Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Inferring the will of God sets the moral compass to whatever direction we ourselves are facing. He says, “Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber to validate and justify one’s own beliefs.“
In other words there is no such thing as god given morals.
^^^ That's not what the studies in your link are suggesting at all.
From your link:
"They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum – and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God."
You cherry picked a paragraph out of context. Everybody just read the whole article.
"Their opinions on God's attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God's will and their own opinions."
"The results suggest that similar parts of the brain are involved when we consider our own beliefs and those of God - Epley thinks this is why we end up inferring a deity's attitudes based on those we hold ourselves."
Quite. That is what a brain wired for belief does. No wonder religious people produced a genocidal homicidal god.
From the original article: " the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so, but when there is a mystery about something, the same neural machinery is co-opted in the formulation of religious belief. "When we have incomplete knowledge of the world around us, it offers us the opportunities to believe in God. When we don't have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations," said Professor Grafman". Atheists are simply not that wired for belief so they don't tend to rely on supernatural explanations. Belief and the brain's 'God spot' - Science - News - The Independent
Rubbish! Sheep do what they do because they don't want to get bitten on the arse by the sheepdog.
Exactly - sheep go with the flow for safety. Religion has lasted this long because of hangings, beheadings, stoning and drownings, shunning, public humiliation.
If people want an answer as to why we worship and praise regardless of logic watch a documentary on North Korea, God approved slavery, prejudice,Queen Elizabeth, the dark ages, etc, etc, etc.
Fear works wonders, it's not the Gods doing. Fear will make people worship anything. We are programed to survive physically and emotionally. No getting around it, and some tap right into it. Most of the arguments I get against my atheism are fear based. Aren't you afraid to be an atheist?
Thankfully in America I'm not afraid to not believe in a God. People have suffered so I don't have to be. I appreciate it and give credit when needed. Sadly, Christians still try to re introduce it to me on occasion.
Thanks to others before me that stood up to a fear based on an illogical control of the human mind I don't have to give into fear in America. I only feel for those still controlled by it here like I feel for those in North Korea. Like those poor gay kids in that video link on a current thread. Fear seems to trump logic, relationship, and cognitive behavior even for parents. Phobias have to be un-taught, the fear of the unknown makes that difficult and it takes time.
Psychologist suggest people face their fears, a little at a time. Over time you will recondition yourself to think of that fear differently. Crazy I know but it works. Harder if it's conditioned within groups like religion or North Korea as a country bound to a God/leader but if you can escape you can eventually overcome that fear and live a more normal, happy life.
And I also believe Jesus most likely existed, although I think he was more likely a Jewish apocalyptic teacher. That isn't the issue. You seemed to be saying that if a lot of people believed something, then it must be true. A lot of people believe Jesus was divine, and yet you will not change your opinion based on this, why should anyone else?
What is true is true...no matter who, or how many, do or don't think so.
It seems you, et al, have a lot of trouble seeing the difference in, "If a lot of people believe something, then it must be true"...with..."If one is attempting to assess the truth of a matter or issue, one of the best indicators is the intellectual critique of vast amounts of mentally sophisticated people, coming to same determination and conclusion, over and over and over again, for many, many years."
That doesn't mean the matter/issue is surely true. If it is, it is...if it's not, it's not. Regardless of of what anyone says...or on what basis they made their determination. But it sure is typically an excellent indicator.
Quote:
I do as well, but that is not the same thing as believing it to be factual. You often appear to try and conflate the two.
Nope. I just find the amusement in watching the Fundies from both sides get all tweaked out over their obsession with their view of doctrine/dogma being factual or not as they see it.
As I have explained...I'm neither religious or Atheist...but I do so enjoy watching them go "back and forth". Both seemingly oblivious to the futility of their part in it. It's great entertainment. And I do my best to initiate exchanges that will provide me said amusement. I've noted this many times.
Quote:
Not what I said at all, and I think you know it.
There is available information right now. The best available information indicates that, for example Moses is not the author of the Pentatuch, that the Gospels were not written by the men for whom they are named, and that Genesis is not an accurate literal account of the beginning of the world. This information is discarded, not because it has been honestly and rationally evaluated, but because it conflicts with dogma. The available information has not been looked at honestly and rationally in the vast majority of these religious evaluations. Many people have never even made such an evaluation, relying on their own tradition and culture. Others cannot evaluate them honestly, and have to cling tightly to rationalizations and dodges to maintain their dogma. There are some believers who have honestly confronted the available evidence concerning their faiths, and have been able to retain their faith while dealing rationally with the available information. Usually they are labelled heretics...
There it is ^^!!! I love it!! Got some more?!
Quote:
My point exactly. You have conducted your own assesment of the matter, choosing to totally disregard the repeatable, verifiable evidence, the data that you can examine and look at for yourself. Instead you have formed an opinion based on your own personal experience and anecdotal evidence, and refuse to consider anything else, assuming that anything that disagrees with you is a conspiracy. If a million people choose to use the same methods that you have, that doesn't make them any more right than if it is just you.
I've seen the data...taken it into consideration. To begin with...I don't think brain scans and the like are a good test to ascertain the answer to the question. You equate my "not concurring" with "not considering".
I put more credence in the results of my own decades of "research". Combined with the ultimate determinant of "truth"...wisdom and common sense.
Quote:
Precisely what I said. And that being the case, we can see that even if the vast majority of people are using poor logic, irrational reasoning, and opinion to come to a conclusion, it still will not turn a falsehood into a truth. The entire reason we have a Scientific Method, the reason we have controls on experiments, and that we repeat and verify findings is because human being are irrational, dogmatic creatures who for the most part will choose a comfortable lie over a hard truth any day. We use these experimental methodologies to keep us honest. When we don't, we wind up burning witches, enslaving people, blowing up buildings, and other atrocities all in the name of defending our preferred delusion.
You are too hung up on "what is true".
In The Arena of World Influence, "What people believe regardless of veracity" and "What has power and influence over the masses"...will trounce and crush "What is merely true" every time.
You wanna know something that is certainly true?!!: All that REALLY matters is what matters!!
And in this world there are few things that "matter" as much as religion. Atheism OTOH...not so much. You want FACTS?...try THOSE.
You know as well as everyone else that Gldn's is playing on a one string banjo...The ad numerum fallacy.
It's just a matter of efficiency sans.
Since, unfortunately for you, et al...In The Arena of World Merit, ad Pop trounces and crushes anything you have to put against it. So, it's all that's needed.
Look...all the Atheism Concept has been able to do of any note, is get it's adherents labeled as "The Most Hated".
Sometimes the REALITY of "The Way of the World" is a bitter pill to swallow...but that's just the way it IS.
Oh, I am sure he is enjoying himself immensely. And we understand exactly what he is arguing. And we know very well that the need for religion is a powerful mover just as the need to dominate the tribe next door and overwhelm their gene pool, see patterns and threats where none may exist and to prefer self -justification to getting at facts.
The repeated efforts to explain that this irrelevant to whether religious belief is factually justified are more because unanswered posts look too much like unanswerable ones - for myself I can't be bothered. Gldrule knows what we think well enough.
Gldrule probably also knows that we are well aware that we may never overcome the human tendency to give into self -delusion and opt for easy 'goddunnit' rather than think, and he probably even understands that we have to keep pegging away in hopes that the message will get through.
He may even understand that the last set of returns indicates that our pegging is having some effect.
You are correct Awk.
I love this board. All you people are really great. I appreciate it.
You don't understand what constitutes as valid evidence. Experiential data isn't worth accepting because it cannot be empirically verified. There is no empirical evidence that supports any of the claims of christianity, therefore there is no evidence that supports it. Also, it is irrational to say that love is god. It's useless semantics that believers try and use to say there is a god, yet we have a word for love-love. Changing it to say love is also god is like saying gravity is god.
Maybe you have not understood what "Valid evidence" is.
You cannot deny influence, even if you don't know the source.
What is irrational is claiming to know every one of the countless gods so well that one emphatically denies every one of them. Of all of the definitions of God, I found one to be most logical and helpful, established by Paul Tillich... God is one's "ultimate concern" - basically that which you worship/prioritize. It is illogical to deny the "ultimacy" of one's ultimate concern.
Theology is "Study of the nature of God and the relationship of the human and divine." The many Atheist books simply study it from their own cult's point of view. Another reason why A-Theism with all it's Theology ("distinctive body of theological opinion"), is illogical. http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2..._Atheist_Books
Last edited by SuperSoul; 04-21-2013 at 10:15 PM..
It seems you, et al, have a lot of trouble seeing the difference in, "If a lot of people believe something, then it must be true"...with..."If one is attempting to assess the truth of a matter or issue, one of the best indicators is the intellectual critique of vast amounts of mentally sophisticated people, coming to same determination and conclusion, over and over and over again, for many, many years."
That doesn't mean the matter/issue is surely true. If it is, it is...if it's not, it's not. Regardless of of what anyone says...or on what basis they made their determination. But it sure is typically an excellent indicator.
Then I'll ask you again, seeing as you avoided the question in posts 324, 327 and 333. Do you think the fact that there are millions of Hindus in the word and the fact that the Hindu religion has exist for about a thousand years longer than Christianity, is an "excellent indicator" to verify the truth of Hinduism?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You haven't lost your snark, Raf.
