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) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg).

Note: The paper mentioned at 27:35 entitled "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief" (by D Kapogiannis) is available in PDF format here (http://www.univie.ac.at/mcogneu/lit/kapogiannis.PDF).

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 (http://vimeo.com/24710674). 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.

Rav,

I've seen the video, and I disagree with you.
You'll have to explain what it is you see.


Another thing I noticed is that he is preoccupied with ''religion''.
Scriptures, and previous to that, aural knowledge, was around long before
the modern era of the psycology of religion that he refers to.

He needs to explain the vedic knowledge and how they came to have
such advanced knowledge of the universe, or they obtained the knowledge that we lived in a universe inhabited by planets, without the aid of telescopes.

You need to explain to me how ''God'' is understood by science, why you claim
that this preacher is, talking science and not some kind of fundamentalism in which he has used science to fit his agenda.

Answer these questions first then we'll get to the science of what he proposes.

The Vedic so-called knowledge was not knowledge at all but a reasonable guess.

The Vedic so-called knowledge was not knowledge at all but a reasonable guess.

What did they base their reasoning on?

jan.

It’s a very simplistic move of only one level to create God in one’s imagination as the reason for life and all, and not a good level move at all, for then one must fool even one’s self by then exchanging horses in mid stream since this Life that begot life is even all the more the problem of what could not be accepted in the first place. It is even infinitely worse. Should they then use LIFE as the basis for Life which made life?

Can the believers even know this? No, for they just went to another [wrong] level and halted there. Yes, they stopped, now satisfied with an even larger dilemma. This is called begging the question.

Can they realize it? No, for they halted the proceedings and closed the case before it could be opened, stopping dead in the water.

What to do? Ignore them, for they are stuck fast and can’t escape.

It’s a very simplistic move of only one level to create God in one’s imagination as the reason for life and all, and not a good level move at all, for then one must fool even one’s self by then exchanging horses in mid stream since this Life that begot life is even all the more the problem of what could not be accepted in the first place. It is even infinitely worse. Should they then use LIFE as the basis for Life which made life?

Can the believers even know this? No, for they just went to another [wrong] level and halted there. Yes, they stopped, now satisfied with an even larger dilemma. This is called begging the question.

Can they realize it? No, for they halted the proceedings and closed the case before it could be opened, stopping dead in the water.

What to do? Ignore them, for they are stuck fast and can’t escape.


But how is it that vedic literature knew we were living in a universe, and the earth was not only round, bit spherical, without the aid of specialised scientific equipment?

Could it be that they knew this the way it is stated in the scripture?

If so should we conclude that they were imagining God, but got everything else right?

jan.

What did they base their reasoning on?

jan.

Our star has a planet, so it's a reasonable guess to assume other stars have planets.

Our star has a planet, so it's a reasonable guess to assume other stars have planets.

How did they know the sun was a star?
How did they know this was a planet within a solar system within a universe?
How did they know the other luminaries in the night sky were stars, when they
don't look like the sun?
How did they know the stars were years away, instead of little dots in the sky?

When you've answered these, I've got a trailor load more. :)

jan.

But how is it that vedic literature knew we were living in a universe, and the earth was not only round, bit spherical, without the aid of specialised scientific equipment?

Could it be that they knew this the way it is stated in the scripture?

If so should we conclude that they were imagining God, but got everything else right?

jan.

The moon and the sun were seen to be round, so… then, too the earth.

How did they know the sun was a star?
How did they know this was a planet within a solar system within a universe?
How did they know the other luminaries in the night sky were stars, when they
don't look like the sun?
How did they know the stars were years away, instead of little dots in the sky?

When you've answered these, I've got a trailor load more. :)

jan.

The sun is bright like the stars are. Like I said, you are assuming they knew these things rather than guessed them. I don't even think they guessed them, but we are getting away from the topic. I'll save my comments until I see the video.

But how is it that vedic literature knew we were living in a universe, and the earth was not only round, bit spherical, without the aid of specialised scientific equipment?
Maybe they saw the Earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse and realized what they were looking at.

Rav,

I've seen the video, and I disagree with you.
You'll have to explain what it is you see.



He needs to explain the vedic knowledge and how they came to have
such advanced knowledge of the universe, or they obtained the knowledge that we lived in a universe inhabited by planets, without the aid of telescopes.

You need to explain to me how ''God'' is understood by science, why you claim
that this preacher is, talking science and not some kind of fundamentalism in which he has used science to fit his agenda.

Answer these questions first then we'll get to the science of what he proposes.

Knowledge of the universe is not necessarily evidence for god or the supernatural.

Anyway, I think it's a good summary of the kind of explanations that science has to offer for the existence of religion. It's a kind of optical illusion, or cognitive illusion. Our minds that evolved for certain tasks related to living can also be deceived by those same mechanisms.

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.


i caught that..he never implied that God doesn't exist..he was just explaining how religion capitalized on the human condition(my words),

LOL..he was talking about the four year old and its natural ability for imaginary friends, saying that imaginary friends are normal, (he did not say how we grow out of it)..but that said, wouldn't that qualify Lori as normal?


..nice try Jan..

spidergoat,


Knowledge of the universe is not necessarily evidence for god or the supernatural.


That's not the point.
This preacher doesn't appear to have any idea of this culture, he seems preoccupied with Christianity.


Anyway, I think it's a good summary of the kind of explanations that science has to offer for the existence of religion.

It's pathetic, and you know it.
Show me where he scientifically explains how ''God'' came to be the entity
in all human minds, simultaneosly.


It's a kind of optical illusion, or cognitive illusion. Our minds that evolved for certain tasks related to living can also be deceived by those same mechanisms.

Oh! Give me a break. :rolleyes:

jan.

That's not the point.
This preacher doesn't appear to have any idea of this culture, he seems preoccupied with Christianity.
He isn't a preacher, he is a scientist. I don't think he's even concentrating on Christianity. One major idea is that we look for "agents" as the cause of phenomenon because we evolved in an environment in which an agent was often the cause of things, such as animals making tracks, birds making nests, etc...



It's pathetic, and you know it.
Show me where he scientifically explains how ''God'' came to be the entity
in all human minds, simultaneosly.
It's a father figure who's authority we respect. This pattern, to look for authority, might be burned into our brains at an early age through our experience in a hierarchical social structure. Monotheism is by no means a universal cultural trait. Some cultures look for multiple agents (polytheism).

He needs to explain the vedic knowledge and how they came to have such advanced knowledge of the universe, or they obtained the knowledge that we lived in a universe inhabited by planets, without the aid of telescopes.

As is typical of most theists, you are underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of human beings. We are an incredibly smart bunch and collectively we are able to operate above and beyond the abilities of any single individual. Hundreds if not thousands of years of careful observation, collaboration, testing of hypotheses and peer review, even without advanced scientific equipment, can indeed yield an impressive knowledge base. I have absolutely no doubt that there would have been some incredibly smart people in ancient India.


You need to explain to me how ''God'' is understood by science, why you claim that this preacher is, talking science and not some kind of fundamentalism in which he has used science to fit his agenda.

I don't agree that I need to do anything other than wait for you to provide a refutation of the content of the lecture. You are at least sort of in the ball back with the ancient vedic stuff. Maybe a more specific example will help.

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) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg).

Note: The paper mentioned at 27:35 entitled "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief" (by D Kapogiannis) is available in PDF format here (http://www.univie.ac.at/mcogneu/lit/kapogiannis.PDF).

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 (http://vimeo.com/24710674). 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.


Watch 39 minutes, basically got bored. He made too many manufactured conclusions from the evidence he was providing.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Rav,



As is typical of most theists, you are underestimating the intelligence and ingenuity of human beings.

Nice try, but no.



We are an incredibly smart bunch and collectively we are able to operate above and beyond the abilities of any single individual. Hundreds if not thousands of years of careful observation, collaboration, testing of hypotheses and peer review, even without advanced scientific equipment, can indeed yield an impressive knowledge base. I have absolutely no doubt that there would have been some incredibly smart people in ancient India.

You mean as long as they omit sanatana-dharma, the param-para system, and varnash-rama system from there history.
It was all imagined I take it. :rolleyes:



I don't agree that I need to do anything other than wait for you to provide a refutation of the content of the lecture. You are at least sort of in the ball back with the ancient vedic stuff. Maybe a more specific example will help.

To attempt to refute this man is to give credibility to his sermon.

This man is a mere cog in the machine. His job is give morale to the troops.
He doesn't have a clue outside of his designation. That is my opinion.

If you believe he is talking science, then as I stated in the other thread, show where it is, because I can't see it.

jan

Watch 39 minutes, basically got bored. He made too many manufactured conclusions from the evidence he was providing.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

did you notice that some of the pics were lame and unnecessary? (everyone knows what a Swiss army knife is) and he glanced over certain things (ie..and this means that..)
he complicated the presentation (maybe the audience was for scientist?)

I got a new Goddess for yee all . Maria Makiling . She is more of a Fairy of a sacred Mountain . It reminded Me of Maria , that I am Helping with her Bathroom. I be Makiling Maria , except I can't cause I made a promise to some one else that I would not Makil her. That was a joke . I Makil Her when ever I see her . I makil everyone

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

He made too many manufactured conclusions from the evidence he was providing.

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.

The above was pulled (with my bolding) from Posting rules for Religion forum (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34473), 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.

Yet it would seem that none of you theists are very interested in discussing science.
???
down boy.

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

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

???
down boy.

Did I sound angry?

[QUOTE=Bowser;2773106]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 (http://www.flixya.com/photo/1601274/cutting-hand)[/QUOTE


I don't believe in your cutting hand it did not bleed

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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34473), 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.

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.

Did I sound angry?

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 ?

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 ?

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).

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).

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

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) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg).

Note: The paper mentioned at 27:35 entitled "Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief" (by D Kapogiannis) is available in PDF format here (http://www.univie.ac.at/mcogneu/lit/kapogiannis.PDF).

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 (http://vimeo.com/24710674). 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.

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, can you respond to some of my earlier posts regarding vedic culture?

jan.

Did I sound angry?
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.

Rav, can you respond to some of my earlier posts regarding vedic culture?

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.

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.


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.

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?

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.


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..

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.

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).


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.

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

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.

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.

We're not discussing existence, we're discussing the the origin of the basic
definition/concept of God.

You've asked me to argue against the claims of this video, so I suggest you
see where I'm going with this. But it requires you to answer some to tough questions. You're the one making the claim, not me.

As I said in the other thread, existence of God has to be accepted or not accepted. So existence or not, is not the issue.

Please answer the questions I pose, and let me carry out the task you set me.

jan.

Rav,


How does the fact that science can't prove that God(s) don't exist invalidate the arguments that Andy Thomson has put forward?

The chaps argument is based on God does not exist.
If God did exist to him, would he be making the same argument?

jan.

we're discussing the the origin of the basic definition/concept of God.

If you want to continue on with the discussion you keep referencing in the other thread, then do it there. It's a related topic I agree, but this thread is for discussing the content of the lecture presented.


You've asked me to argue against the claims of this video

Yes. Try doing it then, if you feel so inclined.


Please answer the questions I pose, and let me carry out the task you set me.

To be honest, I am tired of your diversions. I'll be happy to give your arguments some attention as soon as they become something resembling a refutation of what has been presented. If you want to ask questions, ask them about some point Andy has made, or one of the papers he references. In other words, stay on topic.

point out who, when, and how the concept of God simultaneosly popped into the mind of every culture since time immemorial.

I'll deal with this one just so you don't get the mistaken impression that I'm avoiding a question that I can't answer, and because it's sort of on topic.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the concept of a single all-powerful creator deity "popped" into the mind of every culture simultaneously. First of all there is polytheism (which you are conveniently ignoring) and secondly recorded history only goes back about 6000 years.

Done.

Rav,


There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the concept of a single all-powerful creator deity "popped" into the mind of every culture simultaneously.

1) So what evidence is there?
2) You say this chap is using science. What is it?
3) How does he know that neuroscience is actually capturing the concept
of God, and religious experience in peoples brains?

Do you know of any culture where the notion of God was introduced
at a later stage, from having no previous notion of God?



First of all there is polytheism (which you are conveniently ignoring) and secondly recorded history only goes back about 6000 years.
Done.[/QUOTE]


I'm not ignoring it as we're talking about ''God''.
But as you've brought it up. What of it?

jan.

You asked how the concept of God popped into every culture simultaneously, but there is simply no evidence that it did.

And you are still refusing to address any of the core arguments in the lecture. If you don't want to that's fine, I can't force you to. But I don't see much point to your participation in this thread if you're not going to.

You asked how the concept of God popped into every culture simultaneously, but there is simply no evidence that it did.

And you are still refusing to address any of the core arguments in the lecture. If you don't want to that's fine, I can't force you to. But I don't see much point to your participation in this thread if you're not going to.

I've asked some questions which, when answered, will lead to the problems with the core argument.

Can you answer those questions please?

jan.

I've asked some questions which, when answered, will lead to the problems with the core argument.

Can you answer those questions please?

I see nothing but further attempts at diversion. If you can refute Andy's arguments, do it. Do it directly. Focus on him. Pretend I'm not here.

I see nothing but further attempts at diversion. If you can refute Andy's arguments, do it. Do it directly. Focus on him. Pretend I'm not here.

Rav, can you explain to me where his argument is scientific?

If there is no science behind his claims, then arguing agaisnt his
and your beliefs are a waste of time.

Please comply if you can.
If you can't, I will understand, as I am asking some very tough questions.

jan.

Rav, can you explain to me where his argument is scientific?

If there is no science behind his claims, then arguing agaisnt his
and your beliefs are a waste of time.

He provides references to studies and other material throughout.

He provides references to studies and other material throughout.

This is where we differ.
I don't see any scientific references, only assumptions.

You asked me here to find fault with his ideas, and when I
ask you questions you avoid them.

I think you agree that there is no scientific
basis for his argument.

It's okay, we understand that you have to stay
loyal to your cause. ;)

jan.

This is where we differ.
I don't see any scientific references, only assumptions.

They are in there. If you think I'm lying, then report me.


You asked me here to find fault with his ideas, and when I
ask you questions you avoid them.

You haven't tried to refute any of the content of the lecture, and I've made it clear that I am only interested in discussing the content of the lecture, in a thread about the lecture, several times.

I ignore your questions when they are obvious attempts at diversion. If you want to start another thread entitled "Are atheists arguments automatically invalid because they don't believe in God?" then I'll address that preposterous idea there, not here.

You're screwing around Jan, and everyone can see it.

Rav,


They are in there. If you think I'm lying, then report me.

Who to? :D

I wouldn't call it ''lying''. Defending is more apropriate.



You haven't tried to refute any of the content of the lecture, and I've made it clear that I am only interested in discussing the content of the lecture, in a thread about the lecture, several times.


I have explained to you that to try and refute a belief is a pointless exercise.
Unless I know how the neuroscience actually ties in with God, I can only assume ''God'' is the subject matter due to personal choice, which means his views aren't based in science.



I ignore your questions when they are obvious attempts at diversion.

You can't know that untill you answer them.
Is this the same kind of scientific observation used in your link? :)



If you want to start another thread entitled "Are atheists arguments automatically invalid because they don't believe in God?" then I'll address that preposterous idea there, not here.


Rav, this deflection is lame.
His arguments are invalid because thus far there is no science to back it up.
You claim it is scientific, but won't reveal how or why.

Here's a question for you. How does he know that the results of neuroscience
actually pertains to ''God'' and ''religious experience'' (whatever that is)?


You're screwing around Jan, and everyone can see it.

Actually Rav, I'm not.
You are.
And I hope other theists who tend to take the back seat in these kinds of discussions, can see that.

jan.

Mr. Thompson explains that we are getting close to a science of belief, not that one is already established and proven.

His arguments are invalid because thus far there is no science to back it up. You claim it is scientific, but won't reveal how or why.

I will say it again. There are numerous references to various studies throughout the lecture.


Here's a question for you. How does he know that the results of neuroscience actually pertains to ''God'' and ''religious experience'' (whatever that is)?

Probably something to do with the fact that Dimitrios Kapogiannis et al put a bunch of religious people into functional MRI machines which, among other things, demonstrated that the components of religious belief use the same neural circuits which mediate normal social cognitive functions. See from 27:35 in the lecture for how this ties in.

We beleive in god as we want somebody to be out there that is thinking about us and ready to help us anytime we want .

We beleive in god as we want somebody to be out there that is thinking about us and ready to help us anytime we want .
its the genie part that doesn't agree with me.