Sunmaster

1 hour ago, Mark Nothing said:

My Grandmother and Mother used to have conversations with God while doing housework.  It seemed to help them organize their day and ensure everything was done.  And keep love flourishing in the household to keep the family unit in tact.

 

My strategy is to go where God is and talk to him in his environment.

 

The first page of the Bible tells you where he is and how to light up the power.

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  God's spirit moved upon the face of the waters.  And God said let there be light, and there was light.

 

I go to the ocean where God is and ask his spirit to provide the light to me. Currently I am asking him to help me understand the Book of Isaiah.  You can ask anything you want, whatever pops into your mind.

Is there a place where God is not?

13 hours ago, ravip said:

Isn't that imagination? or blind faith?

How many of the earths ~8 billion people could do that and agree as one? 

Is this not the root of all misery on this planet?

No, imagination and faith (a belief in something) are products of the mind. The same goes for the ego 

However, we are looking at that which is behind the mind, the source whence the mind emerges from. 

When you are in the waking state and the dream state, your mind is still active. But where is the mind in deep sleep? Where is the mind in deep meditation? YOU (the real you) disassociates itself from the mind by becoming that which observes the mind. The mind becomes just another object, along with all that the mind creates: thoughts, feelings, beliefs, the ego construction...

The root of all misery in the world stems from the identification of the true You with the objects of the mind, including the ego. "I am this body. I am this and that."

To look behind that illusion is the solution to all the misery in the world. 

6 hours ago, ravip said:

Yes I agree with you.

But where can one find the 'original' unedited version of God's word?

What we all believe as God's words are what's written by man, isn't it? If the original script is found, many arguments might come to an end IMHO...

There is only one source and that's within you. 

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You differentiate between believing and knowing. It sounds nice but trusting what you consider as knowledge is potentially seriously flawed of course. 

Do you know your hands belong to your body or do you just believe it?
If you are happy, do you know it to be so or do you doubt it?
Would you take someone else's word over your own experience?

How do you discern whether something is true at all?

We have to distinguish subjective knowledge from objective knowledge here.

SK cannot be accessed or proven by anyone other than yourself. But what if my SK and your SK coincide? What if there are many people with the same or very similar SK? What if the SK of countless people throughout history forms a framework or system that can be tested and verified by others who didn't have that SK before?
You may argue that they could all be under the influence of some mass hallucination, but I think it would make a very strong case that there is indeed some truth in that system.
Science seeks objective knowledge, but it's not its task nor does it have the means to validate SK. 

The usual materialist argument is that if science can't prove something, it must mean that it doesn't exist and materialists will run around in circles, unable to find an answer.

It is evident therefore that the two are incompatible. Science is a tool to gain objective knowledge through the scientific process. There are other tools to gain subjective knowledge. The SK gained is not less important and valuable than the OK. 

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

to believe in a superior being without scientific proof is the essence of spirituality IMO.

I have to disagree with this.

To believe is to take something to be true without knowing for sure if it's true or not. "I believe the world was created in 7 days."
The essence of spirituality is spiritual practice, to go from mere believing to knowing through direct experience. 
If you know something to be true, why would you need science to validate it for you? It would be redundant.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That is where we differ. I believe that God created the universe as something separate from God.

If everything in the universe was part of God, there would be no need of the universe.

However, how do I know that I am not part of God and just making up my own existence for some unknown reason- I might have made an entirely illusionary existence, along the lines of the Matrix? After all, most of the planet is unknown to me except what I see on tv. Some AI might be inventing the entire Gaza conflict and Palestine might not even exist, along with the entire world that I can not walk in. Jim Carry made a movie about a life like that, where he lived in a movie set not knowing that the edges of his existence kept the real world out.

I guess it depends on your definition of God then.
I cannot conceive of something separate from God, least of all the material world. 

How do you know whether you are part of God or just imagining your life? Good question!
I think both options are correct. We are part of God AND we are creating our lives by shining the light of our consciousness and illuminating the world around us. Nothing and nobody can create it for us. We are like the projector in a cinema, bringing images to life on the unchanging silver screen of the Divine Consciousness. We believe the images to be true, we cry during sad scenes, we laugh during funny scenes, but when the film ends, what is left? Only the silver screen remains. 
How do we know that? By stepping back and not attaching ourselves to the ever-changing stories. By becoming dispassionate observers. Only then do we have the choice whether to play along and act as if the film were real, or simply observe the scenes in the full knowledge that they are just temporary projections. 
 

32 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Where did God come from ?

Who formed him ?

These are 4D questions (space and time) that make no sense when related to something that transcends 4D. 
Something that has a beginning in time is by its own nature temporary. First it wasn't there, then it appeared, finally it will disappear again. If something is temporary, it is not God, but only a manifestation of God.

God is the principle that is unaffected by time. 
 

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is it not possible that atoms and electromagnetism were created to allow consciousness to have a mechanism to exist independently of God?

 

If God is defined as the ultimate principle of existence, the Ground of All Being....then logic would dictate that there is nothing outside of God or independent of God. There is nothing that isn't God. If there were, then there would be something besides God, which in turn would mean that God is not the all-pervading, all-powerful principle we ascribe to it.

But the first part of your sentence is correct. The material body, including the brain with all its functions is a way for consciousness to interact with the material world.

42 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

If your wife or girlfriend, with whom you've yet to consummate the relationship or after you've had a vasectomy, came to you pregnant and insisted "God did it", I doubt anyone would buy it.

 

Yet this month much of the world celebrates just such a tale told by a Bronze Age woman to her traveling mate. I enjoy the Holiday, but the lie behind it is rather silly.

 

If a dad provides absolutely no assistance or financial support to the child he helped create, we call him a Deadbeat Dad, yet billions pray to a fictitious being that behaved exactly that way.

 

Religion is a funny thing.

 

Another few billion folks insist---under penalty of death---that the supposed creator of 200 billion galaxies each with around a trillion stars picked some illiterate pedophile in the middle of nowhere to share its final message.

 

Then there was a guy who seemed to suffer from what we now know is clinical depression, but he found a solution where he would make himself absent of all desire, thus never being down or disappointed. He also plagiarized from the vedas, which were written before he came on the scene. His solution became a faith, or some say a philosophy, though 99.99% of its faithful sure seem to want wealth and respect and 'face'.

 

Science and knowledge of both biochemistry and physics have taken away almost all the power anybody's god or gods had. I have to tip my hat to John Smith, however, who sold a lie to people who should have known better, because much was already known about existence when he made up his tale, even tossing in magic underwear to the mix. It is kind of understandable that Stone Age or Bronze Age people were fooled by charlatans or crazy people, but by the time John Smith sold his bill of goods, much of the true nature of existence had been revealed.

 

The mind decays with age or injury. A good many people are nothing but vegetative just before passing. Still many need to believe that at that instant of death all comes back to what it was, complete with memories and personality.....unless the entity is reincarnated, in which case the mind must go through some sort of Men in Black neuralyzer to erase memory of any past iteration. For many, it is too much to accept that existence is random, resulting more from somebody being horny than any Master Plan, and consciousness is merely a wonderful interplay between physical atoms and electromagnetism.

Let's have a quick look at quantum theory. It's a very complicated theory and only a handful of people in the world understand the full scope of it, and even those people admit that their knowledge of it is sketchy or incomplete. Then you have a myriad of amateur physicists who kind of grasp the overall idea behind it, because the first group dumbed it down enough so that the masses would understand. They use analogies and examples to get complex concepts across. Finally, you have a third group of people who have no idea whatsoever, but like to parrot big words so that others may think they actually know what they're talking about.

One theory....many interpretations and understandings of the theory. Those who know are few, those that don't know are many.
The clarity/intelligence/level of development of the interpreter defines how well the original theory is understood and implemented.

The same principle applies to religious/spiritual knowledge.
You have a few people who know what they're talking about (Buddha, Adi Shankara, Teresa of Avila just to name a few). But since what they are talking about can't really be put into words due to its ineffable nature, they have to come up with analogies, images or stories to convey a better understanding for those who didn't have a direct experience.
Then you have the believers, who kind of get the idea behind, but because their understanding is limited, they tend to distort those teachings by mixing them with less enlightened information. 
Finally, you have the group with a minimal understanding who will accept anything proposed without further inquiry (those that take the bible literally for example).

One theory....many interpretations and understandings of the theory. Those who know through direct experience are few, those that don't know are many.
The clarity/intelligence/level of development of the interpreter defines how well the original theory is understood and implemented.

So, who is to blame for the faulty information that pervades the masses? Do you blame the theory or those who interpret the theory? 
What is the solution? Certainly not going from door to door trying to enlighten people. 
I think the solution is to gain a deeper understanding by ourselves, so that one day WE may become one of the few who understand. This, I believe, is the best course of action. Don't care yourself with what others believe or don't believe, but try to further your own understanding. 

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

consciousness is merely a wonderful interplay between physical atoms and electromagnetism.

This is yet another unverified and unproven belief that people take as a "scientific" fact. Any serious and honest neuroscientist will tell you that they simply don't know how consciousness is formed. 
Sure, on one level it is a wonderful interplay between atoms and electromagnetism, yet it is so much more than that.

17 hours ago, xylophone said:

This is so true and both sad and amusing.....................

 

It truly is sad. 

It's also sad that most people only know religion(s) by looking at the surface, picking out the obvious incongruencies and shortcomings, and because of that, never manage to see the hidden beauty of the less obvious spiritual teachings. There are parts in major established religions that focus less on dogma and ritual, and instead focus on direct experience. See Sufism in Islam or Christian Mysticism.
When you ridicule religions as a whole (Christianity in your example), you also dismiss these other realities. I think that's even more sad.

The most simple and fundamental truth there is. 

Consciousness is all there is. It's up to us to investigate it.

No books, no religions, no science needed.
All you need is right here, right now: your own consciousness.

40 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Fair point. But science is not the concern but the difficulty of finding the answer in scientific terms. So I suppose we might say - this works really well for me and fits what I have experienced, and this life time is short, so I'll believe these ancient ideas rather than wait for a stronger verification in scientific terms. At the same time I totally respect the tenets of science and understand that I would prefer there was a scientific answer but it is what it is. 

Yes, but with the difference that I don't accept (believe) those ancient answers merely due to a lack of a better (scientific) answer. 

I see truth in them because I verified and validated them on my own. That's the scientific process at work here: you take the theory, apply the parameters, you come to a set of conclusions, you double check your conclusions with other people's findings and thus confirm whether the theory is valid or not.

Why then would I want to wait for established science to maybe confirm that at some undefined time in the future?

Like you say, life is too short to wait for others to confirm what I can confirm by myself. 

8 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 Said it before but why is something not measurable? Even if it is ether, or spirit stuff, or something that hasn't been discovered yet. Your dispute isn't with science but with dogmatic scientists or with the worth some put to answering your questions.

Those questions you ask are all scientific questions:

Why do we act the way we act?

What triggers that negative emotion?

Which memory feels painful and why?

What is that dream trying to tell me? 

There are many scientists who don't wish to look to answer these, as they probably see it is too difficult to find productive answers, and there may not be productive answers. Or they can't make a living from it.

But such questions are definitely not issues excluded by science. 

I think these are very subjective and personal questions. Why should I expect science to answer them for me? What can science tell me about my own dreams? What does science know about my childhood trauma and what is needed to resolve it? Does it have a magic pill to make it all go away? Where has this pill been for the past 30 years?
The hard sciences don't concern themselves with these intangible questions. The soft sciences (psychology, sociology...) try to tackle them with mixed results. 

But why stop at these 2, when there are other sources that have explored these questions from the beginning of time, have been verified and peer tested throughout history and are as valid today as they were thousands of years ago? Why? Because our science doesn't quite know how to handle them? Because they don't fit in the accepted dogma of what is possible/real and what isn't?
Is that a good enough reason to just ignore all that wealth of knowledge? 

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If one wishes to be objective and impartial, one should consider all attributes and related consequences. And that principle should also apply to religious beliefs.

Absolutely, so true.

Coincidentally, I woke up this morning with a small leftover from a dream, so I tossed it around a little in my head until it sort of came to a logical conclusion. 

In the dream I was teaching my nephew about an ice cream cup. I said that most people only see the most evident attributes of this cup. Is it full with ice cream or empty. They see the color and the shape. Their action will be based and therefore limited on only those bits of information. 

But there are many other attributes that are not so evident, like...what is it made of? Is the material recyclable? Is it rare and valuable? Is it soft and malleable or hard and fragile? Is it hot or cold? How does it smell? Is it a throwaway cup or is it a family heirloom? Where and how was it made?

If you know all these bits of information, your actions will be much more precise and effective. 

Knowledge is power, right?

While thinking about this dream, I made the connection to our lives. Most people see themselves as a separate biological machine and accept this as a fact and the only truth. However, how many more bits of information would come to light if only we could scrutinise ourselves a bit more. Why do we act the way we act? What triggers that negative emotion? Which memory feels painful and why? What is that dream trying to tell me? 

As with the example of the ice cream cup, increased knowledge will allow us to fine tune our behaviour, making it more effective and beneficial. 

This principle then should be applied to all parts of our existence, to religious dogma, to scientific dogma, and I would say most importantly, to ourselves. 

We say "This is my personality, my identity". But they are just objects here. Who or what is that which has a personality? Who is that subject that experiences this identity? 

Here is the problem with the limiting belief of the biological machine theory. It doesn't allow for further scrutiny since everything that is not measurable can not be included in the fact-finding process. It is automatically excluded because it doesn't fit in the given paradigm. 

But imagine how much information is lost due to this close mindedness?!

47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

How much of the Brazilian Rainforest survives? A search on the internet reveals that 'In just 50 years, almost 20 percent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed.' The Brazilian Rainforest is about 60% of the Amazon.

 

A study from NASA that I mentioned in a previous post, has observed that during a shorter period of just 35 years the increase in leaves on plants and trees is equivalent to an area which is two times the area of the continental United States.

 

The Amazon Rainforest is 6.7 million km².  20% of 6.7 million is 1.34 million km2. Twice the area of the continental US is 16.16 million km².  Therefore, increased CO2 emissions, during the past 35 years, which are mainly due to human activities, have resulted in an increased greening of the the planet equivalent to 12 times the area which has been lost in the Amazon during the past 50 years.

 

Here's the link again to the NASA article.

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/#:~:text=Karl B.,Hille&text=From a quarter to half,Climate Change on April 25

 

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide
The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
 

Interesting 👍

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

Christianity is one of the cornerstones of Western esoteric tradition.  So I actually do recommend reading the Bible and getting acquainted with its content.  Especially the New Testament and the Book of Genesis contain pearls of knowledge and wisdom. 

But of course 'reading the Bible' should not be to the exclusion of any other sources of spirituality, as the message in all religions and spiritual sources is universal.  And most certainly one should not treat the Bible texts as Dogma or the One and Only Truth. 

 

 

I feel like I should expand on my answer.

I'm not against the Bible per se. I've never read it in full, but I'm sure there are important ethical and spiritual truths to be found there. 
The problem I see is that this valuable information is mixed in with and distorted by a lot of unnecessary and confusing fluff. That's why you get questions as to 'what is the best way to read it?'. 

I then ask myself, why waste time to sift out the good parts when there are plenty of other sources that get straight to the point and are crystal clear from the get-go? 

I understand that we all have our learning paths and time needed to digest the information. 
I spent decades reading all sorts of things and exploring spirituality from all kinds of angles. If I have to be honest with myself, all it really did was to make me realize that it only fed my intellect and didn't get me closer in understanding who I really am. It's one thing to say "I am an eternal being and the universe is full of love" because you read it somewhere and you believe it. It's a completely different thing when you actually experience it and therefore know it to be true. 

This is the point I will never tire of making: one moment of direct experience trumps a lifetime of reading.

If reading the Bible brings you to practice (prayer, contemplation, fasting etc), then that's fantastic. 

 

9 hours ago, Mark Nothing said:

I have been researching strategies on how to read the Bible to maximize the benefit that has been helpful. Does anyone know any good sources on how to read the Bible?

 

I have been practising with this strategy from 4 perspectives:

 

1) Literal meaning.  Read the verse and interpret it literally.

 

2) Allegorical meaning.  Look for the hidden meaning beneath the surace from the perspective of your soul.  For example Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit could mean the affects being inner turmoil due to doing what you are not supposed to and your own tree of life and the fruits wilting.

 

3) Read the verse and get the moral.

 

4) Anagogical perspective.  Relating the verse to the life to come.

 

Has anyone tried this or have recommendations on how they read the Bible?

My recommendation on how to read the bible would be....don't read the bible. 😄

Sorry, couldn't resist. 

Seriously though, I said it jokingly, but I still mean it.

One day you will grow out of it, still searching, still unsatisfied. What then? Will you look for another book?

Just one more thing that popped in my mind.

A spiritual person (not strictly talking about religious people) recognizes that happiness is not dependent on external factors (sunsets, other people etc), but is a product of an internal attitude. It's that internal attitude or belief system that we try to sort out. Out with those beliefs that don't serve us, that hold us back, and replace them with beliefs that benefit us in a deeper, more satisfying and meaningful way.
 

20 hours ago, Woof999 said:

 

Isn't that the wrong way around? Finite life is so full of meaning that you should make the most of every single day.

 

If my soul was eternal, through re-incarnation, heaven or whatever else, then my ~<100 years living on this planet is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that whatever I do day to day means almost nothing.

I think that's an interesting point here. I don't have a clear idea yet, but I think it's worth exploring.

Does the belief in an eternal soul give more meaning to one's life than the belief that we are biological machines? 

A person can live a perfectly content life without the belief in a God or Divine Force. He/she is perfectly capable of enjoying a beautiful sunset or a nice evening with friends and family. 
This person will think "I am here today and gone tomorrow, so I will try to make the best of it."

The other person will look at the same sunset and the jolly gathering and equally enjoy them. 
They will think something like "I am here today and gone tomorrow. I'm so blessed to experience this. Thank you God* (*enter your preferred deity)".
The fact that I believe in consciousness surviving the death of the body and in reincarnation, doesn't mean I can afford to sit back and do nothing. I wouldn't waste a nice sunset just because I think I will see many more in future incarnations. The fact that I believe that this world is an illusion, doesn't mean I feel I can do whatever I want without repercussions. I still wake up every morning and go out there, fulfill my duties, play the game and pretend it's real.

It appears both can appreciate beauty and closeness. So, what's the difference?

When do we really enjoy something? When do we experience true happiness?
When we are truly in the present perhaps? That state seems to be independent on whether we believe in God or not. Right?

Now, what if we could expand that feeling to not just rare moments, but make it a constant way of life? We would have to "be in the moment" at all times, or at least most of the time.
How to do it?

I think that's where the main difference lies.
Every person, whether spiritual or not, will enjoy beauty, truth and goodness in those moments when they happen. They take us out of ourselves and put us in touch with something greater.
The difference between a spiritual person and a biological machine is perhaps the degree by which we consciously seek and experience such moments. Those moments that make us plunge in the depths of our being, reconnecting us to that which we call the Ground of All Being, the Divine, God...or whatever you want to call it.
And once you learn to enjoy all moments, even the most ordinary ones, as something special....that's when it becomes a constant state of being. 

Not sure if that answers your question. :-D

 

22 hours ago, Walker88 said:

What is a fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that humans are anything more than a biological machine, whose 'consciousness' is a function of biology, chemistry, and electromagnetism.

 

Watch the decline of a person with dementia and this becomes abundantly clear. The same can be observed when a person suffers a traumatic brain injury. What they were is no more. Where did they go? They went nowhere; it's only the neurons and parts of the brain that made them what they once were no longer function, so that part of who they were no longer exists.

 

It is a funny bit of delusion that a person with advanced Alzheimers, who even forgets how to swallow at the end, in the instant of death becomes everything they ever were again, all their memories and personality intact. That may well be comforting for some people, but it has zero basis in fact. And if the dead don't become what they were again, but become something new, they don't remember their previous iteration anyway. Thus, the only point belief has is that some need that comfort while alive. Some do not.

 

I accept that I am a biological machine, whose existence will end for all eternity at some point. My 'meaning' comes from my ability to enjoy this brief existence and the time and space I share with others.

 

As Sam Harris has said, the term 'atheist' is kind of silly. There is no similar term for those who don't believe in astrology, yet there is no more proof any deity is real than astrology is real.

 

Some like to scaremonger and say if I don't believe what they believe, I will suffer some sort of eternal punishment. Okay, which deity or deities are the One True one or ones? Pascal's Wager wasn't an either/or, it was a lottery ticket, because somebody could choose Jesus and then die and find out the One True God is Allah or Shiva or Thor or Zeus or Amaterasu. Choose wrong and one is plumb out of luck getting 72 virgins or drinking ale with Odin in Valhalla.

You are a conscious being, right? That's all the evidence you should ever need.

You say you are the body: "I have this body. That's all I am."
Let's see.... I(subject) have a body (object). We have 2 distinct things here. One is the material object (the body) and the other is the observer of that object (the subject). 
How can the object be the subject itself? It simply can't. 
The "I" consciousness is therefore not the body, nor the brain, which is just another object.

Maybe you mean the "I" consciousness is a product of the mind then?
"I have memories, thoughts, dreams, feelings, fears, hopes, beliefs. That's who I am".
Again, we find mental objects (dreams, fears etc) and an observer of these objects. The subject can not be the object as they are 2 distinct entities. The observer (I) is watching these objects come and go. Feelings arise and leave. Memories are formed and fade away. Beliefs can change. They are all temporary, as in your Alzheimer example. The observer however is unperturbed.

So, who or what and where is this "I" consciousness then??
If it's not the body nor the mind, where is this observer, this "I" consciousness?

22 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Okay, which deity or deities are the One True one or ones? Pascal's Wager wasn't an either/or, it was a lottery ticket, because somebody could choose Jesus and then die and find out the One True God is Allah or Shiva or Thor or Zeus or Amaterasu. Choose wrong and one is plumb out of luck getting 72 virgins or drinking ale with Odin in Valhalla.

I would say, don't bother with finding out which deity is right or wrong. 
The only worthwhile question you should ask yourself is "Who am I?".
All other answers are included within that one answer. 
No need for religion, deities, weird beliefs, or science for that matter. You are already equipped with consciousness and perfectly capable of answering that question without any intermediary whatsoever. 
 

17 hours ago, Chris Daley said:

One of the worst thing about religious people is that they still get upset when their grandmother or when the cat dies.

 

So let me get this right you think that dead people go to a place called heaven but you are upset about it?  You disagree with God's decision right?  This straight up means you don't believe in your god.  They have every fairytale, lucky charm and emotional prop going for them and they cry like a baby.

 

If the premise of a heaven really was true none of us would be anxious, scared or cry.  We would all celebrate life.  But it's not true and the only heaven we have is on Earth as a tiny slither of light amongst infinite darkness.

Is that one of the worst things though? lol

I believe that consciousness lives on and it's just the body that breaks down. At the same time, I will grieve whenever a close person or a beloved pet passes on. 
The difference is that the grief doesn't overwhelm me and I can see it for what it is: a temporary feeling of loss. But this feeling is embedded in a much bigger "feeling" of acceptance and strength in the knowledge that whatever happens in this world, happens for a reason. 

Just because one believes, doesn't make him a saint impervious to doubt, fear, anxiety and sadness. Like everywhere, there a degrees in the realization of one's true Self.
 

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

 

Does it just co incidentally look like a Cyberman?

 

Congrats for staying out of it for so long. I tried, but I got sucked back in.

 

The other long time member of the thread seems to have successfully escaped for good.

 

The robot is a loose interpretation of Goldorak, aka Grandizer Ufo Robot. A cartoon series I grew up with in the early 80s.

25 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Sociobiologists have an interesting theory on why people believe. Given that almost every culture going back to the beginning of homo sapiens---and perhaps earlier---manufactured religions of some sort, their must be some evolutionary reason why it has been 'selected in'.

 

These scientists then consider what belief systems bring to the table. They decide the answer is stress reduction. Since stress is a killer, those with less stress are more likely to survive and propagate their gene pool.

 

Few people want to believe existence is random, short, and finite. It is comforting to believe something is in control and that existence never ends. If something is in control, perhaps a deal can be made with the controllers. That gives comfort and reduces the stress of randomness.

 

If the power is control is believed to be benevolent, that's even better (though the ability to make a deal with even a malevolent power is better than randomness). So a benevolent power is 'taking care' of those who believe in it. Performance also enters into it. People decide what rules a benevolent power would have, then they go about following them, believing they will be rewarded for that. Stress is further reduced. The rules need not be rational (such as avoiding certain foods or where one puts his private parts and when, or forcing women to dress like giant eggplants), as civilization itself is the force behind beneficial 'morality'. Odd rules, in fact, are just a way believers solidify their belief.

 

Being part of a community who believes similarly not only corroborates one's view, but also provides a sense of belonging and security. More stress reduction.

 

As science has provided actual answers to the realities of existence, the powers some control group or individual might have had is chipped away. For some people, that has led to increases in stress, while to others, it has pulled believers closer to gather in the hopes of saving their fading fantasy.

 

Perhaps with time more people will come to terms, or become comfortable with the fact humans are merely biological machines who come into existence by random chance and who disappear for all eternity when the machine fails and entropy wins.

 

 

There is certainly some truth to this, but I think it barely scratches the surface of the issue.
Accepting the thought that we are more than just biological machines is not just a backward evolutionary crutch that can be left behind thanks to some recent scientific discovery. 
Stress reduction is a welcomed byproduct of such a worldview, but definitely not the main goal. 
People believe because they need meaning in their lives. A meaning that goes beyond mere biological existence. Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of all this? Why is there suffering? However advanced, science will never be able to answer these questions. It's neither its duty nor its goal. That's why people turn either to organized religion or perhaps seek a more personal relationship to the Divine. 

35 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Perhaps with time more people will come to terms, or become comfortable with the fact humans are merely biological machines

It's a fact that humans have a material body. It's NOT a fact that THAT is all we are. That is a belief like many others. If you like to limit yourself to a biological machine, no problem, but please don't apply your belief to the rest of us.