----

1.) You asked: “WHY WOULD THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD BELIEVE IN IT IF IT WEREN’T TRUE?” There are many theories on why religion is still around today. I will attempt to expand on the one mentioned in my essay above. MEME THEORY designates that religion is a compilation of ideas that have a certain temptation to aspects of human psychology. More specifically, some concepts, beliefs, thoughts, and symbols operate in ways similar to natural selection. Some are easily thought, held, or believed; others are not. Meme theory refers to these concepts, beliefs, thoughts, and symbols as memes. Hence, God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell are all examples of memes and because religion is made up of so many interrelated and mutually supportive memes it is still prevalent today, despite its illogicality. If you would like to learn more about the memetic nature of religion I would suggest looking into it yourself. In the meantime I will give you a few examples I have used in my essay. Most religions restrain their followers from exploring other options or using critical thinking with the threat of Hell. Any temptation away from their faith can be classified as the “work of the devil,” in their minds. At the same time they encourage their followers to have blind faith in their God and are ultimately successful in this task because they teach that this behavior is rewarded in Heaven. These religions are creating generations of ignorant followers who don’t want to challenge any of their religion’s teachings largely because of their irrational fear of Hell and their desire to get into Heaven. Another problem is that these fears and desires are instilled in their children at a very young age because religion includes a meme directing believers to spread the religion to their children and friends; a meme that Richard Dawkins classifies as abuse. Many religions also wish to “spread the faith” to others, taking advantage of the longing of the follower to both get into Heaven and save another from Hell.

2.) Occam’s razor implies that because of the lack of convincing reasons to believe in God, disbelief is better. This principle states that one should no make more assumptions than the minimum needed. If you would like to know more I would, again, advise looking it up for yourself; you will find that Occam’s razor is extremely important to science, philosophy, and it is also a good example of common sense.

3.) This is related to Occam’s razor: when you tell of these people who have experienced spirits it is far more likely that there is a simpler explanation for these experiences than another entire dimension of reality. I would gladly help you find it if you would give me more information on their specific experiences.

4.) At this point in our debate you have only referenced us to other people’s work. If you prefer to debate that way, then I suggest you read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

5.) Why do you insist that there must be a plane of supernatural existence? You have given me no concrete evidence and you consistently fail to prove this. At this point you have reiterated the same point over and over again without providing usable evidence. Subjective recollections of an experience are not viable evidence because of three reasons. 1.) Human error. 2.) Many things can go wrong with the human mind to nullify all of these subjective experiences. 3.) An alarming number of people are willing to fabricate these types of stories for the purpose of attention, to say nothing of the immense publicity and fame that can come along with it.

6.) “Innocent ‘til proven guilty” has no relevance to this situation. You would not say that fact is “true ‘til proven false.” Also, your point about the Earth not being at the center of the universe is more analogous to your argument. Your argument is archaic, increasingly unsupported, and counter indicated by a growing body of evidence.

7.) You are correct in saying that humans are not perfect, but that is exactly why we should take the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people in the scientific community who are putting their minds to a problem and working to solve it over the delusions of one person. Science attempts to find the most reasonable explanation through the use of logic and reason. Faith, on the other hand, is not based on reason or logic.

8.) You asked me to understand, respect, and not offend the people who have found “it.” A year ago I would see this as a reasonable request and I will do my best to respect these people as other human beings, but I have no respect for their disease. What they stand for is incorrect. These people often advocate intolerance, and this is not an ignorable fact. In addition, whether they belong to an organized religion or not, anyone who has “found it,” as you put it, advocates ignorance. This is what I am fighting against. It’s my attempt to leave the world in a better state that I found it.

SCHIZOPHRENIA AND RELIGION

Schizophrenics have are more likely to be religious than healthy individuals and religious people have a more frequent occurrence of schizophrenia than other groups of people. This is especially true in Jehovah's Witnesses who are three times as likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia and four times as likely to be diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia than the general population.

More interesting and on the topic of the origin of religion: bicameralism is a theory arguing that the human brain was once divided into two parts; one part acted as the speaker while the other part listened and obeyed. Psychologist Julian Jaynes believed that the human brain acted in this way for everyone as recently as 3,000 years ago. The bicameral mind functions similar to the mind of a modern schizophrenic. In unexpected situations the bicameral mind would not make conscious evaluations like our modern brains, but the person would hallucinate a voice (which they perceived as god) giving them commands and they would obey without questioning the voice. At this time humans did not have consciousness as we do today. The commands from "god" we read about in ancient legends were actually commands directly from an individuals' own brain. Jaynes makes the case that in both The Iliad and older sections in the Old Testament there is no mention of any cognitive process (ex. introspection), and no notion that the authors were self-aware. However, later books of The Old Testament and The Odyssey show a different mentality and an early version of consciousness. Jaynes also showed that there were more gods in those times than there are in modern times, and that is further proof of bicameralism because each person had their own personal "god," although it was actually their own brain. I am fairly unfamiliar with this theory, so my explanation is lacking. It's just a theory, but if you want to learn more I suggest looking it up yourself.

To state the obvious, I believe religion is dangerous and mentally unhealthy. Religious people have a tendency to reject proven scientific facts while insisting that unproven miracles exist. These people are not only some of the most intolerant people in existence, but it is impossible for them to see their views as flawed. A more rational view of reality and existence is better, especially when coping with the harsher parts of life and in finding a fair moral philosophy. Also, it is more important and productive for the world to search for scientific explanations rather than supernatural ones and, if nothing else, an atheist is a more intelligent human being who is able to make his/her own decisions and come up with his/her own moral code independent of "God" or a really old book (yes, i am referring to the Bible).