Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God thinks what I think

ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 1:57:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A study came out last year about how religious people estimate God's beliefs. In an experiment, subjects were asked about their own beliefs, beliefs of other people, and God's beliefs. The results show that subjects engaged in more self-referential thinking when estimating God's beliefs than they did when estimating the beliefs of others. This means that 'what God thinks' is strongly connected to 'what I think.' The research methodology was surveying, neuroimaging, and activities that involved psychological manipulation (to show causality).

The results are hardly surprising but telling.

An explanation theists might give for this is that God channels his morality into the minds of humans through the "I think" part of the brain. Yet that does not account for how widely morality varies between groups and individuals. The case could also be that people use their perception of God's morality to guide their own, but the author controlled for that by asking about the subjects' own beliefs before asking about God's beliefs. He also "showed that he could change people's views on God's will by manipulating their own beliefs."

tl;dr People mainly draw on their own personal beliefs to "infer the will of God."

Article: http://www.pnas.org....
Review/summary: http://scienceblogs.com....
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:21:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What? No theists commenting?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:06:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let me state it more clearly then.

You don't know what God believes or wills; you made it up to fit your own beliefs. Next time you claim this kind of insight, think about this study.

If you're a believer and you have no criticism of this, I assume you concede the point.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:09:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The only person who can be sure of the Existence of a God conjured by their own mind, is the owner of that mind. One does not have to be a member of Mensa to work that out." - Michael Tsarion
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:11:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Or maybe people of religion believe what God believes because well they believe in God
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:16:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:11:57 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Or maybe people of religion believe what God believes because well they believe in God

You don't get it.

The experiment showed that "what God believes" was dependent on what the subjects believed.

Also, if a belief in God brings you to share God's beliefs, why do people believe such different things?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:17:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:11:57 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Or maybe people of religion believe what God believes because well they believe in God

Except the different religions ascribe different attributes to God. Maybe if they all believed in the same God, that might work. But they don't.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:19:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The order in which the subject gives his own beliefs and God's beliefs does not affect the cause and effect of those things.

For example, just because I see my final grade before I look at my individual grades, doesn't mean that my individual grades were written to average into my final grade.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:21:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What a brilliant study. Good one raven. ^_-
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"

LMFAO
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:30:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"

You can't deny that many people define God how they want to. They usually define him with qualities they like or accept. It's unlikely people would believe a God with undesirable properties.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:34:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:19:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
The order in which the subject gives his own beliefs and God's beliefs does not affect the cause and effect of those things.

For example, just because I see my final grade before I look at my individual grades, doesn't mean that my individual grades were written to average into my final grade.

That's not a very good analogy.

Here's why the study shows causality.
The surveying part asked subjects about their personal beliefs before "God" was ever introduced. Otherwise, their answers might shift toward their conception of God's will. Are you arguing that people always have God on the mind when they think about their opinions?
When subjects' personal opinions were manipulated and changed, that changed their idea of God's beliefs in the same direction. Clear evidence of causality.
ravenwaen
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"

LMFAO

That.

And I take that as concession, Strike.
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"

LMFAO

That.

And I take that as concession, Strike.

It shouldn't be taken as such it should be taken as an assault upon the study and it's validity and as the fact that I don't have the time nor desire to argue this
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:55:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"

LMFAO

That.

And I take that as concession, Strike.

It shouldn't be taken as such it should be taken as an assault upon the study and it's validity and as the fact that I don't have the time nor desire to argue this

I totally agree. Much like the ridiculous studies you presented, ravens study could totally be disproved by some other study done by someone else. However, it just seems so perfectly to sum up Theist concepts of morality. "God feels how I feel."
Like the maniac who goes and shoots people because God told him to do it, or the gay man who kills himself because God hates him, everyone who believes in God believes that they know how God feels.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 7:58:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"

LMFAO

That.

And I take that as concession, Strike.

It shouldn't be taken as such it should be taken as an assault upon the study and it's validity and as the fact that I don't have the time nor desire to argue this

"Some studies I don't agree with, therefor all studies ever are wrong"

You're ignoring the fact that the study confirms what can easily be observed and inferred anyway, as raven and others have already pointed out, that is, everyone has different moralities that their god shares for arbitrary reasons?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:12:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 7:58:47 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"


"Some studies I don't agree with, therefor all studies ever are wrong"

Why do you think all studies are wrong Yvette? And are you saying that you agree with the idea of leeches relieving stomach cramps?
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:21:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 8:12:47 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 7:58:47 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"


"Some studies I don't agree with, therefor all studies ever are wrong"

Why do you think all studies are wrong Yvette? And are you saying that you agree with the idea of leeches relieving stomach cramps?

Okay, now you're being silly, because in one statement you know I'm comparing to what you said and in another you don't. Make up your mind.

My point was that you're rejecting the study based solely on the idea that two other studies said things you don't agree with. It wasn't even that those "types" of studies aren't reliable, or that they came from unreliable groups. No. Just that two studies ever said something you disagreed with.

Can you just be honest for once and admit you disagree with it because you disagree with it? And not come up with some excuse?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:24:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 8:21:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 8:12:47 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 7:58:47 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"


"Some studies I don't agree with, therefor all studies ever are wrong"

Why do you think all studies are wrong Yvette? And are you saying that you agree with the idea of leeches relieving stomach cramps?

Okay, now you're being silly, because in one statement you know I'm comparing to what you said and in another you don't. Make up your mind.

My point was that you're rejecting the study based solely on the idea that two other studies said things you don't agree with. It wasn't even that those "types" of studies aren't reliable, or that they came from unreliable groups. No. Just that two studies ever said something you disagreed with.

Can you just be honest for once and admit you disagree with it because you disagree with it? And not come up with some excuse?

I admit I disagree with it
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 8:24:17 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 8:21:20 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 8:12:47 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 7:58:47 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:51:37 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:36:07 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:26:04 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:23:07 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
Another study at one point found out that leeches relieve stomach cramps and another one proved that intelligence is entirely dependent upon a mysterious "G-factor"


"Some studies I don't agree with, therefor all studies ever are wrong"

Why do you think all studies are wrong Yvette? And are you saying that you agree with the idea of leeches relieving stomach cramps?

Okay, now you're being silly, because in one statement you know I'm comparing to what you said and in another you don't. Make up your mind.

My point was that you're rejecting the study based solely on the idea that two other studies said things you don't agree with. It wasn't even that those "types" of studies aren't reliable, or that they came from unreliable groups. No. Just that two studies ever said something you disagreed with.

Can you just be honest for once and admit you disagree with it because you disagree with it? And not come up with some excuse?

I admit I disagree with it

Do you admit the reason why you disagree with it is simply because of what it says, not because of any other reason you conjure up?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:43:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:34:29 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:19:05 PM, mongeese wrote:
The order in which the subject gives his own beliefs and God's beliefs does not affect the cause and effect of those things.

For example, just because I see my final grade before I look at my individual grades, doesn't mean that my individual grades were written to average into my final grade.

That's not a very good analogy.

Here's why the study shows causality.
The surveying part asked subjects about their personal beliefs before "God" was ever introduced. Otherwise, their answers might shift toward their conception of God's will. Are you arguing that people always have God on the mind when they think about their opinions?
Are you saying that they didn't form their own morality around God's before the survey ever started? Obviously, if we were ever to assume that their morality is based on God's morality, they wouldn't start this basis in the middle of a survey.

When subjects' personal opinions were manipulated and changed, that changed their idea of God's beliefs in the same direction. Clear evidence of causality.
Is there any support that this happened besides this single sentence? A transcript from a survey would be the most clear evidence.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:48:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:06:00 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
Let me state it more clearly then.

You don't know what God believes or wills; you made it up to fit your own beliefs. Next time you claim this kind of insight, think about this study.

If you're a believer and you have no criticism of this, I assume you concede the point.

There are two possibilites for the result:
1) Believer projects beliefs onto God (it does happen)
2) Believer's own beliefs are based upon their conception of God i.e. they believe what they believe because they believe God believes it.

The test doesn't account for both possibilities.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:49:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:06:00 PM, ravenwaen wrote:
If you're a believer and you have no criticism of this, I assume you concede the point.
Other possibility: we have better ways to waste our time.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:51:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 8:48:30 PM, Valtarov wrote:
2) Believer's own beliefs are based upon their conception of God i.e. they believe what they believe because they believe God believes it.

This.

I'm not religious, but what does this study prove? That religious peeps are imperfect? That's, like, the whole point of religion: a constant struggle towards God's perfection.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:07:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hmm:

P1: Sometimes believers project their own personal beliefs onto Gods belief or will.
P2: ? <-- unstated, surpressed premise
C: Therefore believers can never know what God believes or wills.

Now, I don't think it take a logician to see that this argument is invalid.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:23:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 9:07:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Hmm:

P1: Sometimes believers project their own personal beliefs onto Gods belief or will.
P2: ? <-- unstated, surpressed premise
C: Therefore believers can never know what God believes or wills.

Now, I don't think it take a logician to see that this argument is invalid.

"Sometimes" is an understatement...

I think it's meant to be more like this:

P1: Believers' think god and themselves think they same thing.
P2: Believers think lots of different things and interpret scripture according to what they already think (which is the only way they can know what he thinks).
P3: What they think god thinks is what they want him to think because they already thought it.
Conclusion: They're projecting.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 9:57:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 1:57:36 AM, ravenwaen wrote:
The results show that subjects engaged in more self-referential thinking when estimating God's beliefs than they did when estimating the beliefs of others. This means that 'what God thinks' is strongly connected to 'what I think.'

Someone had to do a study to determine this? This is not readily apparent in the behaviour of the majority of religious people? Seriously, I could have told you this for free!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 10:02:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 9:57:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/9/2010 1:57:36 AM, ravenwaen wrote:
The results show that subjects engaged in more self-referential thinking when estimating God's beliefs than they did when estimating the beliefs of others. This means that 'what God thinks' is strongly connected to 'what I think.'

Someone had to do a study to determine this? This is not readily apparent in the behaviour of the majority of religious people? Seriously, I could have told you this for free!
This.
I miss the old members.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2010 8:12:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 9:23:50 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 7/9/2010 9:07:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Hmm:

P1: Sometimes believers project their own personal beliefs onto Gods belief or will.
P2: ? <-- unstated, surpressed premise
C: Therefore believers can never know what God believes or wills.

Now, I don't think it take a logician to see that this argument is invalid.

"Sometimes" is an understatement...
How do you know it's not the other way around i.e. people's beliefs are based upon their conceptions of God.

I think it's meant to be more like this:

P1: Believers' think god and themselves think they same thing.
Not supported by the study. A tie does not equal total congruence.
P2: Believers think lots of different things and interpret scripture according to what they already think (which is the only way they can know what he thinks).
Also not supported by findings of study.
P3: What they think god thinks is what they want him to think because they already thought it.
Also not supported by findings of the study. Also commits the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Conclusion: They're projecting.
Non sequitur from premises.
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"