Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Honest Question to Religious Fundamentalists!

Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to preface this post with the following statement.

Please do not take offense to the question I am about to pose to you guys. As, it is not meant to harass or ridicule. I am am only asking it because I am truly baffled by some of your ideas and beliefs.

I have spent many years studying the field of Psychology. First as a student: high school, four years of college, and finally getting by BA in that discipline. I am currently working on my Master's Degree in Evolutionary Psychology.

So as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.

And your belief that Jesus was not merely an itinerant Rabbi and philosopher--a fully mortal human--but rather actually psychically rose from the Dead? When, again, Science has shown you for our entire lives that such things simply do not happen.

So, more to the point,my question is: What are you so Scared Of? In that you find it necessary to invent a laughably impossible God who actually has human attributes? Who sits up in Heaven and actually keeps track of you? Who cares about you. Who listen to your prayer? Who will reward you with an Afterlife in his heaven?

Is it that the fact that this life is all we have and when it is over, we are too? Is it that your life is not going well? Are you scared and oppressed? Like ALL people from history who have Invented their own gods. All societies throughout history have them you know: Gods. And they are always invented so as to make them specifically able to address the particular hopes and fears of the folks who invent them. This is why there ore so many different Gods? Why not just One? If there really WAS one? But no, just like in Greek Mythology, there are hundreds of gods for all of those differing peoples and culture.

This alone should prove to you how God is only a human concept.

Again: please. What are you so scared of in this life that you feel the need to invent an adulthood version of the childhood's Imaginary Friend? A BFF Creator that actually likes you?

Many Evolutionary Psychologist believe that God and religion are simply unsavory by-products of out evolved minds. One of the mind's "defense mechanisms." I too believe this.

So, thank yo for your honest answers. Please tell us what so scares you about living life on its own conditions?

Thank you for your time!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:20:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I would like to preface this post with the following statement.

Please do not take offense to the question I am about to pose to you guys. As, it is not meant to harass or ridicule.

....
you find it necessary to invent a laughably impossible God who actually has human attributes?

Again: please. What are you so scared of in this life that you feel the need to invent an adulthood version of the childhood's Imaginary Friend? A BFF Creator that actually likes you?

Just so you are aware, asking a question claiming your intent is not to ridicule a belief, and then ridiculing the belief is probably not a good way to get a good answer...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:24:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To actually ask a genuinely honest question to Religious Believers, specifically those who do not believe in Evolution:

1.) Given that lots of people consider Evolution valid, and you do not; one group is obviously deluded, how can you determine that group is not yours?

2.) Could you be wrong about your beliefs?

3.) If the answer is yes, what would it take to convince you?

4.) If the answer is no, considering that many people are just as convinced they are right as you are, how can you be sure you're not just convinced you are right, rather than actually being right?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 2:07:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 1:53:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
Why is the OP in the Science forum?

Yeah, I realize this might not be the optimal place for it. And I DO have a duplicate in the Religion Forum.

The placement here began as an honest mistake: I was on this Forum after recently cruising Religion. I made this thread thinking it was ON the Religious Forum.

Then, I figured--perhaps wrongly, I don't know--that perhaps it is NOT so misplaced here in Science, as it could address those Theists that often come over here. And IDO mention in the OP how science has continually and exhaustively weakened ANY case for a personal god--to the point that such an idea is all but absurd.

But..if NOT...Mods, please feel free to Delete this thread if you think it is too of-topic. Indeed, perhaps that is for the best, as I said: I do have a duplicate over in Religion.

Sorry if I offended any Science guys here with this Thread.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 8:23:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 11:24:10 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
To actually ask a genuinely honest question to Religious Believers, specifically those who do not believe in Evolution:

Not religious as such but then I strongly disbelieve in evolution.


1.) Given that lots of people consider Evolution valid, and you do not; one group is obviously deluded, how can you determine that group is not yours?

The evidence. I could and have written a whole essay on why evolution is hogwash but there are 3 facts (arranged in a decreasing order of importance) that rubbish the notion of evolution:

1) Natural processes are highly constrained in what they can effect. This is open to direct observation.

2) Millenia of history and present-day observations show that animals vary within limits.
Reading 'On The Origin Of The Species' it was clear Darwin wanted this fact ignored. He constantly urged that species must be plastic in spite of his admission in that when artificially-bred species are left in the wild, they revert to their wild type.

3) Random mutations are mostly neutral or harmful and so-called beneficial mutations are as a result of loss of genetic information. In fact, some traits aren't transmitted by genes (read up on structural and extra-nuclear inheritence) and so can't be accounted for by mutations.


2.) Could you be wrong about your beliefs?

No.


3.) If the answer is yes, what would it take to convince you?

Nature would have to operate very differently than it does now for me to believe in evolution.

First, we should know at least one natural process that results in a coded system, if it's more than one then the case for abiogenesis becomes unassailable. There would have to be fossils and living counterparts of 'evolutionary dead-ends' (ie organisms that aren't viable being made by chance mutations). There should be no DNA error correcting mechanisms, since it's contradictory that a process evolves that constrains a crucial evolutionary mechanism. There should be tons of evidence of random mutations generating new genetic information (proteins, tissues etc), since the process would have been ongoing for a very long time. I could go on and on but this should be enough.


4.) If the answer is no, considering that many people are just as convinced they are right as you are, how can you be sure you're not just convinced you are right, rather than actually being right?

I'm sure given the most important fact I stated. Fact 1) about natural processes being highly constrained in what they can effect. Keep in mind that when I speak of nature and natural processes here, life is excluded since that's what requires explanation.

When it comes right down to it, abiogenesis and evolution are simply ABIOTIC natural processes resulting in and developing lifeforms. There are 3 problems natural processes must surmount

*1 The problem of synthesis whereby we require ABIOTIC natural processes that effect biochemicals seen in living things. This problem is prominent in the origin of life field which comes as close to the problem as it gets and yet remains unsolved. It is very difficult to find naturally-occurring biochemicals outside life. And where they may be found (eg amino acids) are seen in contexts where they are useless (eg mixture of L and D amino acids where life uses only L amino acids).

*2 The problem of organisation has to do with organizing biochemicals into a working whole. In a game of Scrabble you might have to combination of letters to make a word but if you don't know it know, you won't be able to assemble it. The same applies to natural processes, they lack the foresight required to assemble such biochemicals. There is natural processes constrained in principle and practice to assemble any set of chemicals into a life-form. In fact, ASSUMING such a natural process that can assemble an organism, there are lots of natural processes that are just as likely to destroy it. One can point to the billions of corpses (with an assortment of biochemicals) left to nature over time, and how they have produced nothing whatsoever, they only degrade and fade away except they are fossilised or specially preserved.

Finally, even if I became really generous to the evolutionist and believed that nature somehow made life and evolved it, the problem of consciousness is enough to make nonsense of the theory. If a solely material world were there should be only zombies totally unaware of their actions as other non-life.

At least, the the problem of synthesis and organization are material problems having to do with synthesizing materials and arranging them in a specific way. One can't use that logic with consciousness since it isn't material. There's an infinite chasm between the chemical reactions in a brain and a sense of self, thoughts and emotions. A Dennett may deny consciousness as an illusion, and neuroscientists may confuse it as merely activities of the brain (it isn't, it results from them), and AI enthusiaisists may fancy that fast enough computers will be conscious but the fact remains that neurochemistry runs contrary to other chemical reactions which are constrained to chemical products and a release or use of energy. And that is why I'm absolutely sure the evolutionist's viewpoint fails.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 8:55:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I would like to preface this post with the following statement.

Please do not take offense to the question I am about to pose to you guys. As, it is not meant to harass or ridicule. I am am only asking it because I am truly baffled by some of your ideas and beliefs.

Okay.


I have spent many years studying the field of Psychology. First as a student: high school, four years of college, and finally getting by BA in that discipline. I am currently working on my Master's Degree in Evolutionary Psychology.

You do know that evolutionary psychology has gotten flak for its story-telling. In fact, some scientists in other fields don't believe it's a science.


So as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.

Where's the beef ?


And your belief that Jesus was not merely an itinerant Rabbi and philosopher--a fully mortal human--but rather actually psychically rose from the Dead? When, again, Science has shown you for our entire lives that such things simply do not happen.

Nonsense. People die and resurrect all the time. Go towards the end of the following video, there an atheist, in his own words, resurrected on the 3rd day.

https://m.youtube.com...


So, more to the point,my question is: What are you so Scared Of? In that you find it necessary to invent a laughably impossible God who actually has human attributes? Who sits up in Heaven and actually keeps track of you? Who cares about you. Who listen to your prayer? Who will reward you with an Afterlife in his heaven?

Not everyone is scared Goddamit. That's why you've got ex-Christian atheists. Could it be atheists are the one's scared of being responsible for a higher being ?

"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Laurence J. Peter.


Is it that the fact that this life is all we have and when it is over, we are too? Is it that your life is not going well? Are you scared and oppressed? Like ALL people from history who have Invented their own gods. All societies throughout history have them you know: Gods. And they are always invented so as to make them specifically able to address the particular hopes and fears of the folks who invent them. This is why there ore so many different Gods? Why not just One? If there really WAS one? But no, just like in Greek Mythology, there are hundreds of gods for all of those differing peoples and culture.

There nothing to fear from dying and not existing. There's everything to fear from dying and going to hell. Now about Greek mythology, I have a pet theory that some Greeks were actually monotheistic but let's leave it at that.


This alone should prove to you how God is only a human concept.

Same of atheism. However, being a concept is not a problem. The problem is whether the concept is true or false.


Again: please. What are you so scared of in this life that you feel the need to invent an adulthood version of the childhood's Imaginary Friend? A BFF Creator that actually likes you?

It's always funny seeing atheists conveniently forget the OT God they love to scorn when they mock god as a skydaddy.


Many Evolutionary Psychologist believe that God and religion are simply unsavory by-products of out evolved minds. One of the mind's "defense mechanisms." I too believe this.

Why would an unsavory by-product evolve ? Enter evolutionary speculations.


So, thank yo for your honest answers. Please tell us what so scares you about living life on its own conditions?

Again with the question, for Christsakes this is like the 3rd time you're asking.


Thank you for your time!

Thank you for thanking me. In fact, I'll just leave you with a tip. Many people really haven't thought about it, they were raised in a religious context so they're religious.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 8:23:11 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 7/10/2015 11:24:10 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
To actually ask a genuinely honest question to Religious Believers, specifically those who do not believe in Evolution:

Not religious as such but then I strongly disbelieve in evolution.


1.) Given that lots of people consider Evolution valid, and you do not; one group is obviously deluded, how can you determine that group is not yours?

The evidence. I could and have written a whole essay on why evolution is hogwash but there are 3 facts (arranged in a decreasing order of importance) that rubbish the notion of evolution:

Cool beans, bro. Be sure to mention us when you win the nobel prize for debunking evolution.

1) Natural processes are highly constrained in what they can effect. This is open to direct observation.

No one is saying that natural processes can create laser beams.


2) Millenia of history and present-day observations show that animals vary within limits.

Right, and since life has existed for billions of years, observing .0000001% of that time frame will give us a clear picture of its entirety.


3) Random mutations are mostly neutral or harmful and so-called beneficial mutations are as a result of loss of genetic information. In fact, some traits aren't transmitted by genes (read up on structural and extra-nuclear inheritence) and so can't be accounted for by mutations.

Mostly neutral. Rarely harmful or beneficial. And many add genetic information. The Nylon eating bacteria is an example, since it essentially created a new type of enzyme that didnt exist before.

And Extra-nuclear inheritence is the transmission of genes outside a nucleus. And how is this a problem to evolution?


2.) Could you be wrong about your beliefs?

No.

Way to be humble.


3.) If the answer is yes, what would it take to convince you?

Nature would have to operate very differently than it does now for me to believe in evolution.

First, we should know at least one natural process that results in a coded system, if it's more than one then the case for abiogenesis becomes unassailable.

Nothing really to do with evolution.

There would have to be fossils and living counterparts of 'evolutionary dead-ends' (ie organisms that aren't viable being made by chance mutations).

There are. They went extinct, and keep going extinct all the time.

There should be no DNA error correcting mechanisms, since it's contradictory that a process evolves that constrains a crucial evolutionary mechanism.

Which is probably why 99% of all species went extinct.

There should be tons of evidence of random mutations generating new genetic information (proteins, tissues etc), since the process would have been ongoing for a very long time. I could go on and on but this should be enough.

Already is.


4.) If the answer is no, considering that many people are just as convinced they are right as you are, how can you be sure you're not just convinced you are right, rather than actually being right?

I'm sure given the most important fact I stated. Fact 1) about natural processes being highly constrained in what they can effect. Keep in mind that when I speak of nature and natural processes here, life is excluded since that's what requires explanation.

When it comes right down to it, abiogenesis and evolution are simply ABIOTIC natural processes resulting in and developing lifeforms. There are 3 problems natural processes must surmount

*1 The problem of synthesis whereby we require ABIOTIC natural processes that effect biochemicals seen in living things. This problem is prominent in the origin of life field which comes as close to the problem as it gets and yet remains unsolved. It is very difficult to find naturally-occurring biochemicals outside life. And where they may be found (eg amino acids) are seen in contexts where they are useless (eg mixture of L and D amino acids where life uses only L amino acids).

L amino acids have been explained, but again, not really evolution, but okay.

*2 The problem of organisation has to do with organizing biochemicals into a working whole. In a game of Scrabble you might have to combination of letters to make a word but if you don't know it know, you won't be able to assemble it. The same applies to natural processes, they lack the foresight required to assemble such biochemicals. There is natural processes constrained in principle and practice to assemble any set of chemicals into a life-form. In fact, ASSUMING such a natural process that can assemble an organism, there are lots of natural processes that are just as likely to destroy it. One can point to the billions of corpses (with an assortment of biochemicals) left to nature over time, and how they have produced nothing whatsoever, they only degrade and fade away except they are fossilised or specially preserved.

Foresight is only required if youre looking at the current DNA as a goal, and not simply as a result.

Finally, even if I became really generous to the evolutionist and believed that nature somehow made life and evolved it, the problem of consciousness is enough to make nonsense of the theory. If a solely material world were there should be only zombies totally unaware of their actions as other non-life.

How so? Unless youre claiming and have evidence that consciousness somehow transcends and can exist separate of the mind, and isnt simply a product of the mind, consciousness isnt a problem for evolution.

At least, the the problem of synthesis and organization are material problems having to do with synthesizing materials and arranging them in a specific way. One can't use that logic with consciousness since it isn't material. There's an infinite chasm between the chemical reactions in a brain and a sense of self, thoughts and emotions. A Dennett may deny consciousness as an illusion, and neuroscientists may confuse it as merely activities of the brain (it isn't, it results from them), and AI enthusiaisists may fancy that fast enough computers will be conscious but the fact remains that neurochemistry runs contrary to other chemical reactions which are constrained to chemical products and a release or use of energy. And that is why I'm absolutely sure the evolutionist's viewpoint fails.

If i remember correctly, things like dualism havent been proven to be true, which means that youre grasping at straws.

But even so, how would this refute evolution? I dont understand. The existance of God, of the immaterial, isnt mutually exclusive with evolution as we understand it today. Even if God created the first single celled organism, that organism could still evolve, and common ancestry, evolution, everything about it would still be true.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:25:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 8:55:59 PM, Iredia wrote:

Not everyone is scared Goddamit. That's why you've got ex-Christian atheists. Could it be atheists are the one's scared of being responsible for a higher being ?

"Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Laurence J. Peter.

Ive never understood this argument before.

I mean, im sure we both agree that most atheists arent axe murderers, child molestors, tax evaders, theives or generally people who break the law.

So if were not scared of being responsible to society, to the government, what makes you even remotely think that we would be scared of being responsible to God? Is a Christians life, that vastly different from an atheists?


Is it that the fact that this life is all we have and when it is over, we are too? Is it that your life is not going well? Are you scared and oppressed? Like ALL people from history who have Invented their own gods. All societies throughout history have them you know: Gods. And they are always invented so as to make them specifically able to address the particular hopes and fears of the folks who invent them. This is why there ore so many different Gods? Why not just One? If there really WAS one? But no, just like in Greek Mythology, there are hundreds of gods for all of those differing peoples and culture.

There nothing to fear from dying and not existing. There's everything to fear from dying and going to hell. Now about Greek mythology, I have a pet theory that some Greeks were actually monotheistic but let's leave it at that.

I think theres just as much to fear(from your perspective, atleast) about dying and not going to heaven. After all, all those hours wasted, all that money wasted, all that time believing, wasted.


It's always funny seeing atheists conveniently forget the OT God they love to scorn when they mock god as a skydaddy.

They dont scorn the OT God. They remind christians of what God also is, how morally bankrupt he is, and that only a hypocrite would ignore it. We are well aware that Christianity has rebranded God as the lovable, merciful, moral father.

Why would an unsavory by-product evolve ? Enter evolutionary speculations.

Because it was savory and useful at a time. When you dont have the manpower, its easier to say "Theres an all powerful being watching your every move so you better not to X" in order to have people follow laws and rules.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 3:06:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:15:24 PM, tkubok wrote:

Cool beans, bro. Be sure to mention us when you win the nobel prize for debunking evolution.

I get tired of people saying this crap.


No one is saying that natural processes can create laser beams.

Yet they can create bacteria, plants, mammals etc.


Right, and since life has existed for billions of years, observing .0000001% of that time frame will give us a clear picture of its entirety.

It should, since it's been around for that long we should observe a species transitioning into another. Not to mention, that your theory requires billions and millions of years, ages I'm skeptical of.


Mostly neutral. Rarely harmful or beneficial. And many add genetic information. The Nylon eating bacteria is an example, since it essentially created a new type of enzyme that didnt exist before.

Not rarely harmful. There are lots of diseases caused by chance mutation in the wrong place, Tay-Sachs disease for example. No, evidence showing that nylonase came about by chance mutations.


And Extra-nuclear inheritence is the transmission of genes outside a nucleus. And how is this a problem to evolution?

Read up on structural inheritance, you ignored it.


Way to be humble.

Are you ?


Nothing really to do with evolution.

Everything to do with evolution. If natural processes couldn't make life, they couldn't make it evolve.


There are. They went extinct, and keep going extinct all the time.

Examples ? Dinosaurs don't fit into my description of a dead-end.


Which is probably why 99% of all species went extinct.

Evidence ?


Already is.

Again, the evidence ?


L amino acids have been explained, but again, not really evolution, but okay.

Where were they explained ? Way to go denying it has anything to do with evolution.


Foresight is only required if youre looking at the current DNA as a goal, and not simply as a result.

And natural processes don't result in a DNA. There's no evidence for such.


How so? Unless youre claiming and have evidence that consciousness somehow transcends and can exist separate of the mind, and isnt simply a product of the mind, consciousness isnt a problem for evolution.

It is since chemical reactions are constrained to effecting chemical products and a use or release of energy. Neurochemistry contradicts this.


If i remember correctly, things like dualism havent been proven to be true, which means that youre grasping at straws.

Actually, it is proven. Consciousness is distinct from the neural activities effecting it.


But even so, how would this refute evolution? I dont understand. The existance of God, of the immaterial, isnt mutually exclusive with evolution as we understand it today. Even if God created the first single celled organism, that organism could still evolve, and common ancestry, evolution, everything about it would still be true.

No, the organism won't evolve, it would vary. If you can't see how evolution is refuted by my point then you're so brainwashed you can't think any other way. It's a pity, really.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 3:13:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:25:09 PM, tkubok wrote:

Ive never understood this argument before.

I mean, im sure we both agree that most atheists arent axe murderers, child molestors, tax evaders, theives or generally people who break the law.

So if were not scared of being responsible to society, to the government, what makes you even remotely think that we would be scared of being responsible to God? Is a Christians life, that vastly different from an atheists?

Good point. Noted.


I think theres just as much to fear(from your perspective, atleast) about dying and not going to heaven. After all, all those hours wasted, all that money wasted, all that time believing, wasted.

Tu quoque.


They dont scorn the OT God. They remind christians of what God also is, how morally bankrupt he is, and that only a hypocrite would ignore it. We are well aware that Christianity has rebranded God as the lovable, merciful, moral father.

They scorn the OT God, there are lots of atheists memes, essays and videos that do such.


Because it was savory and useful at a time. When you dont have the manpower, its easier to say "Theres an all powerful being watching your every move so you better not to X" in order to have people follow laws and rules.

As I said, evolutionary speculations.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 6:01:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There should be tons of evidence of random mutations generating new genetic information (proteins, tissues etc), since the process would have been ongoing for a very long time. I could go on and on but this should be enough.

I'm not sure what would count as tons and tons of evidence, but I think one of the nicest examples of muation resulting in signficant genetic->protein->tissue change is given by the sickle-cell mutation.

Sickle cell is caused by a single mutation in the DNA encoding a blood protein. As a consquence of the DNA change, the protein folds differently resulting in red corpuscles taking on the 'sickle' shape that gives the condition its name.

The thing about sickle cell is that can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. In most places, having sickled blood cells is a bad thing, but in areas with high levels of malaria sicklers do better than non-sicklers. I think that is a good example of a random mutation producing new - or at least modified - proteins and tissues as you could wish for. Thelassemia is a similar condition that results from a similar (but different) mutation. Sickle cell and thelaseamia are in a sense examples of 'convergent evolution', where similar selection pressures (ie malaria) results in the same result by different routes, sickle cell in in Africa and thelasseamia in the Mediterranean.

I could go on, but that should be enough.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:11:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.

Actually, I'd like the chance to defend fundamentalism, Drew. Not for the absolute truth of fundamentalist belief (which is unprovable and conflicted), but for the proposition that if there were any hope at all of these beliefs being correct -- even for reasons not well understood -- abandoning that thought at this time would be premature.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 3:06:04 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 7/11/2015 11:15:24 PM, tkubok wrote:

Cool beans, bro. Be sure to mention us when you win the nobel prize for debunking evolution.

I get tired of people saying this crap.

Im sorry, but this is a valid point from a scientific perspective, though. If youre going to say you have evidence against evolution, that actually disproves evolution as it is known today, and your evidence is actually valid, from a scientific standpoint, theres really nothing standing between you and a nobel prize.


No one is saying that natural processes can create laser beams.

Yet they can create bacteria, plants, mammals etc.

Sure.


Right, and since life has existed for billions of years, observing .0000001% of that time frame will give us a clear picture of its entirety.

It should, since it's been around for that long we should observe a species transitioning into another. Not to mention, that your theory requires billions and millions of years, ages I'm skeptical of.

Based on what criterion are you saying "It should be"? Keep in mind that our ability to actually record and observe most species has only been around the past 100-200 years or so.

I mean, youre basically saying that watching a single slide of the opening credits should be enough to determine if a movie is good or not, or even what the movie was about and which movie it was. Dont you think thats absurd?


Mostly neutral. Rarely harmful or beneficial. And many add genetic information. The Nylon eating bacteria is an example, since it essentially created a new type of enzyme that didnt exist before.

Not rarely harmful. There are lots of diseases caused by chance mutation in the wrong place, Tay-Sachs disease for example. No, evidence showing that nylonase came about by chance mutations.

Compared to the amount of neutral mutations, yes, they are rarely harmful. I found it sort of disingenuous for you to have grouped Neutral and Harmful mutations together, and only someone who has no idea what the actual ratio of neutral to harmful mutations are, would say that.

And yes, there is evidence that nylonase came about by chance mutation, since nylon didnt exist up until the 1900s. Or are you saying that someone purposefully created the nylon enzyme and spliced it into the bacteria?


And Extra-nuclear inheritence is the transmission of genes outside a nucleus. And how is this a problem to evolution?

Read up on structural inheritance, you ignored it.

I didnt ignore it, i corrected you by stating that Extra-nuclear inheritance is transmission of genes, and therefore you were wrong in including that. My follow-up question of "How is this a problem to evolution" encompasses both Structural inheritance and Extra-nuclear inheritance.

So, care to answer it?


Way to be humble.

Are you ?

Certainly. I completely accept that i could be wrong about evolution. But the only thing that will change my mind is evidence.


Nothing really to do with evolution.

Everything to do with evolution. If natural processes couldn't make life, they couldn't make it evolve.

Okay, cool. So if God created the first single celled organism, and let it evolve into what we see today, what part of evolutionary theory today, would be wrong or dismissed or disproven?


There are. They went extinct, and keep going extinct all the time.

Examples ? Dinosaurs don't fit into my description of a dead-end.

Im not talking about dinosaurs. I said "Keep going extinct all the time".

But i suppose i should ask, what do you mean by "Dead-end"?

Which is probably why 99% of all species went extinct.

Evidence ?

Fossils.


Already is.

Again, the evidence ?

Nylon eating bacteria.


L amino acids have been explained, but again, not really evolution, but okay.

Where were they explained ? Way to go denying it has anything to do with evolution.

Because it has to do with Abiogenesis and not evolution. But the problem with L amino acids is that there are too many ways of producing Single-handed amino acids. In other words, we have too many answers. I mean, this is one example:

http://www.nasa.gov...

Foresight is only required if youre looking at the current DNA as a goal, and not simply as a result.

And natural processes don't result in a DNA. There's no evidence for such.

Natural selection.


How so? Unless youre claiming and have evidence that consciousness somehow transcends and can exist separate of the mind, and isnt simply a product of the mind, consciousness isnt a problem for evolution.

It is since chemical reactions are constrained to effecting chemical products and a use or release of energy. Neurochemistry contradicts this.


How has neurochemistry demonstrated to contradict this?



If i remember correctly, things like dualism havent been proven to be true, which means that youre grasping at straws.

Actually, it is proven. Consciousness is distinct from the neural activities effecting it.

Really, thats pretty interesting. Source? Citation?


But even so, how would this refute evolution? I dont understand. The existance of God, of the immaterial, isnt mutually exclusive with evolution as we understand it today. Even if God created the first single celled organism, that organism could still evolve, and common ancestry, evolution, everything about it would still be true.

No, the organism won't evolve, it would vary. If you can't see how evolution is refuted by my point then you're so brainwashed you can't think any other way. It's a pity, really.

Can I get a definition from you of what you mean by "Vary" in contract to "Evolve"?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:45:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 3:13:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
I think theres just as much to fear(from your perspective, atleast) about dying and not going to heaven. After all, all those hours wasted, all that money wasted, all that time believing, wasted.

Tu quoque.

How so?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:49:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:45:16 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/12/2015 3:13:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
I think theres just as much to fear(from your perspective, atleast) about dying and not going to heaven. After all, all those hours wasted, all that money wasted, all that time believing, wasted.

Tu quoque.

How so?

It applies moreso to atheists who have no chance of getting to heaven, if there is one, at least Christians have a chance.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:38:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:49:43 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:45:16 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/12/2015 3:13:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
I think theres just as much to fear(from your perspective, atleast) about dying and not going to heaven. After all, all those hours wasted, all that money wasted, all that time believing, wasted.

Tu quoque.

How so?

It applies moreso to atheists who have no chance of getting to heaven, if there is one, at least Christians have a chance.

Why would anyone want to go to heaven when it's filled with stupid people?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:07:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:49:43 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:45:16 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/12/2015 3:13:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
I think theres just as much to fear(from your perspective, atleast) about dying and not going to heaven. After all, all those hours wasted, all that money wasted, all that time believing, wasted.

Tu quoque.

How so?

It applies moreso to atheists who have no chance of getting to heaven, if there is one, at least Christians have a chance.

If atheists were afraid of not going to heaven, they would be christians/muslims/Jews. This happens with ponzi schemes as well. When people find out its a scheme/scam, they sometimes double down because theyve already invested so much time/money into it that they would prefer to have "Faith" that its real even if its obviously a scam. Its a sort of denial.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:16:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:11:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.

Actually, I'd like the chance to defend fundamentalism, Drew. Not for the absolute truth of fundamentalist belief (which is unprovable and conflicted), but for the proposition that if there were any hope at all of these beliefs being correct -- even for reasons not well understood -- abandoning that thought at this time would be premature.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point, Ruv. Respectfully.

But, hey man! it's good to see you are still here. I could have sworn I thought I saw your account was de-activated the other day?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:43:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:16:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/12/2015 7:11:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.
Actually, I'd like the chance to defend fundamentalism, Drew. Not for the absolute truth of fundamentalist belief (which is unprovable and conflicted), but for the proposition that if there were any hope at all of these beliefs being correct -- even for reasons not well understood -- abandoning that thought at this time would be premature.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point, Ruv. Respectfully.

Well, I agree with your premise that Christian evangelical fundamentalism is in a shambles of evidentiary falsification. But that's not your question. Your question is why, despite this being so, it's so attractive that many still cling to it -- especially many people in the US.

The answer cannot be wholly rational; it has to be emotional and cultural. But the people who uphold the rationality of evangelical fundamentalism can't admit it's mainly emotional, since they also want it to be true and good and universally right.

So, I'm offering to make the emotional argument, without any claim to assuming the truth or rationality of the underlying beliefs. That's an offer to attempt to produce an authentic, honest answer that I suspect many fundamentalists feel, but cannot say. (It's the sort of thing one does in fiction-writing when creating characters whose beliefs one disagrees with. In another life I've previously done this for far harder positions to hold.)

I could have sworn I thought I saw your account was de-activated the other day?

Yes. I don't like the stuckedness of DDO -- the fact that too many posters want to inflict dogma on one another, rather than explore alternative views. The fact that so many members don't hold their views accountable, but rather, hold them unaccountable and thus kill any chance of constructive discussion.

Though it doesn't apply to everyone (you're a good counter-example, f'rinstance, of someone who likes to hold multiple conflicting views in one noggin, and there are others here too), I feel such stuckedness in culture creates stuckedness in members, and thus engaging it becomes a waste of time. However, Mrs Draba persuaded me that I wasn't getting stuck, that I could reapproach things to stretch and challenge myself further, and that it could easily integrate with the other, non-DDO things I'm developing. So... after a silent disappearance, I'm back again equally silently -- with the whisperlike tread of an ugg-booted ninja on a Persian rug. :)
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:47:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:43:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/12/2015 7:16:25 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/12/2015 7:11:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.
Actually, I'd like the chance to defend fundamentalism, Drew. Not for the absolute truth of fundamentalist belief (which is unprovable and conflicted), but for the proposition that if there were any hope at all of these beliefs being correct -- even for reasons not well understood -- abandoning that thought at this time would be premature.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point, Ruv. Respectfully.

Well, I agree with your premise that Christian evangelical fundamentalism is in a shambles of evidentiary falsification. But that's not your question. Your question is why, despite this being so, it's so attractive that many still cling to it -- especially many people in the US.

The answer cannot be wholly rational; it has to be emotional and cultural. But the people who uphold the rationality of evangelical fundamentalism can't admit it's mainly emotional, since they also want it to be true and good and universally right.

So, I'm offering to make the emotional argument, without any claim to assuming the truth or rationality of the underlying beliefs. That's an offer to attempt to produce an authentic, honest answer that I suspect many fundamentalists feel, but cannot say. (It's the sort of thing one does in fiction-writing when creating characters whose beliefs one disagrees with. In another life I've previously done this for far harder positions to hold.)

I could have sworn I thought I saw your account was de-activated the other day?

Yes. I don't like the stuckedness of DDO -- the fact that too many posters want to inflict dogma on one another, rather than explore alternative views. The fact that so many members don't hold their views accountable, but rather, hold them unaccountable and thus kill any chance of constructive discussion.

Though it doesn't apply to everyone (you're a good counter-example, f'rinstance, of someone who likes to hold multiple conflicting views in one noggin, and there are others here too), I feel such stuckedness in culture creates stuckedness in members, and thus engaging it becomes a waste of time. However, Mrs Draba persuaded me that I wasn't getting stuck, that I could reapproach things to stretch and challenge myself further, and that it could easily integrate with the other, non-DDO things I'm developing. So... after a silent disappearance, I'm back again equally silently -- with the whisperlike tread of an ugg-booted ninja on a Persian rug. :)

LOL--great simile! I love Ninjas.

And I am glad you listened to your better half and stayed. I count on you as one of the cool and calm voices of unbiased reason on DDO.

As cool as the other side of the pillow.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 8:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:47:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I count on you as one of the cool and calm voices of unbiased reason on DDO.

That's very kind. My offer here Drew, is not to contest your own beliefs (most of which I probably share), nor to roleplay an evangelist (which in the context of debate, could only be a caricature), but to expose a set of cultural ideas to your exploration and scrutiny as coherently as I can. You're welcome to poke and argue, without me poking back.

I believe those ideas have their roots in some unfortunate events affecting mid- to late 19th century US Protestantism and the even more calamitous and tumultuous events of the 20th century. I believe US fundamentalist evangelicalsm represents a cultural holdout position for an idealised life many Americans are unwilling to abandon.

Anyway, it might be a nice change from the usual defensive "You can't prove Genesis false" apologetics. But I won't do it unless you're interested in seeing it (or someone is. :D)
morphesium
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 2:38:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


I have spent many years studying the field of Psychology. First as a student: high school, four years of college, and finally getting by BA in that discipline. I am currently working on my Master's Degree in Evolutionary Psychology.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am an atheist and I do believe that there are some Psychological reasons that makes believers stick on to their beliefs. (besides social and other reasons). I think if i share those with you, you might be able to correct me - where I had gone wrong. Thanks in advance. For this reason, this thread is rightly placed here in Science forum.

So as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is what I believe are some of the psychological reasons why people stick on to their religion. (Please correct me where I go wrong). If someone keep on suggesting (auto-suggesting) or keep on doing something for 21 days, it will turn into a new habit. This is something what psychologists and counselors makes use of.

So if a particular religion happens to make us think for 21 days (at a stretch - the believers may not be even be aware of this) that one should abstain from eating chicken, that it is unholy, then the believers will abstain from eating chicken. They will dislike chicken for no reasons.

So if someone is born in a religious family, such thoughts come from their parents, religious classes and holy texts in a regular basis and these things can easily be hardwired in their brain - as if going through regular psychological session of reprogramming our mind -but without they being aware of this.
This is why Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat Beef, why masturbation is a sin, why homosexuals are mocked, etc, etc- it is all part of religious agenda and human psychology.

This alone should prove to you how God is only a human concept.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I do agree with you. God is human concept. We created God.

Many Evolutionary Psychologist believe that God and religion are simply unsavory by-products of out evolved minds. One of the mind's "defense mechanisms." I too believe this.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I too.

Thank you
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:51:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 2:38:31 AM, morphesium wrote:
At 7/10/2015 8:59:03 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


I have spent many years studying the field of Psychology. First as a student: high school, four years of college, and finally getting by BA in that discipline. I am currently working on my Master's Degree in Evolutionary Psychology.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am an atheist and I do believe that there are some Psychological reasons that makes believers stick on to their beliefs. (besides social and other reasons). I think if i share those with you, you might be able to correct me - where I had gone wrong. Thanks in advance. For this reason, this thread is rightly placed here in Science forum.



So as a student of the human mind, I simply would like to know how you people can, in the face of ALL the mountains of scientific evidence which laboriously and exhaustively shows there is absolutely NO evidence for a personal God, still cling to your beliefs.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This is what I believe are some of the psychological reasons why people stick on to their religion. (Please correct me where I go wrong). If someone keep on suggesting (auto-suggesting) or keep on doing something for 21 days, it will turn into a new habit. This is something what psychologists and counselors makes use of.

So if a particular religion happens to make us think for 21 days (at a stretch - the believers may not be even be aware of this) that one should abstain from eating chicken, that it is unholy, then the believers will abstain from eating chicken. They will dislike chicken for no reasons.

So if someone is born in a religious family, such thoughts come from their parents, religious classes and holy texts in a regular basis and these things can easily be hardwired in their brain - as if going through regular psychological session of reprogramming our mind -but without they being aware of this.
This is why Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat Beef, why masturbation is a sin, why homosexuals are mocked, etc, etc- it is all part of religious agenda and human psychology.




This alone should prove to you how God is only a human concept.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I do agree with you. God is human concept. We created God.



Many Evolutionary Psychologist believe that God and religion are simply unsavory by-products of out evolved minds. One of the mind's "defense mechanisms." I too believe this.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I too.


Thank you

YW.

OK....part of what you said is basically true, regarding how repetitive thoughts and their subsequent actions can become habits--or rituals--if practiced for an extended period of time. Say, weeks, or months. But not always. Depends on the nature--the reason--that these rituals were undertaken in the first place.

For example, it they were not voluntary, say, a part of a job or a task that the person had to complete, then they will not necessarily become ingrained int heir persona; will not become liftetime habits.

But on the other hand if the spurring thoughts ARE voluntary, or the product of a delusion or misconception, yeah, they can turn into full-blown habits. When these habits are irrational and play an overly significant part of the person's daily living, we call that an obsession. Or a c compulsion.

But they do not become "hardwired" into the person's brain. That term we use in regards to a physiological, genetic pre-dispositiion. As many psychiatric illnesses are caused by. Schizophrenia; Biupolar disorder.

Many neurologists are of the belief the human brain IS "hardwired" for religious belief. A belief in gods. This is a by-product of out mind's obsession with seeking patterns in all things. (Man in the moon; that rain cloud you see that looks like a poodle pushing a shopping cart!) LOL

This trait served us well "back in the day." When we were hunting food and trying to survive on the hostile African Savannahs. But today, while still useful to a lesser degree, it can also lead to unsavory beliefs. Like Religion. God. Human carpenters who rise from the dead some 2000 years ago and still play a part in your life and listen to your prayers!

The vast majority of religious people were indeed taught it in their childhoods. This stands to reason, since there is very very little evidence of some of its tenets, again, like god or a Christ, outside of the holy books from which they would have been taught from. For example, not even the staunches Christian apologist could claim that a kid born in in a secular home, and who never heard of or read about or was taught about a god or Allah or JC would "find" those things on their own. That is, from some sort of "spirit" touching them. Because there simply is none.

There are three primary delusions we see when dealing with clients in the throes of a psychotic break. Or a psychotic Episode. Religious fervor; Paranoia; and delusions of grandeur.

Thanks for your questions, and your post!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
morphesium
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 3:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For example, it they were not voluntary, say, a part of a job or a task that the person had to complete, then they will not necessarily become ingrained int heir persona; will not become liftetime habits.

But on the other hand if the spurring thoughts ARE voluntary, or the product of a delusion or misconception, yeah, they can turn into full-blown habits. When these habits are irrational and play an overly significant part of the person's daily living, we call that an obsession. Or a c compulsion.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing this.

But they do not become "hardwired" into the person's brain. That term we use in regards to a physiological, genetic pre-dispositiion. As many psychiatric illnesses are caused by. Schizophrenia; Biupolar disorder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actually it was my fault. The article said something like this. "think of the tracks laid by someone constantly walking on a grass grown floor. You can change that to create a new path (reprogramme)". Never thought that this term "hardwired" was used in this field for another meaning.
Thanks for bringing it into may attention

Many neurologists are of the belief the human brain IS "hardwired" for religious belief. A belief in gods. This is a by-product of out mind's obsession with seeking patterns in all things. (Man in the moon; that rain cloud you see that looks like a poodle pushing a shopping cart!) LOL
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or (additionally) could it be due to these 4 (possibly many more) reasons:-
1)The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2)There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3)People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.
4)Human beings are very inquisitive and imaginative in nature - we ask questions and stick to the simplest possible answer that we can possibly find.
Nothing suit these 4 criterias better than the concept of God and hence religion. The tribal leaders -looking for measures for controlling their subordinates and to make their position unquestionable, made use of this and eventually, after tribal mergers and wars etc, we have come this far.

The vast majority of religious people were indeed taught it in their childhoods. This stands to reason, since there is very very little evidence of some of its tenets, again, like god or a Christ, outside of the holy books from which they would have been taught from. For example, not even the staunches Christian apologist could claim that a kid born in in a secular home, and who never heard of or read about or was taught about a god or Allah or JC would "find" those things on their own. That is, from some sort of "spirit" touching them. Because there simply is none.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with these.
There are three primary delusions we see when dealing with clients in the throes of a psychotic break. Or a psychotic Episode. Religious fervor; Paranoia; and delusions of grandeur.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
searched the web to know more about these - got a glimpse.
Thank you. This was a lot informative and educative.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 3:33:00 PM, morphesium wrote:
For example, it they were not voluntary, say, a part of a job or a task that the person had to complete, then they will not necessarily become ingrained int heir persona; will not become liftetime habits.

But on the other hand if the spurring thoughts ARE voluntary, or the product of a delusion or misconception, yeah, they can turn into full-blown habits. When these habits are irrational and play an overly significant part of the person's daily living, we call that an obsession. Or a c compulsion.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing this.

But they do not become "hardwired" into the person's brain. That term we use in regards to a physiological, genetic pre-dispositiion. As many psychiatric illnesses are caused by. Schizophrenia; Biupolar disorder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actually it was my fault. The article said something like this. "think of the tracks laid by someone constantly walking on a grass grown floor. You can change that to create a new path (reprogramme)". Never thought that this term "hardwired" was used in this field for another meaning.
Thanks for bringing it into may attention


Many neurologists are of the belief the human brain IS "hardwired" for religious belief. A belief in gods. This is a by-product of out mind's obsession with seeking patterns in all things. (Man in the moon; that rain cloud you see that looks like a poodle pushing a shopping cart!) LOL
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or (additionally) could it be due to these 4 (possibly many more) reasons:-
1)The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2)There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3)People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.
4)Human beings are very inquisitive and imaginative in nature - we ask questions and stick to the simplest possible answer that we can possibly find.
Nothing suit these 4 criterias better than the concept of God and hence religion. The tribal leaders -looking for measures for controlling their subordinates and to make their position unquestionable, made use of this and eventually, after tribal mergers and wars etc, we have come this far.


The vast majority of religious people were indeed taught it in their childhoods. This stands to reason, since there is very very little evidence of some of its tenets, again, like god or a Christ, outside of the holy books from which they would have been taught from. For example, not even the staunches Christian apologist could claim that a kid born in in a secular home, and who never heard of or read about or was taught about a god or Allah or JC would "find" those things on their own. That is, from some sort of "spirit" touching them. Because there simply is none.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with these.
There are three primary delusions we see when dealing with clients in the throes of a psychotic break. Or a psychotic Episode. Religious fervor; Paranoia; and delusions of grandeur.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
searched the web to know more about these - got a glimpse.
Thank you. This was a lot informative and educative.

YW. Anytime, my friend. If you ever have any questions on Evolutionary Psych, let me know.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:57:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 6:47:09 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/14/2015 3:33:00 PM, morphesium wrote:
For example, it they were not voluntary, say, a part of a job or a task that the person had to complete, then they will not necessarily become ingrained int heir persona; will not become liftetime habits.

But on the other hand if the spurring thoughts ARE voluntary, or the product of a delusion or misconception, yeah, they can turn into full-blown habits. When these habits are irrational and play an overly significant part of the person's daily living, we call that an obsession. Or a c compulsion.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing this.

But they do not become "hardwired" into the person's brain. That term we use in regards to a physiological, genetic pre-dispositiion. As many psychiatric illnesses are caused by. Schizophrenia; Biupolar disorder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actually it was my fault. The article said something like this. "think of the tracks laid by someone constantly walking on a grass grown floor. You can change that to create a new path (reprogramme)". Never thought that this term "hardwired" was used in this field for another meaning.
Thanks for bringing it into may attention


Many neurologists are of the belief the human brain IS "hardwired" for religious belief. A belief in gods. This is a by-product of out mind's obsession with seeking patterns in all things. (Man in the moon; that rain cloud you see that looks like a poodle pushing a shopping cart!) LOL
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or (additionally) could it be due to these 4 (possibly many more) reasons:-
1)The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2)There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3)People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.
4)Human beings are very inquisitive and imaginative in nature - we ask questions and stick to the simplest possible answer that we can possibly find.
Nothing suit these 4 criterias better than the concept of God and hence religion. The tribal leaders -looking for measures for controlling their subordinates and to make their position unquestionable, made use of this and eventually, after tribal mergers and wars etc, we have come this far.


The vast majority of religious people were indeed taught it in their childhoods. This stands to reason, since there is very very little evidence of some of its tenets, again, like god or a Christ, outside of the holy books from which they would have been taught from. For example, not even the staunches Christian apologist could claim that a kid born in in a secular home, and who never heard of or read about or was taught about a god or Allah or JC would "find" those things on their own. That is, from some sort of "spirit" touching them. Because there simply is none.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with these.
There are three primary delusions we see when dealing with clients in the throes of a psychotic break. Or a psychotic Episode. Religious fervor; Paranoia; and delusions of grandeur.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
searched the web to know more about these - got a glimpse.
Thank you. This was a lot informative and educative.


YW. Anytime, my friend. If you ever have any questions on Evolutionary Psych, let me know.

If you made a thread on EP, I would ask some questions. But I warn you that some would be critical. We have 7 faculty members in evo psych in the department I'm associated with, with pretty different views I think.

Have you read this:

From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology. K. Sterelny
and J. Fitness (eds). Psychology Press (London & New York)
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 7:00:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 6:57:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:47:09 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/14/2015 3:33:00 PM, morphesium wrote:
For example, it they were not voluntary, say, a part of a job or a task that the person had to complete, then they will not necessarily become ingrained int heir persona; will not become liftetime habits.

But on the other hand if the spurring thoughts ARE voluntary, or the product of a delusion or misconception, yeah, they can turn into full-blown habits. When these habits are irrational and play an overly significant part of the person's daily living, we call that an obsession. Or a c compulsion.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing this.

But they do not become "hardwired" into the person's brain. That term we use in regards to a physiological, genetic pre-dispositiion. As many psychiatric illnesses are caused by. Schizophrenia; Biupolar disorder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actually it was my fault. The article said something like this. "think of the tracks laid by someone constantly walking on a grass grown floor. You can change that to create a new path (reprogramme)". Never thought that this term "hardwired" was used in this field for another meaning.
Thanks for bringing it into may attention


Many neurologists are of the belief the human brain IS "hardwired" for religious belief. A belief in gods. This is a by-product of out mind's obsession with seeking patterns in all things. (Man in the moon; that rain cloud you see that looks like a poodle pushing a shopping cart!) LOL
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or (additionally) could it be due to these 4 (possibly many more) reasons:-
1)The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2)There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3)People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.
4)Human beings are very inquisitive and imaginative in nature - we ask questions and stick to the simplest possible answer that we can possibly find.
Nothing suit these 4 criterias better than the concept of God and hence religion. The tribal leaders -looking for measures for controlling their subordinates and to make their position unquestionable, made use of this and eventually, after tribal mergers and wars etc, we have come this far.


The vast majority of religious people were indeed taught it in their childhoods. This stands to reason, since there is very very little evidence of some of its tenets, again, like god or a Christ, outside of the holy books from which they would have been taught from. For example, not even the staunches Christian apologist could claim that a kid born in in a secular home, and who never heard of or read about or was taught about a god or Allah or JC would "find" those things on their own. That is, from some sort of "spirit" touching them. Because there simply is none.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with these.
There are three primary delusions we see when dealing with clients in the throes of a psychotic break. Or a psychotic Episode. Religious fervor; Paranoia; and delusions of grandeur.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
searched the web to know more about these - got a glimpse.
Thank you. This was a lot informative and educative.


YW. Anytime, my friend. If you ever have any questions on Evolutionary Psych, let me know.

If you made a thread on EP, I would ask some questions. But I warn you that some would be critical. We have 7 faculty members in evo psych in the department I'm associated with, with pretty different views I think.

Have you read this:

From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology. K. Sterelny
and J. Fitness (eds). Psychology Press (London & New York)

Are you not a believer in the tenets of Evo Psych? I would have thought differently of you, judging from your past posts and seeming knowledge on the inner-workings of the brain.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 7:20:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 7:00:13 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:57:56 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:47:09 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/14/2015 3:33:00 PM, morphesium wrote:
For example, it they were not voluntary, say, a part of a job or a task that the person had to complete, then they will not necessarily become ingrained int heir persona; will not become liftetime habits.

But on the other hand if the spurring thoughts ARE voluntary, or the product of a delusion or misconception, yeah, they can turn into full-blown habits. When these habits are irrational and play an overly significant part of the person's daily living, we call that an obsession. Or a c compulsion.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing this.

But they do not become "hardwired" into the person's brain. That term we use in regards to a physiological, genetic pre-dispositiion. As many psychiatric illnesses are caused by. Schizophrenia; Biupolar disorder.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Actually it was my fault. The article said something like this. "think of the tracks laid by someone constantly walking on a grass grown floor. You can change that to create a new path (reprogramme)". Never thought that this term "hardwired" was used in this field for another meaning.
Thanks for bringing it into may attention


Many neurologists are of the belief the human brain IS "hardwired" for religious belief. A belief in gods. This is a by-product of out mind's obsession with seeking patterns in all things. (Man in the moon; that rain cloud you see that looks like a poodle pushing a shopping cart!) LOL
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or (additionally) could it be due to these 4 (possibly many more) reasons:-
1)The fear of the unknown is always much greater than fear of the known.
2)There is always the uncertainty of the future.
3)People had to suffer extreme hard ships for their survival and this demanded something strong to pacify them.
4)Human beings are very inquisitive and imaginative in nature - we ask questions and stick to the simplest possible answer that we can possibly find.
Nothing suit these 4 criterias better than the concept of God and hence religion. The tribal leaders -looking for measures for controlling their subordinates and to make their position unquestionable, made use of this and eventually, after tribal mergers and wars etc, we have come this far.


The vast majority of religious people were indeed taught it in their childhoods. This stands to reason, since there is very very little evidence of some of its tenets, again, like god or a Christ, outside of the holy books from which they would have been taught from. For example, not even the staunches Christian apologist could claim that a kid born in in a secular home, and who never heard of or read about or was taught about a god or Allah or JC would "find" those things on their own. That is, from some sort of "spirit" touching them. Because there simply is none.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with these.
There are three primary delusions we see when dealing with clients in the throes of a psychotic break. Or a psychotic Episode. Religious fervor; Paranoia; and delusions of grandeur.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
searched the web to know more about these - got a glimpse.
Thank you. This was a lot informative and educative.


YW. Anytime, my friend. If you ever have any questions on Evolutionary Psych, let me know.

If you made a thread on EP, I would ask some questions. But I warn you that some would be critical. We have 7 faculty members in evo psych in the department I'm associated with, with pretty different views I think.

Have you read this:

From Mating to Mentality: Evaluating Evolutionary Psychology. K. Sterelny
and J. Fitness (eds). Psychology Press (London & New York)

Are you not a believer in the tenets of Evo Psych? I would have thought differently of you, judging from your past posts and seeming knowledge on the inner-workings of the brain.

A "believer in the tenets of"? It's a field of study, not a religion =P I'm not a believer in any science, including in the results of my own scientific publications. That's why I host the data and code online, in case someone will one day check it out and show that my results are wrong. I don't "believe" them. I know how those results were derived and I can write out the algorithm complete with every equation and their proofs. Understanding all of that, I don't require a belief to quantify my level of confidence in those results.

I advise you not be a believer either, because that approach will eventually cause you to hit your wall in any career in science.

Anyway, to answer your question now =P... I'm sure you're aware that there is quite a bit of controversy between the evo psych community and people in the harder sciences, especially biology and neuroscience. Some consider it a pseudoscience, which I think is too strong, some merely think it's just a young and not-yet-rigorous science, which has a lot of truth to it, and others think it's closer to sociology or political science (which is obviously not a science).

Personally, I've seen papers in the field which are quite unscientific, and I know people doing research in evo psych who are fairly rigorous in their methodology (but they themselves say that a large portion of evo psych research is unscientific). It is a young field, and the methods are still being worked out, so I'm not one to dismiss it entirely. I take each study for what it is.

You should read about this debate carefully so that you'll be able to respond to other scientists who are either critical of your field or who outright dismiss it. You will run into that eventually if you stay in the field, so you should keep up with the debate =)