Why we believe in God(s)

Adstar said:
He made too many manufactured conclusions from the evidence he was providing.
Click to expand...

It seems that none of you theists have any clue how to tackle this, as evidenced by your refusal to address any of the core arguments. Have you forgotten where you are?

The following rules and guidelines for posting in the Religion forum exist to create and maintain a high standard of interesting and informative debate on the topic of Religion where it intersects science with regard to policy, progress and cultural development as well as the examination of Religion from a scientific standpoint as with the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology and neurology.
Click to expand...

The above was pulled (with my bolding) from Posting rules for Religion forum, which makes it clear that this thread is just about as properly on-topic as posts ever get in this forum. Yet it would seem that none of you theists are very interested in discussing science.

But then, perhaps some of you feel that this is most aptly characterized as pseudoscience. If so, you should complain to one of the mods who have the power to move it to the appropriate sub-forum if they feel it is warranted. That goes for you too, Jan.
 
Bowser said:
Interesting lecture. Rather than saying that religion has hijacked our predisposition to cognize in particular ways, I would suggest that religion is a derivative of it, an outgrowth.

http://www.flixya.com/photo/1601274/cutting-hand
Click to expand...

I seen symbolism like that before . Pieces of god concepts . Particles of God . Even in the bible there is a story of am Alimak King ( spelling Alimak, I know , You have to interpret) that was tore up into pieces. The story is very strange . The symbolism of Osama Bin Ladin being dumped into the sea and eaten by fishes looks like the same symbolism . Leviathan stories , Melquat stories . The sea people
 
Rav said:
It seems that none of you theists have any clue how to tackle this, as evidenced by your refusal to address any of the core arguments. Have you forgotten where you are?



The above was pulled (with my bolding) from Posting rules for Religion forum, which makes it clear that this thread is just about as properly on-topic as posts ever get in this forum. Yet it would seem that none of you theists are very interested in discussing science.

But then, perhaps some of you feel that this is most aptly characterized as pseudoscience. If so, you should complain to one of the mods who have the power to move it to the appropriate sub-forum if they feel it is warranted. That goes for you too, Jan.
Click to expand...

If you think it science Rav, I'm not going to argue with you.
I'm interested in where the science lies in amongst the tale.

However I have just seen the pdf link.
I've looked at the first few lines, and it seems quite interesting.
When I get some time I'll look through it and most probably throw some
questions at you.

jan.
 
Me-Ki-Gal said:
More threatening than angry . Like you might turn us in for trolling . Get us banned , you know , stuff like that . So is a threat a sign of aggression that leads to anger ?
Click to expand...

I've never initiated a single action against another member on this forum. It's not my style. And I wasn't making a threat, I was issuing a challenge (in the face of ridicule I might add).
 
Rav said:
I've never initiated a single action against another member on this forum. It's not my style. And I wasn't making a threat, I was issuing a challenge (in the face of ridicule I might add).
Click to expand...

Thats good . I been banned 3 times and I don't like it . Not that you threatened Me or anything . Perception on how to act kind filter out though a community though . Glad you are not like that and cleared it up . Rock on bro . I watched part of the lecture . It started out good with a solid premise and then it seemed to started dropping off into what sounded like a sales pitch. Not that I disagree with the chap about anything particular , but all was dependent on the assumption he made in the beginning. Like one thought bound to the next to make the last one have credibility . I know kind of sounds like a scientific method , but I am not sure if the ideas individually could stand on there own under other analysis form independent sources . Dawkins is great is most of what I heard . Maybe I didn't give it enough validity cause of the sales pitch . I blame the delivery method for that . Hypnosis would work better
 
Rav said:
Many of you may have seen this lecture before, or read some of the articles that are based on the same research, but I'm sure it will make for some interesting discussion in any case.

Andy Thomson on Why we believe in God(s).

Note: The paper mentioned at 27:35 entitled "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief" (by D Kapogiannis) is available in PDF format here.

For those that are particularly interested in the subject matter (which I'm sure wont be all of you) I really recommend that you also watch an earlier version of this lecture which can be found here. It's a little longer, a little more raw (it is interspersed with questions from the audience) but it is also a little more comprehensive on some points.

Note that the point here is not to disprove the existence of some kind of creator deity but to present a scientific explanation for the emergence of religious beliefs.

Feel free to discuss, critique or whatever floats your boat. But if you are going to participate, please actually watch at least one version of the lecture.
Click to expand...

Ok since we are wired in such way . In religion God become an supreme extension of father to whom we want to revere, Is that some thing wrong. How about if we undue the way we have been programmed (respect , honor and obedience ) what kind of world would that be ? chaos ?

Beside the presentation was for Atheist so he sad to choose a target which suits the audience in the case " the belief in God "
 
The notion of "God" seems to contain much of our, hmm, social characteristics? We commune and associate with the supernatural.
 
Rav said:
Did I sound angry?
Click to expand...
yes it did..
but since you had already addressed that, i will accept that it wasn't, and move on..

something that is noticed by a few in my church..in regards to the words he(anyone) used to present his ideas, it seems the ppl that use the big words are more interested in showing how smart they are instead of actually communicating anything..(why use a complex word when a plain one would communicate better), of course this falls short when you consider the audience you are addressing, if he was speaking to a room full of high end scientist then the complex words are acceptable, but if he was speaking to a room full of laymen, then the complex words are only a attempt to show his audience how smart he is..(if the audience doesn't understand the words,how is it communicating anything?).

but then again this still applies to a science crowd in the form of using the bigger words to have them think he is smart..they would expect him to use the bigger words, if he simplified it he would not be considered as smart around his peers.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Rav, can you respond to some of my earlier posts regarding vedic culture?
Click to expand...

The only thing I didn't respond to is your assertion that my respect for ancient Indian culture is contingent upon omitting their religious practices. In other words, you were using something I didn't say to try to invalidate what I did say. I ignored it because it would have been clear to any reader what you were doing and it isn't really on-topic anyway.
 
Rav said:
The only thing I didn't respond to is your assertion that my respect for ancient Indian culture is contingent upon omitting their religious practices. In other words, you were using something I didn't say to try to invalidate what I did say. I ignored it because it would have been clear to any reader what you were doing and it isn't really on-topic anyway.
Click to expand...


Is the idea that God was invented as a means to understand
that which man couldn't understand, and other ideas relating
to a lack of something, a scientific fact?

I ask because his whole speech is based on this being a fact.

jan.
 
Watched the 54 minute show for 38 minutes. This man is trying to sell Athiesm. He is a scam artist. Don't buy his proofs, don't fall into the hypnosis of "yes" he presents.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Is the idea that God was invented as a means to understand that which man couldn't understand, and other ideas relating
to a lack of something, a scientific fact?
Click to expand...

It's a historical fact that people invent gods, unless one believes that Zeus, Athena, Apollo et al. are real. But science can not demonstrate that they don't exist, therefore I wouldn't say that it's a scientific fact that they were merely invented. What I can say is that an excellent case can be made (and has been made) that all religious beliefs (including a belief in one all powerful creator deity, which is just a small step up from multiple deities) have emerged from the same cognitive mechanisms that helped us develop into more socially sophisticated creatures.

The bottom line is that unless you (or anyone else) can show that Andy Thomson's core arguments are unreasonable and/or unscientific, then they will stand as an excellent response to the idea that the existence of religion and the concept of God are undeniable evidence of the actual existence of God, and it was such arguments that prompted me to create this thread (not that I was having too much trouble dealing with them without Andy).
 
Rav,


It's a historical fact that people invent gods, unless one believes that Zeus, Athena, Apollo et al. are real.
Click to expand...


We're talking about ''God''.


But science can not demonstrate that they don't exist, therefore I wouldn't say that it's a scientific fact..
Click to expand...

I thought as much.
There goes your claim that this speech is based on science.


What I can say is that an excellent case can be made (and has been made) that all religious beliefs (including a belief in one all powerful creator deity, which is just a small step up from multiple deities) have emerged from the same cognitive mechanisms that helped us develop into more socially sophisticated creatures.
Click to expand...

To convince me of that you would have explain what ''religious belief'' is, and
how it known that ''religious belief'' is a tangable property.

He just seems to take stuff for granted without the need for explanation.


The bottom line is that unless you (or anyone else) can show that Andy Thomson's core arguments are unreasonable and/or unscientific, then they will stand as an excellent response to the idea that the existence of religion and the concept of God are undeniable evidence of the actual existence of God, and it was such arguments that prompted me to create this thread (not that I was having too much trouble dealing with them without Andy).
Click to expand...


You've completely missed the point, which is why I wondered why you went down this preacher road.

You decided that the basic definition of God was also a concept (if your concept was to be branded such)
Fair enough, but whose concept. Concepts usually change with time. L
ook at words like theory, science, atheisT, religion, types of music etc.
The basic definition however does not change.

So please give this thread a point, and point out who, when, and how the concept of God simultaneosly popped into the mind of every culture since time immemorial.




jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Originally Posted by Rav
It's a historical fact that people invent gods, unless one believes that Zeus, Athena, Apollo et al. are real. But science can not demonstrate that they don't exist, therefore I wouldn't say that it's a scientific fact that they were merely invented.
Click to expand...
I thought as much.
There goes your claim that this speech is based on science.
Click to expand...

How does the fact that science can't prove that God(s) don't exist invalidate the arguments that Andy Thomson has put forward? If this is the way you want to set up the playing field, then every single one of your arguments are invalid because you can't prove that God does exist.

Is that how you want to play this game?

I'll respond to the rest of your post when you let me know how you want to proceed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top