I view myself as a future man (possibly 1000 years in the future) looking back on our times with a respect for the history and religion somewhat like people of our time look back on ancient Greece and Rome, the religions and ideas of those times having been interesting but somewhat laughable.

I am an observer of my own time, feeling almost completely that our era is an anachronism of future ideas of perceived reality; understanding that every time is completely out of touch with the future, where I think all of today’s religions will be considered to be interesting “jokes”.

your friend forrest

Natural Selection Assumption: Human behaviors are selected for on the basis on conferred advantage

Curious fact: The above “research project” and other studies only apply the N.S. assumption to members of sociological group B.

The oversight of ignoring group A is completely unsuspicious- because we just know god(s) don’t exist. Furthermore irreligiousness can never be explained by naturally selective sociological conditions, because irreligiousness is and can only be adhered to because it is true.

Next commenter [Insert Red Herring dealing with Creationism here}

Some so-called religious people contradict themselves by wanting to base their faith on science. Creationism is a theory, that is not what is at dispute. It could be philosophical, but those that hold it do not consider philosophical but scientific.

In philosophy it does not matter what one believes or disbelieves because the object of philosophy is not belief. The object of philosophy is what can be known through reason and speculations based on knowledge. This is the nature of the game of philosophy.

I mean I personally think it’s hard to defend dogmatic faith as something that isn’t in the way of progression. I mean the very essence of dogmatism is the opposite of creative progression, why would it be such a surprise that irreligious belief are prefered by academic efforts?

Take science for example, if creationism was actually considered a scientific theory, it’d have absolutely no predictive power what so ever, period. There would be no development on the theory, and science would take a gigantic halt, if creationism was mainstream that is. Isn’t the destruction of science a good reason to avoid scientific creationism? Isn’t the destruction of progression a good reason to avoid religion? (For academic purposes that is.)

Due to the broadening of basic human rights and freedoms, people are much better off in these society if they can take advantage of this freedom in the cultural marketplace. The best way to maximize such opportunities is to become someone who makes their own rules as they see fit- enter the atheistic credo. Voila!

Stated in an article previously posted by Professor Furrow, strict adherence to dogma can be explained by an “ancient” portion of our frontal lobe, this could definitely be that pulsating signal. This I would say is that feeling you get when you’re tired and want to fall asleep, not just the tired part but that implusive seek for security, certainty and comfort.