The History of Religion-- What about the Present of Religion?

[Balerion]

consciousness.
life itself.
the so called "god gene".

None of those are evidence for the existence of God. Consciousness is a completely natural phenomenon. Life is a wholly chemical process. There is no such thing as a "God gene." Concepts of godhood came about through cultural evolution, not natural selection.

it's exactly the same whether you have faith in a god or faith the car will stop before it splatters you.

They aren't even remotely the same. Belief that a car will stop before it hits you (if you even believe such a thing with a car hurtling towards you) would be based on previous experience; ie, cars stopping just in time for other would-be road pizzas. Faith in God is belief in the unseen, something for which there is no previous experience to fall back on.

maybe, maybe not.

No one has ever been cured of HIV/AIDS by any means, so it's a definite no.

there are quite a few that has "believed" themselves healed by nothing more tha a sugar pill.
in other words they had faith the substance would help them and it did.
this has been documented in medical literature over and over and over.

I sincerely doubt that you have any idea whatsoever as to what's been documented in medical literature, so let's drop the charade, shall we? You're clearly uneducated and uninformed on this subject, so try to keep it to things you actually know something about, because otherwise you overreach, as you have here.

As to a sugar pill being more effective than an antidepressant, I don't know. I guess it speaks to how awesome the mind is.

i am not making a case for god.

Then what are you trying to say? When Fraggle said God clearly did not exist, you said "It's not so clear," and then went into the alleged powers of faith. If you weren't trying to tie this somehow to God, what exactly are you trying to say?

yes, literally.
probably directly related to the placebo effect.

No, not literally. If it's a natural phenomenon, it isn't a miracle. And anyway, the doctors don't mean a literal miracle. They mean it in the sense of a long-odds occurrence.

 

[lightgigantic]

None of those are evidence for the existence of God. Consciousness is a completely natural phenomenon. Life is a wholly chemical process. There is no such thing as a "God gene." Concepts of godhood came about through cultural evolution, not natural selection.

No evidence for your claims about life being a wholly chemical process or even that concepts of god are derived purely out of cultural constructs (although we could definitely talk about reductionist/atheist views of the universe arising purely from cultural constructs ...)

 

[Balerion]

No evidence for your claims about life being a wholly chemical process or even that concepts of god are derived purely out of cultural constructs

Of course there is. We know that life occurs via chemical processes, that concepts of godhood arrive out of cultural constructs, and no evidence to suggest that any other factor is involved.

(although we could definitely talk about reductionist/atheist views of the universe arising purely from cultural constructs ...)

There's nothing reductionist about atheism or an atheist's view of the universe, so it's a fallacy to use the two terms as interchangeable. But you are right that they arrived from cultural constructs. Science and philosophy being two of them. Surely those are superior to the constructs from which your primitive religion came, such as fear of the dark and ignorance of physics or meteorology or any of the various things that today debunk the mysticism surrounding those faiths.

 

[lightgigantic]

Of course there is. We know that life occurs via chemical processes,

actually we all know that life occurs via other life forms.
absolute zero evidence of life arising from chemicals.
If you think otherwise , wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune I guess ...

that concepts of godhood arrive out of cultural constructs,

w-w-w-w-w ... that's nearly one data point you almost had there

and no evidence to suggest that any other factor is involved.

empty plastic bags have more substance than your statements atm ....

There's nothing reductionist about atheism or an atheist's view of the universe,

there's nothing in your previous post to suggest you weren't talking about reductionist/atheist world views ...
:shrug:

But you are right that they arrived from cultural constructs. Science and philosophy being two of them. Surely those are superior to the constructs from which your primitive religion came, such as fear of the dark and ignorance of physics or meteorology or any of the various things that today debunk the mysticism surrounding those faiths.

If you want to start talking about god arising purely from cultural constructs, you land yourself in the camp of hard atheism and pursuing an absolute negative. Knowing the intense philosophical problems that accompany such a position, many intelligent atheists retreat back to a more modest weak atheism.

Talking about reductionist views et al as arising from cultural constructs however doesn't suffer in the same manner since one can one can show there is no evidence for their claims on the authority of their own ontological systems (unlike, say , an atheist, who has to assert their all-knowing authority in order to explain exactly what they believe theists are talking about - like you do when you start talking about their apparent ignorance of meteorology or physics ... despite it being completely laughable that either of these two sciences in any shape manner or form are capable of supporting the atheist position ... much less debunking the theist one)
:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

actually we all know that life occurs via other life forms.
absolute zero evidence of life arising from chemicals.
If you think otherwise , wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune I guess ...

No, what you're talking about is eyewitness testimony. You've narrowed the scope of "evidence" to only include a lab result in which chemicals resolve into a living organism. Unfortunately for you, evidence is a much broader term.

w-w-w-w-w ... that's nearly one data point you almost had there


empty plastic bags have more substance than your statements atm ....

If you don't have anything of value or substance to add, then this is just another failed attempt at wit.

there's nothing in your previous post to suggest you weren't talking about reductionist/atheist world views ...
:shrug:

Again, you've done nothing to show that atheism is reductionist, nor how my post was in any way whatsoever reductionist. If you want to call it atheistic, fine, but it's based on science. I know it sucks for you that reality tends to lean in the direction of atheism, but them's the breaks.

If you want to start talking about god arising purely from cultural constructs, you land yourself in the camp of hard atheism and pursuing an absolute negative. Knowing the intense philosophical problems that accompany such a position, many intelligent atheists retreat back to a more modest weak atheism.

No, that's a non-sequitur. I don't address the question at all. It's entirely possible that there is a first mover who set this all in motion and our conception of godhood arose solely through cultural constructs. And every single shred of evidence suggests that this is precisely how our myriad gods came to be.

Talking about reductionist views et al as arising from cultural constructs however doesn't suffer in the same manner since one can one can show there is no evidence for their claims on the authority of their own ontological systems (unlike, say , an atheist, who has to assert their all-knowing authority in order to explain exactly what they believe theists are talking about - like you do when you start talking about their apparent ignorance of meteorology or physics ... despite it being completely laughable that either of these two sciences in any shape manner or form are capable of supporting the atheist position ... much less debunking the theist one)
:shrug:

More rambling nonsense. If you didn't understand the point I was making, it's better to ask than to run off at the mouth pretending as if you did. I find discussions are more productive when gaps in understanding are bridged through direction questioning. But that would be the obvious, intelligent viewpoint, and therefore reserved for honest, intelligent posters. Since I don't seem to be the presence of either, I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for you.

The atheist position does not require appeals to authority, nor omniscience (a mistake you and wynn are constantly guilty of, and ever failing to even attempt to support). It's based on the same methodology your kind hijacks when propagating the lie that is Intelligent Design, except the atheist position is based on legitimate data. As to why physics or meteorology support the atheist position, it should be self-evident (and I sense that it is, and you're only keeping up the act because you now have an audience). If primitive man understood how the weather worked, or what was or wasn't possible for a human being to do, then the superstitions leading to religious dogma simply never would have arisen. This is why no one in their right mind believed Jerry Fallwell when he said homosexuality was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Two thousand years ago, however, such an idea probably would have gained considerable traction. Hell, it did: look at the flood myths. Rather than just being a random occurrence, a localized flood becomes the handiwork of a vengeful god.

Of course, because of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of atheism, you'll try to peg this as "hard" atheism, but it isn't anything of the sort. All of what I said can be true in a universe that was created by some intelligent being. In other words, saying that Yahweh is a myth says nothing about the true nature of existence other than "He didn't do it."

 

[leopold]

None of those are evidence for the existence of God.

i never said they were.

Consciousness is a completely natural phenomenon.

you know this how exactly?

Life is a wholly chemical process.

yes, i know.
science still has no clue how it all came about though.

There is no such thing as a "God gene."

i remember reading something about it in "new scientist" i believe.

Concepts of godhood came about through cultural evolution, not natural selection.

i wasn't there so i have no clue.

I sincerely doubt that you have any idea whatsoever as to what's been documented in medical literature, so let's drop the charade, shall we? You're clearly uneducated and uninformed on this subject, so try to keep it to things you actually know something about, because otherwise you overreach, as you have here.

are you saying that medical literature has never documented the placebo effect?
really?

Then what are you trying to say? When Fraggle said God clearly did not exist, you said "It's not so clear," . . .

and i meant it.
no scientist in their right mind would EVER say something doesn't exist unless they had solid proof.
where is this solid proof at balerion?

. . . and then went into the alleged powers of faith. If you weren't trying to tie this somehow to God, what exactly are you trying to say?

the situation isn't as cut and tried as you think.

 

[Balerion]

i never said they were.

Yes you did:

There is no evidence for God's existence, so in order for one to believe, one must have faith.

consciousness.
life itself.
the so called "god gene".

I'm sorry, is that not a list of things you are claiming as evidence for God's existence?

you know this how exactly?

I know this because if your physical brain is injured or damaged, your consciousness changes or disappears entirely, suggesting that it is dependent on the functionality of the brain.

yes, i know.
science still has no clue how it all came about though.

Not "no idea." They have several models, they just don't have one universally-accepted model.

i wasn't there so i have no clue.

Another fallacy. You've heard of archaeology, no?

are you saying that medical literature has never documented the placebo effect?
really?

No, of course they have. I'm saying that you've likely never read any medical literature in your life, and it seems disingenuous for you to cite it as a source when you're really just guessing.

and i meant it.
no scientist in their right mind would EVER say something doesn't exist unless they had solid proof.
where is this solid proof at balerion?

Proof only exists in math, so it certainly isn't a requirement for a scientist to make a statement. What is required for such a statement is evidence, of which there is heaps and mounds. If you actually studied this stuff, like the origin of the bible myths, you'd probably come to the same conclusion.

the situation isn't as cut and tried as you think.

First of all, the saying is "cut and dried," (or cut and dry) not cut and tried. Secondly, you've just contradicted yourself. You were citing those as evidence of God's existence. Why the lies?

 

[lightgigantic]

No, what you're talking about is eyewitness testimony. You've narrowed the scope of "evidence" to only include a lab result in which chemicals resolve into a living organism. Unfortunately for you, evidence is a much broader term.

I see . You should have been specific when you were talking of evidence as it that occurs purely in your mind as opposed to being capable of performed, witnessed or established in the "real" world

If you don't have anything of value or substance to add, then this is just another failed attempt at wit.

Kindly take your own lessons to heart .

Post evidence for claims that god is culturally constructed (preferably evidence at it occurs outside of your mind) or please be quiet

Again, you've done nothing to show that atheism is reductionist, nor how my post was in any way whatsoever reductionist. If you want to call it atheistic, fine, but it's based on science. I know it sucks for you that reality tends to lean in the direction of atheism, but them's the breaks.

at this point it behooves you to explain how your views/posts are not atheistic/reductionist since all you appear to be doing is heading further down that path

No, that's a non-sequitur. I don't address the question at all. It's entirely possible that there is a first mover who set this all in motion and our conception of godhood arose solely through cultural constructs. And every single shred of evidence suggests that this is precisely how our myriad gods came to be.

First of all you are yet to begin to offer any evidence for this claim of yours (aside from it apparently existing in your mind) ... much less how these (apparent) culturally defined versions of god distinguish themselves from the possibly real version of goal (lol - seriously you are starting to write like a comedy sketch now)

More rambling nonsense. If you didn't understand the point I was making, it's better to ask than to run off at the mouth pretending as if you did.

Perhaps that would be a valid statement if you ever offered any explanation of your claims.

Basically the dialougue is reading like this:

Bal - "god is a wholly culturally defined phenomena"

Me - "no evidence for that claim"

Bal - "yes there is"

Me - "what is it?"

Bal - "god is a wholly culturally defined phenomena"

I find discussions are more productive when gaps in understanding are bridged through direction questioning. But that would be the obvious, intelligent viewpoint, and therefore reserved for honest, intelligent posters. Since I don't seem to be the presence of either, I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for you.

will the irony never end?

The atheist position does not require appeals to authority, nor omniscience (a mistake you and wynn are constantly guilty of, and ever failing to even attempt to support). It's based on the same methodology your kind hijacks when propagating the lie that is Intelligent Design, except the atheist position is based on legitimate data.

so you keep saying, yet you totally fail to provide any data (legitimate or otherwise) and continue on your tirades about "what theists are really talking about".

On the other hand however, one doesn't have to usurp the scientific process to show that reductionist world views are not capable of asserting any agenda on divinity/atheism/etc

As to why physics or meteorology support the atheist position, it should be self-evident (and I sense that it is, and you're only keeping up the act because you now have an audience). If primitive man understood how the weather worked, or what was or wasn't possible for a human being to do, then the superstitions leading to religious dogma simply never would have arisen.

perhaps that would make sense if it was clear that's how religion arose (given that simply because it may appear that way in your mind, its not necessarily valid ... since you could also think of a pink unicorn too y'know ), or even if the said two sciences in question could somehow contextualize the issue of god ....

This is why no one in their right mind believed Jerry Fallwell when he said homosexuality was responsible for Hurricane Katrina.

and jerry fallwell is the most respected, influential figure of religious philosophical discourse you can think of ?

Or are you simply straw manning?

Two thousand years ago, however, such an idea probably would have gained considerable traction. Hell, it did: look at the flood myths. Rather than just being a random occurrence, a localized flood becomes the handiwork of a vengeful god.

is this as it occurs in the real world or as it occurs in your mind?
Just thought we better clear up this detail before we analyze this statement of yours ...

Of course, because of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of atheism, you'll try to peg this as "hard" atheism, but it isn't anything of the sort.

On the contrary it certainly requires more than a wheelbaroow full of intellectual dishonesty when you start talking about all concepts of god having no authority outside of the cultural systems they appear in while simultaneously denying you are pushing a hard atheist agenda. Noted that the manner that you push this proverbial around is by saying that there could exist a god but the concepts about him are false ... while markedly failing to mention how on earth you would distinguish between a real concept of god and a version that is fictionally (aka "culturally") attributed

All of what I said can be true in a universe that was created by some intelligent being. In other words, saying that Yahweh is a myth says nothing about the true nature of existence other than "He didn't do it."

you are simply pushing shit uphill but are too intellectually bankrupt to admit it.
:shrug:

 

[leopold]

I'm saying that you've likely never read any medical literature in your life, and it seems disingenuous for you to cite it as a source when you're really just guessing.

for you to come across with bullshit like this is beyond belief.

 

[leopold]

I'm sorry, is that not a list of things you are claiming as evidence for God's existence?

yes.

I know this because if your physical brain is injured or damaged, your consciousness changes or disappears entirely, suggesting that it is dependent on the functionality of the brain.

you can be a complete vegetable and still be conscious balerion.

Not "no idea." They have several models, they just don't have one universally-accepted model.

you mean one that works.
several models?
i'm only aware of 2.
RNA and amino acids.
the scientific community has almost given up on amino acids, but not quite.
RNA isn't fairing much better.

Another fallacy. You've heard of archaeology, no?

yes, i'm acquainted with ancient ruins.

What is required for such a statement is evidence, of which there is heaps and mounds.

i'm not even going to ask.

 

[Balerion]

for you to come across with bullshit like this is beyond belief.

Look at your posts. It's an assumption based on the way you present yourself.

yes.

So you were simply lying before?

you can be a complete vegetable and still be conscious balerion.

You can be conscious, yes, but not in the same manner you were before. (unless you had something awful like Locked-in syndrome) If you knew anything about what you were talking, you'd know that consciousness isn't simply a "yes" or "no" proposition. But you'd rather remain ignorant and just run off at the mouth, apparently.

you mean one that works.

They haven't yet been able to replicate any of them in a lab, but that could very well change in the future, and it's not a dealbreaker because the science is sound. In theory, however, many of the models do work, it's just a matter of having no way to know which of the possible scenarios actually happened, if any of them did. Even if they created monomers in the lab tomorrow, it wouldn't prove that this one method is how it happened, it would just mean that we've actually demonstrated one of the ways it might have happened.

several models?
i'm only aware of 2.
RNA and amino acids.
the scientific community has almost given up on amino acids, but not quite.
RNA isn't fairing much better.

Comments like this are why I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Have a go.

yes, i'm acquainted with ancient ruins.

It's more than just discovering ancient ruins, it's unraveling history through those ancient places and objects. In other words, you don't have to own a time machine to know how things happened.

i'm not even going to ask.

I know, because it would destroy your ignorant little fantasy. It must really suck knowing that exposure to reality would destroy your worldview.

 

[wynn]

I know, because it would destroy your ignorant little fantasy. It must really suck knowing that exposure to reality would destroy your worldview.

Truisms ... are just so damn mesmerizing!

 

[leopold]

Look at your posts. It's an assumption based on the way you present yourself.

yes, putting forth the placebo effect was a bad presentation.

You can be conscious, yes, but not in the same manner you were before.

and again, how do you know this?
are you guessing again?

They haven't yet been able to replicate any of them in a lab, but that could very well change in the future, . . .

and i can win the 30 million dollar lotto 7 times in a row.

Even if they created monomers in the lab tomorrow, it wouldn't prove that this one method is how it happened, it would just mean that we've actually demonstrated one of the ways it might have happened.

wrong.
the only thing it proves is that you created monomers in the lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Have a go.

point out the specific sections that deal with starting materials other than amino acids or RNA.

 

[leopold]

I know, because it would destroy your ignorant little fantasy. It must really suck knowing that exposure to reality would destroy your worldview.

so bring it home by presenting this "heaps and mounds" of evidence.

 

[Syne]

there are quite a few that has "believed" themselves healed by nothing more tha a sugar pill.
in other words they had faith the substance would help them and it did.
this has been documented in medical literature over and over and over.

I sincerely doubt that you have any idea whatsoever as to what's been documented in medical literature, so let's drop the charade, shall we? You're clearly uneducated and uninformed on this subject, so try to keep it to things you actually know something about, because otherwise you overreach, as you have here.

Wow, talk about spewing ad hominems rather than addressing the persons claim! This can only be an evasion.

 

[Syne]

Not "no idea." They have several models, they just don't have one universally-accepted model.

IOW, we do not have sufficient empirical evidence to favor any of them.

 

[Balerion]

and again, how do you know this?
are you guessing again?

I haven't guessed at all. All of this stuff is documented in the medical literature you are so fond of reading. Go talk to someone with severe brain trauma after a car accident, see if they even recognize you anymore. Hell, add some chemicals to your own brain and see how your consciousness changes. Go drink a twelve-pack and see how you feel.

and i can win the 30 million dollar lotto 7 times in a row.

What you do base your skepticism on?

wrong.
the only thing it proves is that you created monomers in the lab.

No, genius. It would prove that organic molecules could form from inorganic precursors, a presumed condition for the beginnings of life. Hence, "one of the ways it might have happened."

point out the specific sections that deal with starting materials other than amino acids or RNA.

Don't ask me to do your fucking homework for you. Read the goddamn article or just own up that you're talking out of your ass.

 

[Syne]

wrong.
the only thing it proves is that you created monomers in the lab.

No, genius. It would prove that organic molecules could form from inorganic precursors, a presumed condition for the beginnings of life. Hence, "one of the ways it might have happened."

Only insofar as "organic molecules" are not necessarily life.

Most often the term monomer refers to the organic molecules which form synthetic polymers... -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomer


The modern meaning of "organic compound" is any one of them that contains a significant amount of carbon - even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound#Modern_classification​

Seems you are equivocating "organic" where it does not necessarily imply life.

 

[leopold]

IOW, we do not have sufficient empirical evidence to favor any of them.

it isn't a lack of evidence, it's a lack of lab verification.
despite the best efforts of science we have been totally unable to recreate life under ANY conditions.
the only experiment into this that i am aware of is the miller experiment which gave rise to amino acids.
even this experiment failed.

 

[leopold]

(to balerion)Seems you are equivocating "organic" where it does not necessarily imply life.

yes, at one time "organic chemistry" was basically the chemistry of compounds containing carbon.