That's probably a contributing factor, but I think anthropomorphization goes a long way too. Even when biologists discuss evolution, they often refer to it as goal-seeking or otherwise give evolution human characteristics (she even has a persona: mother nature). They don't literally mean that evolution is human-like, but it's the easiest language you can quickly grab to convey concepts.

Most religions ascribe very human-like characteristics to their gods in both appearance and behavior. Particularly characteristics of the male patriarchy (power, jealousy, moral authority) which, I guess, isn't surprising, given that males ruled the sociopolitical religious sphere for so long in human history.

Another interesting theory that's probably not true is bicameralism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Which basically ascribes the voice of god to our early development of language and our inability to decipher our own voices from external voices (also possibly the mechanism for schizophrenia).

Batlord and GB, you guys are still responding to my posts and going off on a tangent about religion. I made it explicitly clear in my first post that I don't believe in any of that, just that it's possible their may be a 'creator'. I'll go on to say that maybe not even a 'God', just fulfilling a similar role as far as our existing goes. S/he/it might not even be supernatual, just not described or imagined by humans.

It doesn't seem that far fetched, after all we can recreate the circumstances under which it is widely believed life first began. I think it's called primordial soup? Google brought this up too: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is, it's a closed minded to write off the idea of God completely even if religion is mostly (if not entirely), imo, a bunch of hooplah. But there's still the possibility of something else.

Abiogenesis is a very interesting topic... and one of the many reasons to write off God(s). "Primordial soup" is often used as a pejorative by creationists; an attempt to trivialize the process. We should talk about abiogenesis instead of argue over the unfalsifiable plausibility of an invisible omnipotent omniscient creator of everything.

I don't know how true that statement is, the first time I recall hearing "primordial soup" was from Carl Sagan, and he was not a Creationist.

I get what you mean and actually agree but that's an entirely different subject from this thread. But I do get a little irked sometimes when people say there's no possibility of there being a God just because every description human beings have dreamed up has been, well, silly. I mean really.

"What's this!?!! Men are ****ing each other in the ass in bathhouses?!?!?! CLEARLY THE ONLY SOLUTION IS TO DESTROY THE ENTIRE CITY!!!!"

Come on now. A being wise and apt enough to create an entire universe wouldn't be that erratic.

But really though, I don't see why it seems so far fetched to people. Like I said, if we can recreate the circumstances under which life on Earth (supposedly) began and evolved to what we know today, what's so preposterous about the idea of ourselves having been created? I mean, the fact that this creator is invisible to us doesn't mean much. The organisms found in primordial soup are more than likely completely oblivious to our existence. And even if we hypothetically could let those organism evolve to a point where they had the means to contemplate such things, that doesn't mean they'd have the means to witness us. If I'm forced to believe in anything it's that there's more to existence than what we interpret or are even capable of understanding as a species. I mean, there are colors out there we can't even see.

:clap::clap::clap:

I did address your point. You say that there "may be a 'creator'". I pointed out that any number of things "may" be true (i.e. zombies, Harry Potter, etc). Why do you take the idea of a creator seriously and not any number of other absurd beliefs? I'm putting forth the idea that there may be a cultural influence that is influencing you into considering something (be it a god or a "creator") that you may not otherwise treat seriously.

My point isn't that we can rule out a god (or a creator), and I imagine any atheist with two logics to rub together wouldn't either. If you think that's what atheists think then you're probably misinterpreting what they've been saying. My point is that if there isn't any evidence for an idea, no legitimate reason to consider it for longer than it takes to go, "Hey, maybe...", then why would we give it any real consideration until evidence was brought forth?

If life can be created by glorified monkeys then why do you need anything that could be described as a deity to create us? Why not just scrub the idea of God and start talking about aliens? Whether or not I treat the idea seriously I still find it far more believable than a deity just by virtue of the fact that we know intelligent life exists.

And if we're talking about aliens, then you've just taken the argument out of the Atheist vs Religion sphere and this now becomes an off-topic discussion that has nothing to do with the preconceptions of atheists.

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't used in earnest. The term was originally coined by a Russian scientist proposing that life emerges from matter naturally, without the need for external influence (which is essentially what abiogenesis is).

But I admit, it's only in my personal experiences that it has been used as pejorative by creationists.

you can't choose what you believe if you are intellectually honest

do you mean the view that there is nothing beyond what science currently supports, or that empirically verifiable evidence is the only way to reliably access anything close to objective statements about reality? cause if it's the latter i'd argue that this approach is limited only in the same way our perception is necessarily limited. but just because our perception is limited doesn't make it reasonable to start filling in the blanks with whatever you feel like.