Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]mbm693 wrote:

It’s true that every discovery does lead to more questions. I still don’t understand why you think ‘god did it’ is such a satisfactory answer.
[/quote]

I don’t use “God did it” as an answer. I use the answers to lead to additional premises for proof of God’s existance.

Second, why then did you say that science can have all the answers where each discovery just leads to more questions.

I have experienced things that I will not share because it is private. You can believe it or not, I don’t care. However, if you’d like to pick out something from all the public miricles I’d be happy to discuss.

It is very close minded to dismiss everything as bullshit with out even considering a the possibility of legitimacy. Especially, when you can experience them for yourself and see and feel it for yourself.
That is not a lack of evidence, that is discounting everything without consideration. That doesn’t mean a constitution of lack of evidence, that is a lack of consideration on your part. That’s not the fault of the “event”. I can write you a million dollar check, but you won’t be a millionaire unless you take it to the bank.

Yeah, you said it was “awful”. Fucking Brilliant!
I didn’t see an argument unless you consider that whole ridiculous, big-bang being God was your argument. Please tell me I missed the “argument” somewhere, cause if that was it…LOL!

If you have managed to prove why the cosmological argument for God’s existance is totally false, please let me know. I will call the Nobel folks myself and sign you up for the prize. Because you’d be the first.

362

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Could this not be that wonderful organ called your brain and the misunderstood workings of the mind taking charge and putting itself into a kind of self preservation state? Almost like an overload switch that has been flipped and all the emergency systems kick into life to stop the eminent ending of the “vessel”.
[/quote]
If you have evidence for this, I’d love to see it. Or is this is a supposition based upon your (scientific?) faith in materialism?

363

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Interesting.

I guess they are implying that what started evolution was a bunch of guys in a lab playing with bacteria giving it the correct conditions to mutate?

Obviously not the same as the conditions actually were when bacteria evolved. No, because that would be impossible to measure, and that would be my point.

You can’t prove the conditions in that lab weren’t exactly the conditions the first evolution. You stuck your neck out on this one and got owned. Live with it. [/quote]

Actually, he could if he wanted to. All he has to do is prove that one single condition is not like it was with the first evolution. For instance, there was not a petri dish 4.5 billion years ago. You’d have to prove that ALL the conditions were like it was 4.5 billion years ago. You picked the harder task.

364

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
You mention that you have these candle moments at near death or life threatening moments in you life and that the feeling just gets stronger every time and is entrenched so to speak within you now.

Could this not be that wonderful organ called your brain and the misunderstood workings of the mind taking charge and putting itself into a kind of self preservation state?
Almost like an overload switch that has been flipped and all the emergency systems kick into life to stop the eminent ending of the “vessel”.
[/quote]

That, however, cannot explain when people experience NDE’s, how that are able to accurately tell of events out side of the environment where they were dying. I.E. they are able acurately report on what family was doing in a different location, what people were wearing elsewhere, what doctors where saying in another room, etc.

You cannot attribute those things to a dying brain attempting to survive.

365

You are right, religion is man’s way to God.It was religion that killed Jesus Christ.I am a follower of Jesus Christ. When Christ was asked how to get to heaven he stated Love the lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

366

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Could this not be that wonderful organ called your brain and the misunderstood workings of the mind taking charge and putting itself into a kind of self preservation state? Almost like an overload switch that has been flipped and all the emergency systems kick into life to stop the eminent ending of the “vessel”.

If you have evidence for this, I’d love to see it. Or is this is a supposition based upon your (scientific?) faith in materialism?
[/quote]

Nope, no evidence. Just a thought. We only use a small portion of our brains. Who knows what the rest of it is wired up to do or when it is wired to kick in with the unknown.
Our minds can be fooled just by altering the chemicals feed into it. (Drugs) Who’s to say an alternate universe isn’t just a chemical reaction away from our perception.

367

[quote]pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
You mention that you have these candle moments at near death or life threatening moments in you life and that the feeling just gets stronger every time and is entrenched so to speak within you now.

Could this not be that wonderful organ called your brain and the misunderstood workings of the mind taking charge and putting itself into a kind of self preservation state?

Almost like an overload switch that has been flipped and all the emergency systems kick into life to stop the eminent ending of the “vessel”.

That, however, cannot explain when people experience NDE’s, how that are able to accurately tell of events out side of the environment where they were dying. I.E. they are able acurately report on what family was doing in a different location, what people were wearing elsewhere, what doctors where saying in another room, etc.

You cannot attribute those things to a dying brain attempting to survive.[/quote]

Not that we can show or prove no. But, (This may sound like i am changing sides here but i am merely feeding the fire) as i relied to katzenjammer, who know what our minds are truly capable of.

The mind is an intricate part of us and yet we have a very limited understanding of it capabilities. There is more mystery in it’s abilities than we could ever imagine.

368

[quote]nykenpo wrote:
You are right,religion is man’s way to God.It was religion that killed Jesus Christ.I am a follower of Jesus Christ. When Christ was asked how to get to heaven he stated Love the lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself.[/quote]

Who is right Nykenpo?

The emotion of love can be very unpredictable and dangerous… if you don’t love yourself for whatever reason, your unfortunate neighbor is destined to suffer.

369

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:

The mind is an intricate part of us and yet we have a very limited understanding of it capabilities. There is more mystery in it’s abilities than we could ever imagine. [/quote]

A beautiful articulation of your faith! You sound like quite a religious fellow there, PerfectCircle! :slight_smile:

370

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

The mind is an intricate part of us and yet we have a very limited understanding of it capabilities. There is more mystery in it’s abilities than we could ever imagine.

A beautiful articulation of your faith! You sound like quite a religious fellow there, PerfectCircle! :)[/quote]

Well you could say I “religiously” question what i don’t understand…

371

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

The mind is an intricate part of us and yet we have a very limited understanding of it capabilities. There is more mystery in it’s abilities than we could ever imagine.

A beautiful articulation of your faith! You sound like quite a religious fellow there, PerfectCircle! :slight_smile:

Well you could say I “religiously” question what i don’t understand…[/quote]

One might also say you have faith in something you don’t understand.

372

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

You can’t prove the conditions in that lab weren’t exactly the conditions the first evolution. You stuck your neck out on this one and got owned. Live with it.

It would be a miracle if they were the same, exact conditions. And obviously the burden of proof is on the researchers to show they were. Ditto on the neck thing. [/quote]

No it wouldn’t. In a billion years, all of the possible combinations of conditions could easily have played themselves out, including the one simulated in this research.

373

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:

I don’t use “God did it” as an answer. I use the answers to lead to additional premises for proof of God’s existance.

Second, why then did you say that science can have all the answers where each discovery just leads to more questions.

I have experienced things that I will not share because it is private. You can believe it or not, I don’t care. However, if you’d like to pick out something from all the public miricles I’d be happy to discuss.

It is very close minded to dismiss everything as bullshit with out even considering a the possibility of legitimacy. Especially, when you can experience them for yourself and see and feel it for yourself.

That is not a lack of evidence, that is discounting everything without consideration. That doesn’t mean a constitution of lack of evidence, that is a lack of consideration on your part. That’s not the fault of the “event”. I can write you a million dollar check, but you won’t be a millionaire unless you take it to the bank.

Yeah, you said it was “awful”. Fucking Brilliant!

I didn’t see an argument unless you consider that whole ridiculous, big-bang being God was your argument. Please tell me I missed the “argument” somewhere, cause if that was it…LOL!

If you have managed to prove why the cosmological argument for God’s existance is totally false, please let me know. I will call the Nobel folks myself and sign you up for the prize. Because you’d be the first.
[/quote]

The more science discovers, the further god is resigned to being a ‘god of the gaps’. He is only able to exist in the unknown. Doesn’t this bother you? Every time human understanding takes a step forward, god is relegated to a smaller space.

I didn’t say that science could know everything, please try to apply your unbelievably poor reading comprehension better next time.

Nobody has the time to investigate all the claims of miracles that are generated by religious nuts. But almost all of the things that used to be considered miracles (shooting stars for example) have been proven not to be. They are just the boring old physical world, no gods or demons anywhere.

And I don’t discount them out of hand, there are some things that have occurred that are currently unexplainable. They might be explained tomorrow, they might not ever. But the fact that we don’t know, isn’t a good reason to postulate a god that did it.

I said that at the end of the day, you still end up with something that is uncaused and it makes a lot more sense for it to be the big bang, than god. That’s the most obvious objection to the argument.

That and many other objections were proposed almost immediately after the teleological argument was published. The only people that can steadfastly ignore these, and dismiss them out of hand, are religious nuts that have been completely blinded by their “faith”.

If you can beat the objection I just spelled out for you, I’ll move you up to the big boy objections. If you can’t, I’ll let you know where to send that Nobel Prize.

I’ll ask again. Do you believe there are monsters under my bed? If your logic isn’t consistent enough to handle this sort of a question, then it isn’t very good at all.

374

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Interesting.

I guess they are implying that what started evolution was a bunch of guys in a lab playing with bacteria giving it the correct conditions to mutate?

Obviously not the same as the conditions actually were when bacteria evolved. No, because that would be impossible to measure, and that would be my point.

You can’t prove the conditions in that lab weren’t exactly the conditions the first evolution. You stuck your neck out on this one and got owned. Live with it.

Actually, he could if he wanted to. All he has to do is prove that one single condition is not like it was with the first evolution. For instance, there was not a petri dish 4.5 billion years ago. You’d have to prove that ALL the conditions were like it was 4.5 billion years ago. You picked the harder task.[/quote]

I’d say they are both pretty much impossible. But since you both seems to think that just answering the question requires you prove the negative, I’m still waiting on that proof in this case. The petri dish is unimportant. They do not affect the conditions of the experiment.

In fact, they are designed to be neutral to the conditions of the experiment. But then, you aren’t a scientist so I wouldn’t expect you to know that.

375

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

Could this not be that wonderful organ called your brain and the misunderstood workings of the mind taking charge and putting itself into a kind of self preservation state? Almost like an overload switch that has been flipped and all the emergency systems kick into life to stop the eminent ending of the “vessel”.

If you have evidence for this, I’d love to see it. Or is this is a supposition based upon your (scientific?) faith in materialism?

Nope, no evidence. Just a thought. We only use a small portion of our brains. Who knows what the rest of it is wired up to do or when it is wired to kick in with the unknown.
Our minds can be fooled just by altering the chemicals feed into it. (Drugs) Who’s to say an alternate universe isn’t just a chemical reaction away from our perception.
[/quote]

There are lots of documented examples of peoples personalities changing drastically after specific brain damage. Phineas Gage is a common example (Phineas Gage - Wikipedia).

Based on cases like this, I’d say that we are our brain and the chemical reactions therein, than in the mind it simulates.

376

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
The more science discovers, the further god is resigned to being a ‘god of the gaps’. He is only able to exist in the unknown. Doesn’t this bother you? Every time human understanding takes a step forward, god is relegated to a smaller space.

I didn’t say that science could know everything, please try to apply your unbelievably poor reading comprehension better next time.
[/quote]

God of gaps? That is for people who use God to explain the occurrence of things. I am not espousing the dictum that if we don’t understand something God made it mysteriously happen. It does not matter what science is able to explain or discover. God’s existence is independent of that. Also, the key words hear are “explain” or “discover”. Notice that science cannot create a God-damn thing, everything already exists.

If you don’t discount them or investigate there availability, how then, can you relegate them to bullshit status? The fallacy is more your logic applied rather than the event itself. You can’t know if you don’t bother to try. Which also goes to debunk your assertion of “No evidence”. It is rather, you don’t feel like considering the evidence. That is a rather different thing than no evidence what so ever. Don’t try that in court, you’ll lose.

[quote]

I said that at the end of the day, you still end up with something that is uncaused and it makes a lot more sense for it to be the big bang, than god. That’s the most obvious objection to the argument.

That and many other objections were proposed almost immediately after the teleological argument was published. The only people that can steadfastly ignore these, and dismiss them out of hand, are religious nuts that have been completely blinded by their “faith”.

If you can beat the objection I just spelled out for you, I’ll move you up to the big boy objections. If you can’t, I’ll let you know where to send that Nobel Prize.

I’ll ask again. Do you believe there are monsters under my bed? If your logic isn’t consistent enough to handle this sort of a question, then it isn’t very good at all. [/quote]

At least Orion’s attack on causality was more challenging. However, here you go. What caused the Big Bang (if there were such an event, last I checked it was still a theory, an unprovable one at that, yet you have faith in it…interesting). What existed before the big bang? What would have caused the events that proceeded the big bang and what were they made of.
Currently you are arguing from the point that everything that exists came from nothing. I am arguing that everything came from something. On the surface which makes more sense?

377

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:

Interesting.

I guess they are implying that what started evolution was a bunch of guys in a lab playing with bacteria giving it the correct conditions to mutate?

Obviously not the same as the conditions actually were when bacteria evolved. No, because that would be impossible to measure, and that would be my point.

You can’t prove the conditions in that lab weren’t exactly the conditions the first evolution. You stuck your neck out on this one and got owned. Live with it.

Actually, he could if he wanted to. All he has to do is prove that one single condition is not like it was with the first evolution. For instance, there was not a petri dish 4.5 billion years ago. You’d have to prove that ALL the conditions were like it was 4.5 billion years ago. You picked the harder task.

I’d say they are both pretty much impossible. But since you both seems to think that just answering the question requires you prove the negative, I’m still waiting on that proof in this case. The petri dish is unimportant. They do not affect the conditions of the experiment.

In fact, they are designed to be neutral to the conditions of the experiment. But then, you aren’t a scientist so I wouldn’t expect you to know that. [/quote]

Answering a question with two or more possible answers being legitimate, requires qualification.

So you are saying the environment they created was neutral 4.5 billion years ago. What geological history tells us about those times is that the environment was hostile as hell, so a neutral environment would not an accurate portrayal of the conditions of first life’s evolution.

378

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:

The mind is an intricate part of us and yet we have a very limited understanding of it capabilities. There is more mystery in it’s abilities than we could ever imagine.

A beautiful articulation of your faith! You sound like quite a religious fellow there, PerfectCircle! :slight_smile:

Well you could say I “religiously” question what i don’t understand…[/quote]

Relying on “things” you cannot know for certain is an act of faith. The assertion being that just because you are atheist, doesn’t mean you do not rely heavily on faith.

379

Even Jesus despised religion.

380

[quote]pat wrote:

-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-

lab.html

Answering a question with two or more possible answers being legitimate, requires qualification.

So you are saying the environment they created was neutral 4.5 billion years ago. What geological history tells us about those times is that the environment was hostile as hell, so a neutral environment would not an accurate portrayal of the conditions of first life’s evolution.[/quote]

No, I’m saying that the things that were not interacting with the bacteria are the things that were not interacting with the bacteria. It doesn’t matter if those things are petri dishes or dinosaurs.