Willie71

One of the better reads I have experienced on the new testament is Robert Price. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/365593.Incredible_Shrinking_Son_of_Man Considering the Christ figure is really a conglomeration of several other messianic figures, it strongly suggests fiction, or myth rather than history. http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/ Lord Raglan had a great take on this, and compares several of the myths that have been popular in several cultures. Its hardly an original work. Dundes was a good brief read too. A bit dry and obvious in places, but the bible is clearly a mythical work. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can take Jesus as written in the New Testament seriously as a historical figure.

Reading through this thread, I see some great posts. I have a lot if views on this subject, and will list a few of them here. Religion is a way to explain the natural world in the absence of scientific evidence. People are prone to assign intent to random observations, and this is related to the dopamine levels in your brain. http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/dopamine-marks-the-line-between-religious-believer-and-fanatic/ There is a lot in the literature on this, but I cannot post it due to copywrite law. The Druids believed in the power of the trees, the Native Americans had many guiding/controlling spirits that ruled nature. The Romans and Greeks had their myths. A few thousand years ago there was a shift to monotheism, which really isn't unless 3=1, but that's a different argument all together. Every culture had its creation myths. Here is 10 of them to look at: http://listverse.com/2014/01/11/10-creation-myths-as-strange-as-the-bible/ Here are a few others that are very similar to Christianity: http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/ These are based on the hero archetype: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/lord-raglan-on-mythic-heroes-t2089.html So, when you look at the evolution of spiritual beliefs, they follow a pattern that has evolved to be relevant to the culture, as people moved from hunter gatherer to agrarian, then industrialized societies. In this day, religion is becoming much less relevant to cultural norms. Numerous examples exist, such as climate change, human rights, equality of women, overpopulation, and many others. Solutions are opposed by people who fundamentally believe in a book that is millenia old, and no longer relevant. Additionally, people of the three major religions continue killing each other because the God of Abraham promised the world to three groups of people. Yes, that is correct, Christianity, Islam , and Judaism are all based on the same god, and share a number of books in their holy tomes. Science only shares one principle with religion. It tries to explain the natural world, but in every way other than this it is different. Science looks for evidence and proof. It requires metagognition, rather than faith. It gives statistical probabilities. The results are accepted, even if the hypothesis is not supported. One does not have to explain away science, and if new evidence makes previous "truths" obsolete, it accepts that and evolves. This is not proof of the fallability of science, it is the quest to find the best explanation we can based on the evidence we have. One of my issues with religion is the homocentrism of it all. The entire expanse of this vast universe was supposedly created for us. We can only observe about 1/1000 of it as our best guess, and we can only perceive through senses that make the majority of the universe unobservable to us. What a cruel trick to play on the reason for the universe. When human suffering can be diminished through science, and religious groups block that because of an interpretation of a myth written two millenia ago (give or take several centuries) it is obvious that there will be conflict. I'm trying to stay away from politics here, as I understand that is against the rules, so I'm leaving it as the goals of religious groups versus scientific groups on issues that can benefit humanity, regardless of political systems.

This is from the pontification council, the part of the Roman Catholic Church that "interprets" the bible. http://vaticanfiles.org/tag/inerrancy/ Even the oldest authority on the bible cannot claim its inerrent anymore.

I'm late to the discussion, but it seems that the issue was that the hospital did not want to pay extra for the proper handling of the infected waste and linens. They ended up piled in the adjacent rooms to the patient and were stacked to the ceiling. Both infected nurses have survived and are now Ebola free. I found this forum after wasting my breath (fingertips) on another forum where the hysteria is bought into, and quarantines are recommended. Trying to post information sourced from medical journals resulted in threats of banning me for not respecting the other members opinions. I figured its time to move on if the mods are so polarized against evidence. I like what I see so far.

Its a generalization that is mostly true. Lower dopamine levels means less likely to assign supernatural causes to phenomenon. There is less reason to need something to cause the observation.

I am a psychiatric Nurse who keeps abreast of the research. On of the trends is to look at the adaptive function of the various disorders, and not see them as disorders so much as being specialized in certain areas at the expense in others. The second major trend is to look at disorders in terms of brain function, rather than symptoms, ie. atypical depression is based on dopamine, not seratonin like other depression diagnosis are. Third is realizing the genetic links are not simple one or two gene causes, but multi gene causes. If these topics are of interest, I can provide some links to look at. Warren