God has to have a way to speak to us. God is a singularity and we think in abstract generalities, which ensures our survival. Being aware of the singularity has to be built in.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
God has to have a way to speak to us. God is a singularity and we think in abstract generalities, which ensures our survival. Being aware of the singularity has to be built in.[/quote]
Uhhhh. Bullshit- You do not have even one tiny shred of evidence to back this up. If you can provide ANY evidence (other than your deluded sense of YOUR reality) I will be happy to tell you that you are right.
We search for meaning. This is how people see the face of god on cupcakes and why people refuse to believe that Jim Morrison is really gone. People want answers. They will go so far as to create entire belief systems.
If this quality was built in there would be very little variation in it.
jnd
[quote]ephrem wrote:
nik133 wrote:Why is there so much discussion into god when we have yet to understand the human condition?
…as it would seem the two are intertwined…
[/quote]
Not at all, here I’ll save you hours of debate, you will never come to a conclusion as if there was a definitive conclusion 99% of people would go by it. There are only two things that can happen after death, 1. It is the end of all consciousness or 2. There is an afterlife where your soul heads off to a different realm. Really all this discussion is meaningless as nothing will ever come of it. Do Religious people really believe they are going to sway someone who made the choice to be an atheist with in an internet post and likewise do atheist believe they will sway a religious person who has most likely devoted at least some time to studying their religion/scripture?
Very interesting study, but as for the use of the “God helmet” to stimulate religious feelings:
Dr Persinger said that about eight in every 10 volunteers report quasi-religious feelings when wearing his helmet. However, when Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist and renowned atheist, wore it during the making of a BBC documentary, he famously failed to find God, saying that the helmet only affected his breathing and his limbs.
The result of the “atheist feeling nothing when subjected to the attempt at stimulation” is based on the self-reporting of Richard Dawkins. Taking Dawkins at his word on his experience is, to be frank, not science.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
“That means that our brains can’t tell whether we believe in the god of Abraham, in Krishna or Jesus.” IÃ?¢??m not sure exactly what you mean by that. That brain structure doesnÃ?¢??t biologically predict a belief in a specific god? Because my brain knows the specifics of what god I believe in.
Anyway, none of that invalidates an human-like god. I’m not arguing that there god in man-like, just that this study doesnÃ?¢??t come close to tackling any issue related to it.
Maybe we have different definitions of invalidate. “to make or show (an argument) to be faulty”?
The actual truthfulness of our beliefs aren’t contradicted by the brain’s propensity for religious beliefs… (see what I did there?)
Not prove and invalidate are entirely logically different.
…the brain is a container that favors religious beliefs [from an evolutionary standpoint]. How that container is filled does not matter, e.i. the beliefs that container is filled with can range from the occult to humanism, from christianity to hinduism, it does not matter…
…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay? [/quote]
No such thing as group selection on a genetic level.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay? [/quote]
Hogwash. Many religions have promoted human sacrifice and other religious practices that discouraged procreation (which stands in direct contrast to species propagation). The belief systems are hardly interchangeable, even if we indulge in your basic assumption, it is clear that all religions are not the same for these “survival” functions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Ironic don’t you think: God is the result of evolution, lol.
Some of us maintain the belief that evolution is the result of God. Not to turn this into a discussion of theology and doctrine. Just want to be clear that not all of us reject evolution. Hey, I’m taking a college biology course this semester, and it’s the first subject I’ve actually looked foward to.
[/quote]
But then who created the Creator?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I would also like to point out that human belief in the axioms of science is unique among all animals. Further, certain areas of the human brain allow for this beliefs. This development can be tracked as a survival instinct since higher order brain function developed to help humans survive.
Now according to Epherm�¢??s logic somehow that makes science false.
All abstract thought can be placed in this category of uniquely developed by evolution in humans.
…do you think that religion/religious beliefs had/have a bigger impact on the survival of the human species than science?
[/quote]
They had. Doubting this is a futile exercise and wastes brain power. It HAD it’s purpose, and we are at the crossroads of social/biological evolution where we either reject the dogma it imposes, or move forward with science. At the moment, it’s somewhat like the little toe - kinda useless.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Ironic don’t you think: God is the result of evolution, lol.
Some of us maintain the belief that evolution is the result of God. Not to turn this into a discussion of theology and doctrine. Just want to be clear that not all of us reject evolution. Hey, I’m taking a college biology course this semester, and it’s the first subject I’ve actually looked foward to.
But then who created the Creator?[/quote]
Like I said, not really interested in a theological debate. Just thought I’d throw out a reminder that not all denominations conflict with evolution.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The result of the “atheist feeling nothing when subjected to the attempt at stimulation” is based on the self-reporting of Richard Dawkins. Taking Dawkins at his word on his experience is, to be frank, not science.
[/quote]
I doubt an avowed atheist would even know a religious experience if it hit him.
I’d still like to see an “atheist helmet” that temporarily deadens the same area, to test whether the religious feelings of the subject are in any way diminished.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The result of the “atheist feeling nothing when subjected to the attempt at stimulation” is based on the self-reporting of Richard Dawkins. Taking Dawkins at his word on his experience is, to be frank, not science.
I doubt an avowed atheist would even know a religious experience if it hit him.
I’d still like to see an “atheist helmet” that temporarily deadens the same area, to test whether the religious feelings of the subject are in any way diminished.[/quote]
I agree, even if they experienced something it certainly couldn’t be due to a God or higher being. No one can ever tell me that God doesn’t exist, I have seen and gone through too much that is not rationally explainable for me to think there isn’t a God.
[quote]nik133 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
nik133 wrote:Why is there so much discussion into god when we have yet to understand the human condition?
…as it would seem the two are intertwined…
Not at all, here I’ll save you hours of debate, you will never come to a conclusion as if there was a definitive conclusion 99% of people would go by it. There are only two things that can happen after death, 1. It is the end of all consciousness or 2. There is an afterlife where your soul heads off to a different realm. Really all this discussion is meaningless as nothing will ever come of it. Do Religious people really believe they are going to sway someone who made the choice to be an atheist with in an internet post and likewise do atheist believe they will sway a religious person who has most likely devoted at least some time to studying their religion/scripture?[/quote]
…i don’t disagree with you, but you asked a question and i think my question is the correct one. So many people believe that some god created us and reality, and how we act, how we are is the result of said creation…
…not discussing anything isn’t better btw…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay?
Hogwash. Many religions have promoted human sacrifice and other religious practices that discouraged procreation (which stands in direct contrast to species propagation). The belief systems are hardly interchangeable, even if we indulge in your basic assumption, it is clear that all religions are not the same for these “survival” functions.
[/quote]
…that doesn’t matter if the result of the religion is a cohesive tribe that stands a better chance of survival. Religious wars aren’t exactly beneficial either for species propogation, yet christianity and islam done okay, don’t you think?
[quote]orion wrote:
…the brain is a container that favors religious beliefs [from an evolutionary standpoint]. How that container is filled does not matter, e.i. the beliefs that container is filled with can range from the occult to humanism, from christianity to hinduism, it does not matter…
…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay?
No such thing as group selection on a genetic level.
[/quote]
sigh …elucidate?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I would also like to point out that human belief in the axioms of science is unique among all animals. Further, certain areas of the human brain allow for this beliefs. This development can be tracked as a survival instinct since higher order brain function developed to help humans survive.
Now according to Epherm�?�¢??s logic somehow that makes science false.
All abstract thought can be placed in this category of uniquely developed by evolution in humans.
…do you think that religion/religious beliefs had/have a bigger impact on the survival of the human species than science?
They had. Doubting this is a futile exercise and wastes brain power. It HAD it’s purpose, and we are at the crossroads of social/biological evolution where we either reject the dogma it imposes, or move forward with science. At the moment, it’s somewhat like the little toe - kinda useless.[/quote]
…no argument there!
Atlas of the Human Journey
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
Humans acquire knowledge by comparison of objects. God being a singularity cannot be compared to anything and so is unknowable by rational means.
Objectively the concept ‘God’ is a meaningless one.
Subjectively God CAN be known but this can’t be communicated to another person. You either know God or you do not.
Of course, to the Obama crowd…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
koffea wrote:
just because you have learned to manipulate the dials on your radio, does not invalidate or disprove the creator of the radio
The counterpoint being that when you tune your radio to a certain frequency, and sometimes hear what you imagine to be the voice of Zargon, Emperor of Alpha Centauri, speaking within the static, it does not necessarily prove conclusively that Zargon exists.
The more I think about this supposed “God Spot” in the brain, the more it sounds like a sextant.
Know what a sextant is? If you’ve ever sailed a ship, you know.
A sextant is a very old device for celestial navigation on sailing ships, used for centuries before the advent of modern navigational tools such as the Loran and GPS. It works very well indeed, provided you have a clear sky and horizon to work with.
Funny thing about the sextant, though, and the astrolabe that preceded it, is that it works on the assumption that the sun and the stars all orbit the earth.
Now, modern science has disproved the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe pretty damn incontrovertibly. The evidence supporting the heliocentric model specifically, and a universe at which our planet is not the center, could fill several libraries. [B]Nonetheless, the little sextant keeps on working, blithely ignoring the fact that the premise upon which it works is false.
Certainly, the sextant isn’t going to help you to discover any great truths about life, the universe, or anything.[/B]
But if you’re out at sea, and just trying to find your way, perhaps it’s all you need.[/quote]
I disagree. I think that your example here does indeed pose a significant philosophical realization and CAN help to see certain truths in life. Especially what i Made Bold.
Your post is far deeper than maybe even you realize.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Your post is far deeper than maybe even you realize. [/quote]
Oh, give me a little credit, Gregus. I was going for deep. 
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Religious wars aren’t exactly beneficial either for species propogation…[/quote]
Unless non-religious wars would’ve been far worse.