Belief and the Brain's 'God Spot'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Chocolate can replicate the feeling of love, does that make you not believe in love? Drugs can make you feel like you�¢??re flying, does that replace airplane travel?

The problem is that people experience these feelings, and automatically assume that they came from “god”. Most don’t realize that these identical feelings can occur through entirely natural processes, and thus experiencing them is not reliable evidence for concluding that there is a higher power.[/quote]

Which feelings are they experiencing?

122

The problem is, this whole thing is being misrepresented. There is no “God Spot.” Some of you applying this rather badly. Did none of you notice that atheists use the “same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum-and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God.”

Does that disprove the existence of atheists who can know moral right or wrong? Does it disprove the immorality of killing a man over a traffic dispute? Because we can measure the activity along “the same electrical circuits in the brain?”

123

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If God builds something in us to enhance our ability to survive, then the only logical conclusion is that Satan put any GAY genes in us, to promote our destruction.

Gays by definition would not have children if they were pure gay. Being gay is from Satan.

[/quote]

Are you insinuating that Satan had a hand in the creation of Man? That the “us” referred to in Genesis 1:26 (“let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”) was in fact God and Satan? (or perhaps you imagine that the gay gene was introduced into the mitochondrial DNA of humanity via the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil? But then, who created that tree?)

Satan having a hand in the creation of humanity would certainly explain a lot, since we seem to be molded after the likeness of both deity and devil, but I think Isaiah 45:7 refutes this. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

If we are to take this verse literally, then we must accept that every capacity we have as human beings for either good or evil was wired into us by our creator, who is God, and no other.

If gayness is a choice, then it is a choice made by a being who was given free will, by his creator.

If gayness is not a choice, but a biological imperative, then it was a biological imperative installed in certain people by their creator.

Either way, being gay is a gift from God. Like blue eyes, blonde hair, left-handedness, hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease, and everything else.

124

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The problem is, this whole thing is being misrepresented. There is no “God Spot.” Some of you applying this rather badly. Did none of you notice that atheists use the “same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum-and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God.”

Does that disprove the existence of atheists who can know moral right or wrong? Does it disprove the immorality of killing a man over a traffic dispute? Because we can measure the activity along “the same electrical circuits in the brain?”[/quote]

Good points.

125

[quote]
I’ll give you philosophy, but the others aren’t exclusively focused on a higher power. Or maybe your defintions are a little different to mine.[/quote]

“Exclusively” has nothing to do with it, particularly because much of the discussion involves a higher power in the context of other areas of knowledge.

No, they didn’t. See what I mean with simply making up false facts that you wish to be true?

This has nothing to do with the question of whether Mankind has spent “countless hours” considering God’s existence. Who cares how many people did or did not believe? Completely irrelevant to the historical fact, that yes, men have spent an amazing part of their intellectual endeavors considering God.

Seriously, Mak. Learn how to argue. At least a little.

Once again - irrelevant. You can argue the “ideal” all you want. What you can’t do is try to pass off facts as true that are not - that is what you are guilty of, and that is the example of your “intellectual laziness”.

Arguing what “should be” isn’t the same as arguing - erroneously - “what was”, which you whiffed badly.

Your response, unfortunately, proved my point.

126

Pat, do you also believe in Santa Claus?
Can you prove to me that there is no Santa Claus?
To all believers out there, do you know what the Occam’s razor is?
Or even Karl Poppers?

Anyways, religious beliefs are retarded, and there is a negative correlation between higher education and religious beliefs.
And by the way, why is it that some people think atheism negates moral values, lol?

127

[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:Chocolate can replicate the feeling of love, does that make you not believe in love? Drugs can make you feel like you�?�¢??re flying, does that replace airplane travel?

…you can attribute a cause to such feelings; in this case a feeling is caused by chocolate and love is a matter of chemicals in the brain. One can also attribute certain religious feelings to a cause, namely the belief one has towards a deity or religion. It’s a feedback loop without the grand instigator that’s god, see?

I would argue that feedback loops have to function on sound principles other wise they go extinct. There has to be affirmation to these “God spots” otherwise, they wouldn’t have survived very long evolutionarily speaking. This is the principle of behind operant conditioning. Behaviors and even feelings toward something has to have some affirmation or the conditioned behavior will expire. This is a long winded way of saying that the religious belief is a two way street, if the believer never gets any return on his investment, he will not believe long.[/quote]

I know I’m late to the party but I wanted to drop in my two cents. Modern biologists will tell you that generally, the only time a trait becomes extinct is when it interferes with reproduction and/or survival. All other traits get passed on simply because there is no way to screen them out. These God Spots may well provide some advantage, but the fact that they exist only proves they aren’t detrimental to survival or reproduction.

128

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

I know I’m late to the party but I wanted to drop in my two cents. Modern biologists will tell you that generally, the only time a trait becomes extinct is when it interferes with reproduction and/or survival. All other traits get passed on simply because there is no way to screen them out. These God Spots may well provide some advantage, but the fact that they exist only proves they aren’t detrimental to survival or reproduction. [/quote]

Traits have to “arise” first, before they get whittled down later. Whatever the God Spot means, it had to have a catalyst to come into being in the first place. I am not offering an explanation as to that catalyst - I merely point out that you are focusing on the wrong issue: these traits need a reason to exist first prior to being “screened out” (or not).

Moreover, you misstate the process generally: traits have arisen that interfere with reproduction, so the linear aspect you suggest that “modern biologists” have told you is not quite accurate.

129

[quote]acidhell wrote:
To all believers out there, do you know what the Occam’s razor is?
[/quote]

Ooh, ooh. I do know what that is. Picked one up at Walmart a few years back. But, the durned thang gave me a bad case of razor rash on the neck.

130

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Moreover, you misstate the process generally: traits have arisen that interfere with reproduction, so the linear aspect you suggest that “modern biologists” have told you is not quite accurate.[/quote]

Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental.

131

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental. [/quote]

Organisms that left asexual reproduction behind and began requiring fertilization to reproduce. Such a change made reproduction harder, not easier.

You seem to suggest a process I have heard described as “downward slope” evolution, by which there exists this highly varied menu of traits that natural selection whittles down over time - “from many, down to few”. But that misses half of the evolutionary process - the highly varied menu of traits isn’t the starting point.

132

Basically, there are a variety of heritable traits displayed by individuals in a population. Those traits that lead to improved success in reproduction in an enviroment, come out the winner. Natural selection, nature’s editing mechanism. The unsuited go to the mud, and the better suited pass on their better suited DNA.

133

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If God builds something in us to enhance our ability to survive, then the only logical conclusion is that Satan put any GAY genes in us, to promote our destruction.

Gays by definition would not have children if they were pure gay. Being gay is from Satan.

Are you insinuating that Satan had a hand in the creation of Man? That the “us” referred to in Genesis 1:26 (“let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”) was in fact God and Satan? (or perhaps you imagine that the gay gene was introduced into the mitochondrial DNA of humanity via the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil? But then, who created that tree?)

Satan having a hand in the creation of humanity would certainly explain a lot, since we seem to be molded after the likeness of both deity and devil, but I think Isaiah 45:7 refutes this. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

If we are to take this verse literally, then we must accept that every capacity we have as human beings for either good or evil was wired into us by our creator, who is God, and no other.

If gayness is a choice, then it is a choice made by a being who was given free will, by his creator.

If gayness is not a choice, but a biological imperative, then it was a biological imperative installed in certain people by their creator.

Either way, being gay is a gift from God. Like blue eyes, blonde hair, left-handedness, hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease, and everything else.[/quote]

Well, of course since God created Satan, then one could argue this way. But then, if one of my children robs a bank, am I directly responsible? I certainly created the child but he has free will.

134

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental.

Organisms that left asexual reproduction behind and began requiring fertilization to reproduce. Such a change made reproduction harder, not easier.

You seem to suggest a process I have heard described as “downward slope” evolution, by which there exists this highly varied menu of traits that natural selection whittles down over time - “from many, down to few”. But that misses half of the evolutionary process - the highly varied menu of traits isn’t the starting point.[/quote]

Yep. Asexual reproduction goes in the shitcan because our environment is always changing and a wider variety within a species enhances survival.

135

[quote]forlife wrote:
Gregus wrote:
Unless your sense of spirituality is intimately tied in with your humanity. The only thing that shapes me and my beliefs is ME. I can stop believing and be atheist if a want to, but choose not to. My moods are not chemical imbalances, they are my feelings and emotions from the recess of my soul and they manifest themselves on my physical self through the action of those chemicals.

There is no reason that human dignity, value, and beauty should depend on believing in a supernatural being. Humanity is beautiful and valuable in its own right, without needing to give ourselves permission to be beautiful by creating gods for ourselves.

Could you really stop believing and be an atheist through an act of will? How do you force yourself to believe in or not believe in something? I could not force myself to believe in a god, based on the existing lack of evidence, no matter how hard I tried.[/quote]

I can go either way personally. I learned to accept that i don’t yet know, what i don’t know.

136

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Yep. Asexual reproduction goes in the shitcan because our environment is always changing and a wider variety within a species enhances survival.[/quote]

But not as an initial matter. Simple organisms that had the ability to reproduce asexually evolved into a position where fertilization was needed - which created an obstacle to procreation. After this change, it was now harder and more inefficient for the organism to do the basic deed of reproducing.

137

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Yep. Asexual reproduction goes in the shitcan because our environment is always changing and a wider variety within a species enhances survival.

But not as an initial matter. Simple organisms that had the ability to reproduce asexually evolved into a position where fertilization was needed - which created an obstacle to procreation. After this change, it was now harder and more inefficient for the organism to do the basic deed of reproducing. [/quote]

Which leads us to a chicken-egg dilemma: what caused such evolution?

I believe that constant change made asexual reproduction (which is more suitable for a very stable environment) inefficient. Since life arose after the creation, did asexual reproduction even exist at all (for macro beings)?

138

[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Chocolate can replicate the feeling of love, does that make you not believe in love? Drugs can make you feel like you�?�¢??re flying, does that replace airplane travel?

The problem is that people experience these feelings, and automatically assume that they came from “god”. Most don’t realize that these identical feelings can occur through entirely natural processes, and thus experiencing them is not reliable evidence for concluding that there is a higher power.

Which feelings are they experiencing?[/quote]

Feelings that are pawned as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, but are entirely natural. Galatians 5:22-25:

Atheists experience all of these feelings as well, yet they don’t attribute them to a magical man floating in the sky.

139

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Chocolate can replicate the feeling of love, does that make you not believe in love? Drugs can make you feel like you�??�?�¢??re flying, does that replace airplane travel?

The problem is that people experience these feelings, and automatically assume that they came from “god”. Most don’t realize that these identical feelings can occur through entirely natural processes, and thus experiencing them is not reliable evidence for concluding that there is a higher power.

Which feelings are they experiencing?

Feelings that are pawned as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, but are entirely natural. Galatians 5:22-25:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Atheists experience all of these feelings as well, yet they don’t attribute them to a magical man floating in the sky.
[/quote]

Who says feelings of a supernatural being aren’t a “natural”?

also with my points about chocolate. Chocolate eaters experience the same feelings as couples in love. That does not mean that what couples’ feel isn’t love. Your logic, as normal is entirely flawed. Feelings produced by one means doesn’t disprove any other way. You could as much argue that my “feeling” about god disproves the causes for the “natural” feelings atheists experience. It’s pretty silly when your logic is applied that way.

140

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Moreover, you misstate the process generally: traits have arisen that interfere with reproduction, so the linear aspect you suggest that “modern biologists” have told you is not quite accurate.

Do you have an example? My understanding is these traits exist, either helpfully or neutrally, and then the environment changes in such a way as to make them detrimental. [/quote]

Species divergence requires not only transition but also propagation of genetic abnormalities that reduce fertility.

Any time in evolution that chromosome numbers have changed, negative traits have had to propagate through a large portion of the original population.