What will it take for theists to stop believing?

Tiassa,

Everything you've said is compatible with the claim that god is a creation of the human mind. Perhaps a necessary and useful creation, but a creation nonetheless. Parlor tricks don't exist on their own, they only exist insofar as someone performs them.

Is this your position? If so, why do you consider it a theistic position? For example, if I took the same position with respect to aliens, I would say that I don't believe in aliens. Is your belief in god more akin to willful suspension of disbelief? Or are you trading on a pragmatic conception of truth?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Discovering the mysteries of the brain...

What Kills me is that for one set of lies mankind takes on a whole new set of lies. One turns his back upon religion for a whole new set of lies to comfort the human mind beliving in their importance setting up false social pretense making ass of themselves as much as their fore-fathers and mothers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Drnihili:

Can't you even respect your own logic???

Funny you should say that, you seem to believe that by saying I am wrong this makes it so... foolish boy.

If you took out all the time you waste to idiotically claim that I cannot understand you without ever showing me how I do this.. and actually bothered to formulate any empirical proof that you are better than me... maybe I could take you seriously for once.
I feel sorry for you... you know, being totally incapable of showing how that I am wrong.
In any case, bother to read and reply to arguments rather than claim insanity, it only makes you look crazy.
Peace.

Tiassa,

I edited that out, but I don't know why its still there. To be ignored.


Wonder if this post finally expired itself... any actual debate left?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again, if you would bother to read, you would see your questions already answered. As for whether any debate is left, there never was any in your posts, why should you expect to find some now? If you want to debate, you have to say something of substance. If all you can do is dress third grade retorts up in adolescent verbage, your not likely to get much debate.

But let's be honest. You never wanted debate. You just wanted to harangue people about their beliefs and beat your chest in a victory dance when you shoulted louder and longer than they did. Now, predictably, you are left wondering if anyone is listening. They never were Prisme, they never were. But largely because you had nothing to say.

 

Biology and God

I read an article the other day entitled:

"Is God in our heads?"

It talked about a study (at a university that the name evades me), that attempted to stimulate the parts of the brain that gave the impression to the human that God or a supreme being was present.

This in itself, is not what my beef is about. You want to find these receptors? Fine. I could not care less, espescially since it has been showned that the brain has morphic capabilites: (when a part of the brain is destroyed or hurt, in some cases, other parts will adopt the role of the damaged segment.)

Anyways, my problem is what the scientists actually conlude from their tests: God is only make believe.

Now I always knew that scientists made bad philosophers.. but this one surprised me. Lets examine why:

----------------------

Scientists claim:

Since I have found the area that the brain uses to indicate the presence of God\spiritual being... this means that God is purely an organical feature.

1- There is an area in the brain that exists
2- When triggered, patient feels God
---------------
3- Thus God is make believe, thus false.


My claim:

1- There is an area in the brain that exists
2- When triggered, the patient feels God
---------------
3- Thus God is a natural feature of the human mind, thus most
likely true.


But lets examine the scientists claim and put it throught the blender for a couple of minutes:

We all know that cold and warm temperatures exist. We have sensors in our body that inform the correct part of the brain that atmospheric conditions are changing and that, if need be, corrections must be applied: ex: hand on hot stove.

Now, some scientists discover that sensors in our brain exist in order to inform the body that God\supreme being is present... should we readily assume He doesn't exist?
The atheist scientist thinks so... but again, he only concluded what he wanted to conclude. He didn't bother to explore every possibility.

Evolutionary theories are already in deep trouble explaining how man came from the apes and how nature operates purely on a survival mode. It is only normal for evolutionists to see creatures with the most useful features survive longer.
But then we have a problem when talking about this part of our brain that is used to give us a feeling of the presence of God.... what is its use?
How can evolutionists explain the slow and persistent developement of something unuseful?

Some may say that man needs God. Hey, if your willing to give the theists what they want, go right ahead.
God = man's nature can only lead to the conclusion that atheists are not living according to their mental structure. A duck makes a bad eagle. So if it is true that God is natural to man, then atheists are ducks flying in a pack of eagles right now.

All in all, biology has actually proven that God, like it or not, is part of us and our mental scheme. Whether science bothers to draw the correct conclusions in comparison to its finding is not our problem.
The presence of a universal brain structure that can be found in every human being, in all of its case, prove to be useful and reflect what is present in the world:

The brain records:
Cold\hot, altitude, speed of movement, passage of time, has many recognition patterns (You don't re-learn to read each time you see alphabets or look at a road map each time you drive home) ... and yet nobody doubts the existence and usefullness of these bain areas.

Why should God be more doubted then?

Prisme


P.S.
Dhrili: You are a sophistic sob that socrates and plato would have enjoyed to point and laugh at. I read your posts: argument dodging. So let me know if you ever want to actually debate rather than acting like a ignorant pre-schooler.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*yawn*

I read an article the other day somewhere I can't remember by people I don't know, and I can't produce a shred of evidence, but I think that maybe if I preface my blathering by saying I read it somewhere and make some vague allusions that it was done at a university, then maybe people will take me seriously and think I'm smarter than a scientist.

If you want to talk about research, produce the article, or at least a reference so that others can check it for themselves. If you want to construct straw men to serve as your whipping boys so that you can feel better about yourself, then have the decency to be honest about it.

Once again you've told the other side what it's position is and then argued that they're wrong. This time you hid behing the "I iread it somewhere" veil so that no one could disagree with you on your interpretation.

Prisme - 1
Logic and rational integrity - 0

Keep it up, looks like you're winning.

BTW, I'd be happy to debate. But first you have to say something with substance.

 

Are you perchance referring to the work of Persinger, Newberg, and D’Aquili. Your description is a far cry from their work but it's the closest I can find.

 

Look you hypocrite, unless you have just fallen from the moon you would know that scientists are actually trying to determine what area of the brain serves what purpose. You need references for that, or will you burn me to the stake for inscinuating that science are playing with the dead?
You yourself seem to know of people who are currently studying the brain.

This said, my pretentions are purely philosophical. Contrarely to an idiot whose only talent is to pretend to say something, I am showing the condition of being of a situation: ei: our brain has specific areas that stimulate a feeling of the presence of a higher being\God, thus my elaborations.

This is not the article I read, but I managed to find it by typing: is god in our brain? ... real easy dhrili.. even you could have done this with a little effort (<---I know, foreign word for you).

http://www.maps.org/media/vedantam.html

http://www.psychjournal.com/interviews/Vol_3_03_Newberg_1.htm

Now I will yawn at your lame insults.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes I know people are studying the brain. Again you have failed to read carefully. I asked about a specific article that you claimed to have read and have failed to produce or reference. I made no comments about brain research in general. You made specific claims about the structure of an argument given by an unnamed scientist. You can't defend such a claim merely by saying that everyone knows people are studying the brain.

If you're trying to be philosophical, then you're failing miserably. State your thesis and provide your argument for it. Don't draw up straw men and then crow about how smart you are because you see through your own lame characterizations of them. What you're doing is merely an example of poor reasoning, not philosophy.

Yes, I did that search too, and actually read several of the articles that came up. You'll notice that the articles you link to refer to the same scientists I mentioned above. But then, that would require actually reading the articles instead of just posting links you find on a search engine.

If you had bothered to read the articles you linked to, you would see that they bear little resemblance to your presentation of the article you claimed to have read. In fact the research is nothing like what you presented and the scientits don't make the argument you claim. They don't even reach the conclusion you assign to them. Here's the second paragraph of the second link you provided:

So you see, at least that scientist isn't making the argument you claim.

It's time to put up or shut up. Either produce an article that matches what you presented above, or admit that you're just another bag of hot air making it all up so that you can feel safer in your beliefs. In the meantime, try actually reading something rather than scanning the title and making up what you think the author said.

 

Wow... you are a rare find Dhrili... but then again, your the type of find we could manage without. Go read your post before your last and re-read your reply... it's just so, so, retarded.

You accuse me of making stuff up, then actually name the stuff and in your later post tell me you already found the stuff yourself... .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(weirdo)

I'm reading 7 habits of effective people right now. In the chapter of time wasters, I found your name, so I'm dropping you.

Unsuscribing from thread and saving time

 

Prisme

From a couple of pages back in this thread:

This said, the atheist is a quitter in the sense that he has revoked his personal search for a spiritual life.

What makes you think a spiritual life is a requirement for existence?

atheists deny the existence of their own faith

Or they have simply come to the conclusion a faith is unnecessary and useless to their lives.

So atheists are not as 'enlightened' as they usually pretend to be. They act just like theists, except for the first clause... but what is even more funny in their position is that they are actually 'acting' like theists when 'believing' there is no God.
Of course, they will never admit it, they don't have any faith.. right?

I think it is more along the lines that they don’t take the time to bother to think about gods and faith – they have better things to do with their time. Besides, what would be the point of denying ones faith?

Atheists are quitters by ignoring the issue and don't even understand their contradictory position, all the while claiming 'knowledge superiority'.

I think you’re missing the point – a theist’s Sunday morning is about donning their best and making their presence known in a church coupled with a spray of holy water. Atheist's don’t even think about it. Theirs is a morning of donning a swimsuit and strapping on the water skis – the spray of water comes off the Evinrude.

 

drnihili

Any careful study of my posts will reveal that yes, this is essentially my position.

Because it acknowledges the existence and potential of God.

There's a better case to be made for aliens than God. But some people are starting to treat aliens like gods; e.g. alien-seed theory.

Nope. It's an acknowledgment of a condition; it comes from a clipped quote from Anselm. I think it's Anselm. But I can never get that right. God is that which is greater than that which we can conceive.

Any description of God is inaccurate. Consider Kharkovli, an old thread from last year.

I've been accused of such before.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: drnihili

I believe the quote from Anslem is that God is that "than which nothing greater can be thought." It is essential to Anselm's proof that we be able to conceive of God. If you don't grant him that, the proof is a non starter.

My puzzlement is at the simultaneous admission of Gode being a parlour trick and also existing. Parlour tricks are illusions, sleights of hand, etc. Normally if we say that something is illusory, we mean thereby that it doesn't really exist. You seem to be saying that God is illusory and then using that illusory nature as the basis for inferring God's existence.

Is there something else you can think of that fits this pattern of reasoning; X is illusory, ergo X exists? Perhaps an analogy would help me to better grasp your position.

Finally, when you say that any description of God is inaccurate, do you mean that it contains falsehoods or merely that it is incomplete? If the former, then what do you say of the description: "God is such as cannot be accurately described"?

I'm not especially trying to point our flaws in your logic. I suspect you're already well aware that it seems a bit odd to those who don't share your reasoning. I'm merely trying to understand what your reasoning is and hope that by pointing out areas that seem odd to me, you can more effectively calrify it to me.

 

Drnihili

Finally, when you say that any description of God is inaccurate, do you mean that it contains falsehoods or merely that it is incomplete? If the former, then what do you say of the description: "God is such as cannot be accurately described"?

No ones description of God can be either accurate or valid since everyone’s description will vary somewhat or will be altogether different. So, whose description of God is accurate or valid and whose description are you willing to accept?

 

I don't believe in God, so I'm not willing to accept any description as accurate. Same with Unicorns and Leprechauns. Descriptions can be faithful to a given tradition, but not accurate in the normal sense.

However, I don't follow how the fact that everyone's description will vary slightly means that none of them are accurate. At best you could infer that we could not know which, if any, were accurate.

But my primary worry is with what notion of accuracy is at play here. A description can be innaccurate either because it makes false claims or because it leaves out details. In what way must any description of God be innaccurate, the former or the latter?

 

Drnihili

Any description of gods will most likely be of a highly personal nature to each individual who has “found” their god. Any mental images of their god could come from a variety of sources including their own imaginations. Based on this, I doubt any one person would agree on any other person’s descriptions. From a personal point of view, there could be no false claims or absence of detail, however it would only be relevant to that particular individual.

 

The fun part is that this exact question can be asked of an atheist.

Totally agreed. God is a smart guy, he couldn't make it that easy for atheists to disbelieve. So give up trying to convince us theists that God doesn't exist please? As you can see you can't and yet you still try.

 

The practical reality of God

Well, right. That's why I don't bother with the rest of Anselm's proof. Anselm is generally ridiculous. His is merely the first text in which I ever saw the words in that order. The rest is my own concoction drawn from various influences.

This particular parlor trick, by proxy of the influence it wields over people's minds, is a practical reality.

Tell that to the families of those killed by people thinking they were doing some holy business.

See, the thing is that for all its pomp and bullsh@t, God is tremendously powerful in human affairs. Furthermore, if you strip away the religious accretions and examine the psychological and anthropological functions of gods, you'll find a number of real questions about existence and justice and self sublimated in the symbology. Just because you can't hold it in your hand doesn't mean it's not real. It's not real the way your ass is real, but real the way your "rights" are real; real the way your self-image is real. Are you cool? Do you just think you are? Does it really matter? And so on and so forth.

Elaine Pagels writes:

Before there was psychology, there was religion. Religion persists despite those influences which diminish its integrity. Understanding the fiction by which so many justify so much violence presents the challenge of understanding the real and functional force of God in human affaris, a daunting task indeed.

X wields influence in real affairs. X is a practical reality. X must be accounted for in the solution.

(Q) has presented the functional theme well. But by the "definition" of God offered--that snippet from Anselm--God necessarily defies description. Your description is an accurate one, a variation of Anselm, and a position recognized by many non-Abramic religions. Within the traditions of Abraham (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) there exist ways of speaking of God in the negative. But these are mere philosophical niceties unnecessary save for the religious assertions they consider. Kalam, Via Negativa, Falsafah, &c.

God, in the end, is rendered without consequence and therefore irrelevant. God exists in some form, but what that is I cannot say. Whether it is purely a trick of the mind, or if Jung's collective unconscious can reliably be stretched to the fantastical ends some would assert, thus "creating" God--in an ironic twist, creating God ex nihilo°--remains an open question.

In the end, part of it is that nothing exists in a vacuum for me; if I consider religion at all I am also aware of why. For myself, I see that certain issues pertaining to religions and belief in God complicate human progress. Certainly it began as a personal thing; I had to learn to resent God before I could abandon God, but the abandonment of the theistic assertion (at that time encompassed in a post-Lutheran worldview) simply couldn't cut it. I'm fine with the idea of reality equaling Nihilism, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to make up some reason to enjoy my time in the Universe.

Notes:

° ex nihilo - Making irony even more ironic, see New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia - creation and "Creation ex nihilo - Without God. Couldn't resist.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ok, I think I'm getting the details down a bit better. One more question though.

You affirm that God exists, the atheist denies that god exists. Is there a disagreement between you? If so, is it a disagreement over what reality is like, or a disagreement over the meaning of "exists"?

 

Scope of vision

I'm of the notion that it's an issue of breadth of vision. A dash of interpretation and a smidge of perspective.

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!