|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 12, 2013 7:04:48 GMT -8
Another thing, many people look to much more personal reasons as to why they became a Christian: like the change of heart they seen in people they know when those people converted. As well as the change in their own hearts serving as a strengthening of faith. When I read a certain novella called "The Outsider", my mind snapped and I went into depression for months. I was totally out of my head, and it would have been difficult to tell I was the same person. That doesn't mean that that novella was divinely inspired, merely that things that shake the foundations of your worldview can have massive effects on your personality afterward.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 12, 2013 16:25:28 GMT -8
With everything that Dre is saying I think it's worth noted that the Bible actually cites the prophets as a reason to believe in Christ. "And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and would do well to pay attention to it..." 2 Peter 1:19 (the message of that verse is clearer in context... but I don't feel like post an entire passage on this comment...) There are some people who converted because of all the fulfilled prophesies concerning Christ. Also I know a man personally who said the book of Daniel is a big reason why he became a Christian. The book has a lot of prophesies concerning events not far off from when they were written that all came true (yes it is written poetically, but still...). The guy would mention that we have original copies of the book of Daniel that predate these prophecied events taking place. Another thing, many people look to much more personal reasons as to why they became a Christian: like the change of heart they seen in people they know when those people converted. As well as the change in their own hearts serving as a strengthening of faith. I would mention the experience of prayer and answered prayers, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'll leave closed for now. Again, that is simply a text telling you to believe in it, which is a fallacy. That's where the classic handkerchief god joke comes from: "Believe in the handkerchief God because this handkerchief says so." It's the exact same logic. When you're trying to determine whether something is reasonable to believe or not, you can't just assume it's true before you start your reasoning. If you actually listen to what the Bible says before you reason whether it's true (such as accepting it on faith, or believeing it's reasonable because the text says so) then you're committing a fallacy. I understand the psychological comforts that religion brings (I say religion as a general term, as all religions bring these comforts, not just Christianity), but that has no bearing on it's truth. We use similar concepts for children, such as Santa Clause- That they will be rewarded or punished based on their actions by a being that leaves no empirical evidence of his existence. Yes religion makes people happier, and religious people statistically have lower suicide rates. But religious people are also statistically less educated and less intelligent. I'm not saying that statistics determine the truth of a proposition, but when it comes to the truth of a belief, intelligence and education hold more weight than happiness.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 12, 2013 19:40:05 GMT -8
[/quote]Again, that is simply a text telling you to believe in it, which is a fallacy. That's where the classic handkerchief god joke comes from: "Believe in the handkerchief God because this handkerchief says so." It's the exact same logic.
When you're trying to determine whether something is reasonable to believe or not, you can't just assume it's true before you start your reasoning. If you actually listen to what the Bible says before you reason whether it's true (such as accepting it on faith, or believeing it's reasonable because the text says so) then you're committing a fallacy.
I understand the psychological comforts that religion brings (I say religion as a general term, as all religions bring these comforts, not just Christianity), but that has no bearing on it's truth. We use similar concepts for children, such as Santa Clause- That they will be rewarded or punished based on their actions by a being that leaves no empirical evidence of his existence. Yes religion makes people happier, and religious people statistically have lower suicide rates. But religious people are also statistically less educated and less intelligent. I'm not saying that statistics determine the truth of a proposition, but when it comes to the truth of a belief, intelligence and education hold more weight than happiness.[/quote]
First off when I mentioned scriptures as evidence for faith I meant this: the Old Testament (which we have ancient copies of) foretell events that happened after it was written (and we know when it was written via dating). Some of these events are historically recorded (the Romans sacking Jerusalem). The point I made before was that there are actually recorded prophecies that came true, which is a convincing factor for some people. I'm not saying you have to believe it but that is certainly more than just a text "telling you to believe in it". ...Anyway as for religious people being happier yet less educated... a person can be both happy and educated regardless of his religious views (or lack thereof). I've never been a fan of statistics because samples are usually MUCH smaller than the population and it is also very venerability to bias; however I would like to know what statistics you are referring to. And one last point (sigh)... I disagree with you about education being more important than happiness. Education can be fulfilling (thus bring happiness) but it is not nearly as important as being able to look back on your life and see that you had joy in your heart through the whole ride... Wow! We're pretty deep into this discussion, didn't think it would be so exasperating (I guess a direct confrontation with your worldview takes energy out of you)! As long as we maintain respect towards each other I'm willing to keep talking and understanding more of what you guys think.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Feb 12, 2013 22:10:15 GMT -8
I have a big deadline for work, but I'll definitely be responding to a lot of this sometime soon.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 13, 2013 1:17:22 GMT -8
I just wanna say before we continue I respect people's right to their beliefs. There is a difference between respecting someone's right to a belief, and respecting that belief as reasonable. I think when you announce your beliefs publicly without being asked to, you open yourself to contstructive criticism. I'm saying that to make sure there's no hard feelings on my part, just friendly and civil discussion.
Agent- There were plenty of things the Bible also got wrong, and the Bible is notorious for having several contradictions, so you have to look at both sides of the story there. Many things mentioned in the Bible and the people of that time are factually incorrect (such as natural disasters being solely a result of God punishing humanity, and not knowing the natural causes behind it).
The Bible doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of events outside of the people of its time. It doesn't demonstrate knowledge of countries the Middle East were not aware of yet, future developments in science and technology, did not correct many of the misonceptions of the time in science. All of it is completely cultural, the views and morals are cultural, the race who wrote it are unsurprisingly "God's chosen people." Most of the stories in the Bible are adaptions from Jewish traditions. Many of the theological elements were adapted from North African religions. In fact passages from the Bible have been found on Egyptian tombs that pre-date Christianity.
For a collection of texts that is supposedly divinely inspired, it does nothing to show it and nothing to give non-believers from more educated eras in time a reason to believe it. It does nothing to separate itself from the plethora of other culture-fueled religions, and that's because it's no different. The only reason why Christianity is so big is because Constantine, who was a Christian, made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, which as we know was the dominant world power at the time.
I never said religious people can't be intelligent. I know plenty of intelligent and educated people. However, most of their beliefs can be explained psychologically. Christian apologetics like William Lane Craig who attempt to rationally justify Christianity almost always use reasons different to ones that they actually used to come to their faith.
I also never said that education is more important than happiness. What I said is that if you're looking for the truth on a topic, the more educated and intelligent sector is more likely to be correct than the less educated but happier sector. I'm not saying that means that religion is definitely wrong though.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Feb 13, 2013 4:25:31 GMT -8
Ask icy about stats, and then drop it from this (interesting) discussion. I doubt that demographics matter when discussing fallacies and what not.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 13, 2013 7:51:41 GMT -8
"I also never said that education is more important than happiness. What I said is that if you're looking for the truth on a topic, the more educated and intelligent sector is more likely to be correct than the less educated but happier sector. I'm not saying that means that religion is definitely wrong though." Okay, my misunderstanding on that.
Though I must say, when I mentioned a "change in heart" people can see in others. I meant more than just being happier. More along the lines of a transformation of the person from the inside out. It's hard to explain... I can't really give a personal testimony about the differnece of life as a true believer because I believed my whole life. :/
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Feb 13, 2013 8:28:45 GMT -8
If someone alters their moral or spiritual core in life, naturally you'd see quite a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 13, 2013 8:51:59 GMT -8
"I can't really give a personal testimony about the difference of life as a true believer because I believed my whole life. :/" Perhaps I can't give that but I can say this. When I am staying in prayer and devotion to the Lord, I see a noticeable change in myself in contrast to when I slack off. Not quite the same as a conversion, but for me it shows how Christianity is more than just a belief in something, its a relationship with someone. Unless new points are made I don't think I have much else to say on this thread. (I'll probably come back to it when WaterWizard fires off a flurry of responses.)
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Feb 13, 2013 11:31:37 GMT -8
Of course there is a difference between doing something designed for making you do something (prayer) and NOT doing something.
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 13, 2013 12:25:41 GMT -8
"I also never said that education is more important than happiness. What I said is that if you're looking for the truth on a topic, the more educated and intelligent sector is more likely to be correct than the less educated but happier sector. I'm not saying that means that religion is definitely wrong though." Okay, my misunderstanding on that. Though I must say, when I mentioned a "change in heart" people can see in others. I meant more than just being happier. More along the lines of a transformation of the person from the inside out. It's hard to explain... I can't really give a personal testimony about the differnece of life as a true believer because I believed my whole life. :/ Attributing psychological phenomena to supernatural causes? Are we going to start exorcising the mentally ill again?
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 13, 2013 12:57:35 GMT -8
Ask icy about stats, and then drop it from this (interesting) discussion. I doubt that demographics matter when discussing fallacies and what not. I said myself I don't think the demographics matter too much. Agentsyrup played the "religious people are happy and have a change of heart card." My point was that if you're going to play that card, you also have to consider that non-religious people are statistically more intelligent and educated, which is a stronger indicator of truth than happiness is. I also don't see why I'd need to ask Icy about the statistics. I've read multiple sources, both theistic and atheistic confirming the same statistics. Agentsyrup- Everything you mention about change of heart is purely psychological. It's similar to the Santa Clause effect. When it' gets close to xmas, children are excited because they believe someone is watching them, and will reward them for their good deeds. The feeling of a relationship doesn't actually require the perceived entity to actually exist. People with imaginary friends get the same psychological aspects of a relationship that religious people do. Psychology and behaviour is really one of the worst arguments a religious person can make aside from faith, because all of that can be explained from a clinical standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Nyara? on Feb 17, 2013 3:38:53 GMT -8
I'm too agnostic to ignore this, as I do belive on some stuff, but I do not have faith on anything.
Faith is hope.
Belive is "I want to belive certain thing, but I do have doubts".
Faith, like hope, is a feeling, of, even if the circunstance are bad, you have the hope that everything will be OK in some way or other, and Faith on specific things is "I think all be OK because there is a good will make sure everything will be OK". Faith, being a feeling, it can't be forced, it can't be really teached, and it can't be actually quantified on an exactly messure, it's just like any other feeling, like joy. Most of christians actually just belive, because they want to belive on something, but they do not have faith on that. True christians are those who really feel faith on a god. The same can be said about any religion, anyway.
Faith, like a feeling, can change your perception of stuff, when we feel happy about something, we're gonna have a bias toward it, and when we feel sadness or angry about something, we have a negative bias toward it. That is what happen always on the thread of "People of Faith vs People of Belive", being the People of Faith anyone with faith on a Religion, and being the People of Belive anyone who belive on a idea, like, god doesn't exist.
An atheist is just someone who belive that god doesn't exist to the point they discard something like that from their mind. An agnostic is someone who belive stuff, but they don't discard anything (like me) from being possible, incluiding not trusting to your eyes and "usually logical stuff".
Everyones had faith on something, anyway, it can be "I'm seen rain, and feeling it with my fingers, so, it's raining", or "I'm seen rain, and feeling it with my fingers, so, it's raining thanks to god/insert anything else possible".
We need to understand that not everyone feels like we're feeling, and when we understand that, we can start to respect the feelings and ideas of others, rather than list them as "incorrects because - non-proven-scientific-reason", and this comes to any type of belive, atheist, theist, agonostics, and for the case, anything. People tends to close too much to their own feelings that they don't see that not everyones feel the same, "I feel/have faith that god exist" / "I feel/something like god doesn't exist" / "I feel/I belive that god can or not exist, I'm unsure" / "I feel/I think god's name is Arceus", notice the word "feel", and we'll start to see that nobody had the "true answer" to the "mystery" because we actually doesn't have any solid clue.
"Christ said god exists" is a clue. It's a hard clue?
I can say, "magic9mushroom killed a girl yesterday, I seen him doing it!", and if tha were the unique clue of a investigation, you could arrest and say magic9 is guilty just because I said that? If your answer is yes, then you have faith on that answer, you feel I'm telling the true, but actually, it's just a partial clue, as you don't have any other clue of what happened.
"God doesn't exist because we're not seen any scientific effect of him", that is a solid clue? Nope, because our understanding of sciense, nature, and how works the universe is still too slim to make us able to actually know that, you do belive on that, and it's a sort of clue, too, but that's not a solid clue. I can just say god make us unnable to watch him's action via making us just able to see a limited realm of the universe, too.
As some criminal case, we just have partial clues of the real answer, thus, we, each person, had to answer that question in a way or other, "I don't know" "I think it can be of certain way, but I'm unsure" "He's guilty" "He's not guilty", even with incomplete information to our disposal, so, we have to understand that even if someone had a convincent speech or something, all we're doing is feeling an aswer rather than other thing, and even when it can be hard sometimes, we need to understand that your feelings can not be the same as others. "I think he is guilty because Nyara said she watched him doing the crime, and I do belive on her because - feelings - ", while other can say "I think he is not guilty, because I feel Nyara is lying about it, and she can even be the killer!", with incomplete information at our disposal, ar we can do is feel an aswer and somewhat guess at our taste. The same goes about god, different religions, atheist, and stuff.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 17, 2013 4:08:22 GMT -8
Actually faith can be taught and learned etc. That's why the only people who believe in religions are the ones in religous environments, or who are exposed to it in some way. If faith was something inherent, you'd see random people regardles sof environment having this concept of fiath, but they don't, only the people who have been exposed to religion in some way.
Faith isn't some mysterious larger-than-life concept. Faith has been explained psychologically. We understand how it works. We even know the part of the brain that deals with feelings of supernatural phenomena or 'presences.'
The reason why religious people are so strong in their faith is purely down to psychology. Firstly, most religious people were brought up in religious families, or were exposed to it at point where they felt they were lacking something in their life. There is always a psychological reason why they come to faith.
Secondly, 99% of religious people are involved in a religious community, or are in some form of religious environment. Studies show that people who are in communities of like-minded people (eg. religious people in a religious community) become close-minded to other beliefs and perspectives. That's why people stick to their faith, because they're still immersed in a religious community. Nearly all people who deconvert do so after being exposed to a different environment.
Studies also show that you're likely to conform to the dominant person or presence in a room. So if you're in a environment where religion is dominant (eg. a religious family), you're likely to conform to it eventually. This is especially magnified when the subject is a child, who as you know has a very impressionable mind.
And you may say 'but we use reason and come to our faith rationally.' Again, the way a human reasons is subordinate to their psychology. A common misconception people have is that 'reason' is for seeking truth, it isn't. Humans evolved reason as a more sophisticated form of domination. We don't naturally reason to seek truth, we reason to defend or justifty what we already believe. This is why religious people always end thinking their faith is true when they try to 'reason.'
Over 84% of American Christians were brought up in religious families. Humans are particularly impressionable in their early years because in the wild this the time that mammals are taught crucial survival skills by their parents. The reason why humans have a natural resistance to change and deviating from their early impressions is because in the wild this would be fatal, because you would essentially be deviating from the survival skills taught by your parents. That's why humans naturally end up believing what they were taught as a child for the rest of their life.
And I explained the difference between religious faith and the 'faith' that people display in everyday life. The latter is believing that a particular occurence is probable (eg. believing that the sun will rise tomorrow). The reason why that's called faith is because it isn't deductively certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, there's a chance it may not. That's where the 'faith' element comes in, but it's so improbable that it's still a reasonable belief. You have strong reason to believe the sun will tomorrow.
Religious faith is completely different. That's asking you to believe something to be true without providing any reason why. They don't give you any reason to believe it is probable that the religion is true, they just ask you to accept it. You could believe anything with that logic.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 17, 2013 11:07:55 GMT -8
Actually faith can be taught and learned etc. That's why the only people who believe in religions are the ones in religous environments, or who are exposed to it in some way. If faith was something inherent, you'd see random people regardles sof environment having this concept of fiath, but they don't, only the people who have been exposed to religion in some way. Faith isn't some mysterious larger-than-life concept. Faith has been explained psychologically. We understand how it works. We even know the part of the brain that deals with feelings of supernatural phenomena or 'presences.' The reason why religious people are so strong in their faith is purely down to psychology. Firstly, most religious people were brought up in religious families, or were exposed to it at point where they felt they were lacking something in their life. There is always a psychological reason why they come to faith. Secondly, 99% of religious people are involved in a religious community, or are in some form of religious environment. Studies show that people who are in communities of like-minded people (eg. religious people in a religious community) become close-minded to other beliefs and perspectives. That's why people stick to their faith, because they're still immersed in a religious community. Nearly all people who deconvert do so after being exposed to a different environment. Studies also show that you're likely to conform to the dominant person or presence in a room. So if you're in a environment where religion is dominant (eg. a religious family), you're likely to conform to it eventually. This is especially magnified when the subject is a child, who as you know has a very impressionable mind. And you may say 'but we use reason and come to our faith rationally.' Again, the way a human reasons is subordinate to their psychology. A common misconception people have is that 'reason' is for seeking truth, it isn't. Humans evolved reason as a more sophisticated form of domination. We don't naturally reason to seek truth, we reason to defend or justifty what we already believe. This is why religious people always end thinking their faith is true when they try to 'reason.' Over 84% of American Christians were brought up in religious families. Humans are particularly impressionable in their early years because in the wild this the time that mammals are taught crucial survival skills by their parents. The reason why humans have a natural resistance to change and deviating from their early impressions is because in the wild this would be fatal, because you would essentially be deviating from the survival skills taught by your parents. That's why humans naturally end up believing what they were taught as a child for the rest of their life. And I explained the difference between religious faith and the 'faith' that people display in everyday life. The latter is believing that a particular occurence is probable (eg. believing that the sun will rise tomorrow). The reason why that's called faith is because it isn't deductively certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, there's a chance it may not. That's where the 'faith' element comes in, but it's so improbable that it's still a reasonable belief. You have strong reason to believe the sun will tomorrow. Religious faith is completely different. That's asking you to believe something to be true without providing any reason why. They don't give you any reason to believe it is probable that the religion is true, they just ask you to accept it. You could believe anything with that logic. "Faith is psychological". If the relationship with God is real don't you think that being in communion with Him would have a noticeable effect on our psyche (similar to how relationships with physical humans have an affect on our psyche). I don't think the physiological aspect is evidence either which way. The religious experience is either a construct or a genuine experience, but either way the affect it has on us will be a noticeable one. Personally, I know what it is like to believe in mental constructs as I had a few growing up (of which I shall give no details, due to how sensitive I am on the matter). Knowing what it is like to have a mental construct, I don't believe my faith is one. And as for your second point... there are four children in my family including myself. We were all raised Christians but now as adults it is only me and my sister who remain in the faith. I won't argue that most people who deconvert do so after being exposed to different environments; but there are also many who were exposed to different environments and remained in the faith. Just like how some who are Christians were raised that way and others converted from a different belief. Similar to my point on psychology, I don't think looking at those who convert or deconvert provides any evidence to either side.
|
|
|
Post by Nyara? on Feb 17, 2013 11:18:31 GMT -8
You can't produce faith on people, or better said, force it. Studies about non-proven-scientific-stuff (as long I know, we DON'T know how the brain or the consciense works, so, the point is invalid under a true scientific view point) is so valid as my word alone, or so valid as a flying tuna. You can't force feelings on others. A clue of it? The huge ammount of atheists on theist families, other clue? How the majority of christians are not really chirstians on the stats, and they never ever readed the Bible or anything related at all, and they are just "christians" of name just for family legacy, so, yes, you can make people follow a legacy belive, thus, making them to belive, but you can't actually produce faith on them with a pre-made-system, faith is just a natural feeling that every person feel different. What you can do is actually give a direction to that faith, and make their faith an especific one, for example, even you have faith on what you said now, and a theist have faith on what they say.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 17, 2013 17:15:20 GMT -8
Again, the stuff you guys are saying is completely wrong. We know for a fact what part of the brain controls feelings of the supernatural or presence. I can't remember what it's called, (I think the frontal lobe or the frontal cortext or something like that) but scientists have witnessed stimulation there when having these kinds of experiences. Using a special piece of machinery known as the 'God Helmet' scientsists were able to control how much of this experience people had, and even which side of the body they felt it on.
Scientists are starting to be to find which part of the brain is stimulated when a human has certain thoughts, and have even downloaded thoughts from a person's brain before. Neuroscience and psychologically are becoming hard empirical sciences.
You can't just reject scientific findings without base simply because they contradict what you believe. Most of ths is common sense anyway.
Faith merely simulates the feelings of a relationship. I know this from personal experience. I used to be a devout Catholic until I educated myself about the universe. The feelings of the presence of a god is merely the feelings of perceived relationship.
You have no grounds to reject psychological findings except for, ironically, your psychological disposition to what it says.
There is a reason why religion has become less popular in the west as our civilisation has become more educated and elarned more about the universe, and why educated developed countries for the most part are irreligious (except America, but then you guys have a reputation around the world for a being a stupid nation, but again, that's because of republicans, who are mostly religious).
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Feb 17, 2013 18:16:22 GMT -8
(I think the frontal lobe or the frontal cortext or something like that) Temporal lobe. It's responsible for interpreting sense data in terms of meaning (as opposed to the parietal lobe, which interprets it in terms of spatial awareness).
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 17, 2013 18:32:15 GMT -8
Again, the stuff you guys are saying is completely wrong. We know for a fact what part of the brain controls feelings of the supernatural or presence. I can't remember what it's called, (I think the frontal lobe or the frontal cortext or something like that) but scientists have witnessed stimulation there when having these kinds of experiences. Using a special piece of machinery known as the 'God Helmet' scientsists were able to control how much of this experience people had, and even which side of the body they felt it on. Scientists are starting to be to find which part of the brain is stimulated when a human has certain thoughts, and have even downloaded thoughts from a person's brain before. Neuroscience and psychologically are becoming hard empirical sciences. You can't just reject scientific findings without base simply because they contradict what you believe. Most of ths is common sense anyway. Faith merely simulates the feelings of a relationship. I know this from personal experience. I used to be a devout Catholic until I educated myself about the universe. The feelings of the presence of a god is merely the feelings of perceived relationship. You have no grounds to reject psychological findings except for, ironically, your psychological disposition to what it says. There is a reason why religion has become less popular in the west as our civilisation has become more educated and elarned more about the universe, and why educated developed countries for the most part are irreligious (except America, but then you guys have a reputation around the world for a being a stupid nation, but again, that's because of republicans, who are mostly religious). WE HAVE MIND CONTROLING HELMETS! The the heck!?! Please! Links! And I wouldn't be surprised (that is if the mind controling good helmet truely exists) if we could simulate feelings fof a romantic relationship as well... or at least eventually. Also what do you mean "which side of the body" for the God experience?
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 18, 2013 2:42:39 GMT -8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmetIt's not a mind-controlling helmet. It is simply capable of stimulating feelings of 'presences' in the human brain. They could control which side the person felt the presence on, eg. to the left, behind them etc.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 22, 2013 20:16:50 GMT -8
Again, the stuff you guys are saying is completely wrong. We know for a fact what part of the brain controls feelings of the supernatural or presence. I can't remember what it's called, (I think the frontal lobe or the frontal cortext or something like that) but scientists have witnessed stimulation there when having these kinds of experiences. Using a special piece of machinery known as the 'God Helmet' scientsists were able to control how much of this experience people had, and even which side of the body they felt it on. Scientists are starting to be to find which part of the brain is stimulated when a human has certain thoughts, and have even downloaded thoughts from a person's brain before. Neuroscience and psychologically are becoming hard empirical sciences. You can't just reject scientific findings without base simply because they contradict what you believe. Most of ths is common sense anyway. Faith merely simulates the feelings of a relationship. I know this from personal experience. I used to be a devout Catholic until I educated myself about the universe. The feelings of the presence of a god is merely the feelings of perceived relationship. You have no grounds to reject psychological findings except for, ironically, your psychological disposition to what it says. There is a reason why religion has become less popular in the west as our civilisation has become more educated and elarned more about the universe, and why educated developed countries for the most part are irreligious (except America, but then you guys have a reputation around the world for a being a stupid nation, but again, that's because of republicans, who are mostly religious). I'm not rejecting scientific findings, I'm interpreting them differently. You talk about scientists finding out that the brain controls the feelings of the supernatural like its proof that those supernatural feelings don't exist arn't genuine. But just how the a romantic relationship can have an impact on the brain (ex: Its actually possible to become addicted to your romantic partner.) so would a relationship with the Almighty. The neurlogical affect is simply a response to somthing. Whether that something is a relationsihp with God, or a mental/emotional construct is up to your own belief. As I said before, I don't think it lends to proof either which way.
|
|
Dre
Member
Posts: 397
|
Post by Dre on Feb 22, 2013 21:47:12 GMT -8
I'm not saying it disproves God, but the fact that we can create and control alleged feelings of the supernatural severely damages the idea that what people are claiming are supernatural experiences are in fact supernatural.
Humans can develop bonds to a variety of things because we're social creatures. You were the one who brought up having a relationship with God. I'm simply saying that you can feel as if you're in a relationship without really being in one.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Feb 23, 2013 16:37:36 GMT -8
"I'm simply saying that you can feel as if you're in a relationship without really being in one."
Oh, I already know that... I mentioned before that I personally know what its like to have mental constructs (had a couple growing up... and again I will not go into them).
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Feb 27, 2013 23:24:16 GMT -8
Oh man. I've had some variation of this conversation hundreds of times (even in old forum posts--they're somewhere on here).
I won't get into my beliefs or argue one way or another, because I've learned that it's somewhat futile. It can be fun and educational, but intellectual argument on these types of issues rarely convinces anyone of anything. Why's that?
For better or worse, humans are often not rational beings. Our rationality, when it comes to core beliefs, primarily serves to justify (rationalize) our intuitive feelings. Does one come to arrive at the belief in God through rational thought? Nope--some are brought up with it, some have emotional experiences, etc. The same applies to atheists (though many will disagree)--some have a gut disagreement with whatever they're brought up with, some have a negative experience (or several) with a religion, etc. etc. Hopefully you see what I'm saying: We arrive at our beliefs--whether they be religious, political, or philosophical--through intuitive means. Gut feelings, not reason.
My point is that rational argument won't change anyone's views, unless they're very unsure of what they believe. Even emotional argument will only work if the emotions can be related to. Here:
"Over and over again, studies show that people set out on a cognitive mission to bring back reasons to support their preferred belief or action. And because we are usually successful in this mission, we end up with the illusion of objectivity. We really believe that our position is rationally and objectively justified." —Jonathan Haidt
This applies to both believers and atheists. Christian fundamentalists can be kind of crazy, but the same applies to "antitheists", such as many of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris). I just thought I'd add this to the conversation after my many years of discussing religion.
|
|
|
Post by lilith on Mar 1, 2013 9:15:19 GMT -8
What I said is that if you're looking for the truth on a topic, the more educated and intelligent sector is more likely to be correct than the less educated but happier sector. You are educated stupid - and you have no inkling to just how EVIL you think.Oh man. I've had some variation of this conversation hundreds of times (even in old forum posts--they're somewhere on here). I won't get into my beliefs or argue one way or another, because I've learned that it's somewhat futile. It can be fun and educational, but intellectual argument on these types of issues rarely convinces anyone of anything. Why's that? For better or worse, humans are often not rational beings. Our rationality, when it comes to core beliefs, primarily serves to justify (rationalize) our intuitive feelings. Does one come to arrive at the belief in God through rational thought? Nope--some are brought up with it, some have emotional experiences, etc. The same applies to atheists (though many will disagree)--some have a gut disagreement with whatever they're brought up with, some have a negative experience (or several) with a religion, etc. etc. Hopefully you see what I'm saying: We arrive at our beliefs--whether they be religious, political, or philosophical--through intuitive means. Gut feelings, not reason.My point is that rational argument won't change anyone's views, unless they're very unsure of what they believe. Even emotional argument will only work if the emotions can be related to. Here: "Over and over again, studies show that people set out on a cognitive mission to bring back reasons to support their preferred belief or action. And because we are usually successful in this mission, we end up with the illusion of objectivity. We really believe that our position is rationally and objectively justified." —Jonathan Haidt This applies to both believers and atheists. Christian fundamentalists can be kind of crazy, but the same applies to "antitheists", such as many of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris). I just thought I'd add this to the conversation after my many years of discussing religion. *nod* yaplz
|
|
|
Post by magic9mushroom on Mar 2, 2013 21:39:52 GMT -8
Christian fundamentalists can be kind of crazy, but the same applies to "antitheists", such as many of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris). I just thought I'd add this to the conversation after my many years of discussing religion. I don't recall hearing about Dawkins bombing churches. There are crazy Christians, there are crazy Muslims, and there are crazy atheists, but calling someone else's belief wrong and talking about it a lot isn't craziness.
|
|
|
Post by cheese on Mar 3, 2013 3:22:45 GMT -8
I agree with this, although I would say that the vast majority of atheists I know were brought up as atheists or at least without a strong religious background.
I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that Dawkin's is "crazy". He may come across as arrogant or rude (although personally I think he is in 99% of cases). Harris I can't comment on because I don't know him. I will concede that crazy atheists definitely do exist though. It's the same with anything though, your core belief (correct or not) doesn't demonstrate if you're crazy or not.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Mar 4, 2013 11:16:11 GMT -8
Maybe "crazy" isn't the term I'm looking for. "Radical" may be a better descriptor.
|
|
|
Post by Agent Syrup on Jun 2, 2015 14:37:04 GMT -8
Oh my... Reading my old comments makes me feel downright foolish....
|
|
|
Post by piexplode on Jun 3, 2015 1:49:07 GMT -8
That's a normal feeling, the older the more mature, and the more you look back on the past and realise the errors. Doesn't matter what it was, usually, whatever the topic.
|
|