Hyperactive Agency

Zombrex

This is a response to Newsite from another thread placed here to not derail the original thread.

Newsite wrote: »

It'd be fair to say that what you're claiming (and the most common argument of the unbeliever) is that it is folly to believe in a God for which there can be no scientific or rational basis.

Not exactly, although not believing a claim about something unless you have strong evidence for it is in general a good idea.

But with religion and other magical thinking it goes further, it is closer to it is a folly to believe in something (anything) when we know there is psychological and mental tricks being deployed in the human brain that make such a belief seem mentally pleasing.

I wince every time a religious person or someone who believes in supernatural things like astrology, tells me "Well it makes perfect sense to me", it is like someone saying But I saw the magician put the rabbit in the hat!

Newsite wrote: »

Out of interest what are the reasons, in summary form?

Sure

Humans have evolved a brain primarily for human to human interaction, that is what most of our brain does (that and lower functions such as controlling sight, breathing etc).

The evolutionary reason for this is that this served a much greater need for most of our history when we were hunter gatherers than say modeling rain or working out how atoms work.

We still need to process the world around us though, so the brain co-opted some of its primary function of human to human interaction for this purpose. And ultimately it was "good enough". Understanding the wider world in terms of human to human interaction provided enough of an advantage to our ancestors to help them survive. After all it doesn't really matter if you think a bolder is coming towards you because it wants to kill you so long as you understand to get out of the way.

Along with this viewing nature in terms of human to human interaction, which is known as hyperactive agency detection, we also developed what is known as theory of mind, a mental view of a person as their mind independent to their body. Evolutionary psychologists believe this developed as a method of continuing to think about people who were not physically present, something animals seem to struggle to do but clearly has evolutionary advantages for us. If you can still mentally process what you think people who you cannot see are thinking and doing you can do everything from planning what dinner to serve to your family tonight to imagining how a neighboring tribe is going to wage war against you.

So there are a number of cognative short cuts we have developed over the thousands of years we have been evolving that have a secondary effect of producing things like religion and magical thinking.

Viewing the world around us in terms of agents in nature leads to beliefs in gods and other supernatural beings that act and control nature for specific human like reasons.

Not only is this how we are prone to viewing nature, it is in fact far less mentally stressful for us to do this, again for the reasons detailed above. Trying to understand reality as a huge set of interconnected natural processes and systems is far far to mentally stressful for our brains since our brains did not develop with this as their primary focus.

It is not a coincidence that people very often experience religious like feelings at time of extreme stress or feelings of the world being out of control. What is happening is that their brain is actually simply giving up trying to understand all the different systems and processes in the world round us that are confusing and complicating our lives and is resetting to a default setting of viewing all these problems in a context it can understand. This de-stressing of the brain can lead to a huge sense of relaxation and euphoria, or as people report a religious experience.

Or to put it another way it is far less mentally stressful to view our lives in terms of a plan designed by God for these human like reasons than trying to mentally model all the different effects on our lives, from random tragedies to the huge complexity of systems like the weather or social crime.

I want to keep this short but I can write for hours about this stuff. To sum up your brain has evolved to process human to human interaction and this ability has been co-opted by your brain and applied to process the natural world around us which leads to people viewing the natural world around us in terms of human like agents in nature. This leads to religion and gods, and also makes such explanations mentally pleasing and attractive to us in a "common sense" kind of way. It is far more mentally stressful to view the world without the context of these agents.

Newsite wrote: »

What you say here (and this is the fundamental argument for atheism, or at least the atheist argument for why religious belief is foolish/non-sensical), is that the reason people believe is not because the 'stories are true', but because believers choose to believe they are true, without any evidence to support the belief.

No, the reason they believe these stories is because the stories are constructed in particular ways so that they are mentally pleasing to the person, they fit a pattern that the person is already pre-disposed to accepting because it presents the world around them in a way that allows their brain to process it in the least stressful fashion.

Think of it like a magician trick where the magician makes you think someone has happened in his hands through slight of hand. You think it has happened not because you are stupid, but because your brain is pre-disposed to assuming something moving in one direction will continue in that direction, the magician can then quickly swap something into his other hand and you will think it will be in the hand you saw it moving towards. That is because your brain does short cuts in cognitive processes, short cuts that are manipulated by the magician.

Religion is exactly the same, it is manipulation of the short cuts your brain has introduced to cut down on how much mental processing it has to do in trying to understand the world around you.

A lot of atheists become atheists when they realize this is happening, and you don't need to understand all the evolutionary science behind it to see this happening. A good example is to look at how many religious people base the rational for their faith on the concept that it makes more sense to them than the alternative, an alternative that they consider ludicrous.

They are not stupid. There is a very good reason why they consider the alternative ludicrous, that being that they have a human brain and human brains are not designed to process the massively parallell systems in nature, their brains are designed to process human interaction.

Viewing the world in these terms, where gods and spirits exist in nature and are being the order and structure of the world around us fits how their brains work.

The alternative is ludicrous if you have a brain that is not designed to easily process such systems. It is as ludicrous to an atheist than to theist.

The difference is that the atheists knows the trick of the brain is happening. Once you are aware of it it doesn't matter how ludicrous the alternative is, it is like knowing how a magic trick is done, you don't ever go back to thinking the trick was magic even if thinking about what is actually happening is more confusing than thinking the magician actually teleported across the room.

Zombrex

Wow, a lot of thanks. Thanks guys

No responses from believers, that a good thing? :pac:

Newsite

Are you getting all these thanks because yours is the explanation most pleasing to them, and most comforting in endorsing their atheistic 'choice'?

That is interesting, that hyperactive agency theory. I suppose you could define it simply as 'seeing what you want to see', or more specifically, 'running with the theory which explains a phenomenon in a manner most pleasing and reassuring to the mind'. So, a classic example could be a haunted castle. Let's say I'm invited to spend a night in a castle reputed to be haunted. I go there, spend the night and during the night I hear rattles and creaks and maybe a scream of some sort. There are a couple of ways I could go.

1) I know there are others staying in the castle, and one or more of them might have gotten up during the night to use the bathroom, causing the floorboards to creak.

2) It's a windy night, and the rattling I hear is from a window left slightly ajar upstairs, which I thought I had closed earlier, but perhaps I didn't.

3) Any large building is bound to make noises by itself at night (like a house 'settling'.

But, because I've paid a few quid to spend the night there, I seek out the explanation most pleasing to me - that the castle is indeed 'haunted', and I can now go and tell all my friends about the 'haunted house'.

And so the theory of hyperactive agency detection asserts that it's because believing the house is 'haunted', and that there is an external 'agent' influencing the scenario, is more satisfying than the other more probable explanations in 1-3 above.

And so, applied to the topic of Christianity and God, you could extrapolate it to assert that God is not ruling over men, or over the universe, and that he does not cause bad things or good things to happen, and so on, because all of these things are random, simply a product or result of evolution. And that the latter explanation is far less pleasing than the former, we have belief.

Sound fair enough?

The problem, though, is that the premise on which your theory is build is built on sand and flawed for one major reason which is this - it misconceives the entire reason for Christian belief in the first place.

I wanted to note a post which you made recently which came to mind, where you said 'if more Christians read the Bible then maybe more of them would become atheists'. This in itself shows you have flaws in your understanding!

The thrust of your post above is that we choose to believe in God because out of all the available options presented before us, we choose belief in God because it is the one most pleasing to our minds. This is the your 'castle of sand'. Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on. We believe because God is acting us in the Holy Spirit, giving us the free gift of belief. Such that belief is the evidence of God, not that someone who believes does so on account of their own merit and choosing.

This is, in essence, the whole truth of the Bible - and based on your comment I highlighted, and backed up by your posts, cannot be evident to you.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

Sarky

You might be right, if one ignores all the evidence for the theory.

Mena

Zombrex wrote: »

Wow, a lot of thanks. Thanks guys

No responses from believers, that a good thing? :pac:

I thanked out of peer pressure

MagicMarker

Newsite wrote: »

Are you getting all these thanks because yours is the explanation most pleasing to them, and most comforting in endorsing their atheistic 'choice'?

That is interesting, that hyperactive agency theory. I suppose you could define it simply as 'seeing what you want to see', or more specifically, 'running with the theory which explains a phenomenon in a manner most pleasing and reassuring to the mind'. So, a classic example could be a haunted castle. Let's say I'm invited to spend a night in a castle reputed to be haunted. I go there, spend the night and during the night I hear rattles and creaks and maybe a scream of some sort. There are a couple of ways I could go.

1) I know there are others staying in the castle, and one or more of them might have gotten up during the night to use the bathroom, causing the floorboards to creak.

2) It's a windy night, and the rattling I hear is from a window left slightly ajar upstairs, which I thought I had closed earlier, but perhaps I didn't.

3) Any large building is bound to make noises by itself at night (like a house 'settling'.

But, because I've paid a few quid to spend the night there, I seek out the explanation most pleasing to me - that the castle is indeed 'haunted', and I can now go and tell all my friends about the 'haunted house'.

And so the theory of hyperactive agency detection asserts that it's because believing the house is 'haunted', and that there is an external 'agent' influencing the scenario, is more satisfying than the other more probable explanations in 1-3 above.

And so, applied to the topic of Christianity and God, you could extrapolate it to assert that God is not ruling over men, or over the universe, and that he does not cause bad things or good things to happen, and so on, because all of these things are random, simply a product or result of evolution. And that the latter explanation is far less pleasing than the former, we have belief.

Sound fair enough?

The problem, though, is that the premise on which your theory is build is built on sand and flawed for one major reason which is this - it misconceives the entire reason for Christian belief in the first place.

I wanted to note a post which you made recently which came to mind, where you said 'if more Christians read the Bible then maybe more of them would become atheists'. This in itself shows you have flaws in your understanding!

The thrust of your post above is that we choose to believe in God because out of all the available options presented before us, we choose belief in God because it is the one most pleasing to our minds. This is the your 'castle of sand'. Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on. We believe because God is acting us in the Holy Spirit, giving us the free gift of belief. Such that belief is the evidence of God, not that someone who believes does so on account of their own merit and choosing.

This is, in essence, the whole truth of the Bible - and based on your comment I highlighted, and backed up by your posts, cannot be evident to you.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

Dear jesus.

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on. We believe because God is acting us in the Holy Spirit, giving us the free gift of belief. Such that belief is the evidence of God, not that someone who believes does so on account of their own merit and choosing.

This argument raises (at least) two fundamental issues. Firstly, if we ultimately cannot ourselves decide on belief in god, then it is not a free gift, it is simply something inflicted upon us. Secondly if belief in god, something which you claim is achieved on gods whim alone, is needed to get into heaven*, then this implies that the punishment given out for not believing in god (ie. hell) is given to us for something that is entirely gods doing. This contradiction has been pointed out to you before. At least twice.

*John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I John 5:11 ...God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

I John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Knasher

Newsite wrote: »

[..]The problem, though, is that the premise on which your theory is build is built on sand and flawed for one major reason which is this - it misconceives the entire reason for Christian belief in the first place.

Okay with you so far, that was a perfect example of hyperactive agency and you have primed me for a good explanation of why religion (specifically christianity for some reason) doesn't fall into that category.

Newsite wrote: »

I wanted to note a post which you made recently which came to mind, where you said 'if more Christians read the Bible then maybe more of them would become atheists'. This in itself shows you have flaws in your understanding!

[...]Such that belief is the evidence of God, not that someone who believes does so on account of their own merit and choosing.

This is, in essence, the whole truth of the Bible - and based on your comment I highlighted, and backed up by your posts, cannot be evident to you.

And then it ends up being exactly equivalent to saying that belief in the existence of ghosts is proof that ghosts actually do exist and because you don't believe ghosts really exist it is impossible for you to be shown any of the special proof. Okay, well thanks for that.

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This argument raises (at least) two fundamental issues. Firstly, if we ultimately cannot ourselves decide on belief in god, then it is not a free gift, it is simply something inflicted upon us.

First things first - if you truly believe that the gift of grace and the gift of the sight of eternal life is effectively an 'affliction', then you find yourself in a difficult place to begin with, in terms of understanding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly if belief in god, something which you claim is achieved on gods whim alone, is needed to get into heaven*, then this implies that the punishment given out for not believing in god (ie. hell) is given to us for something that is entirely gods doing.

No. Simple common sense would say that this cannot be true. This is essentially 'predestination to hell'. Now, if this were true - if, as you say, man has no hand act or part in his punishment, then how could he be condemned for this? Surely it would be no more than a 'get out of jail free card' to behave how you like. Clearly this would be ridiculous since the Bible preaches nothing if not a call to repentance.

And if you are called to repentance then how can repenting, i.e. seeking to avoid hell and go to heaven - be impossible?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This contradiction has been pointed out to you before. At least twice.

*John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I John 5:11 ...God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

I John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Yes exactly.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

He that believes is under the influence of the Spirit, he is in grace. He that rejects him cannot be saved, and the wrath of God (his displeasure) is evident. There is also this verse from Paul:

Romans 9:22 'What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction':

Translation: 'God keeps His patience with you, enduring your disobedience, given that, you are suitable to be made an example of His power (wrath) at the time of your final judgment'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I John 5:11 ...God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Yes this means that God has given us the means to eternal life - His Son. Simple as that. Notice how it doesn't mention the 'law' here

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

'He who believes has eternal life, he who does not, does not.

sephir0th

Newsite wrote: »

That is interesting, that hyperactive agency theory. I suppose you could define it simply as 'seeing what you want to see', or more specifically, 'running with the theory which explains a phenomenon in a manner most pleasing and reassuring to the mind'.

______ H. Agency God
Scientific --- Yes _ No
Testable - --Yes _ No
Evidence --- Yes _ No
Natural

---

Yes _ No
Universal --- Yes _ No
Comforting - No_Yes

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

Are you getting all these thanks because yours is the explanation most pleasing to them, and most comforting in endorsing their atheistic 'choice'?

Ha

Doubt it though, on a serious note atheists tend to be less happy and have more stress in their lives and worse health. It is difficult to see how atheism is mentally pleasing and reduces stress in the way we know religious faith does. I'm open to correction though if anyone has any evidence.

Newsite wrote: »

That is interesting, that hyperactive agency theory. I suppose you could define it simply as 'seeing what you want to see', or more specifically, 'running with the theory which explains a phenomenon in a manner most pleasing and reassuring to the mind'.

Correct, though we have to be careful that we are using pleasing in the same sense.

It is not consciously pleasing, like thinking of bunny rabbits. It is subconsciously pleasing. You aren't aware that it is pleasing, it manifests itself in simply making a lot of sense to you.

The awareness comes from the opposite, when you try and think of the world in different terms and find yourself getting stressed and addled and finding the whole experience dis-pleasurable.

I liken it to viewing a 3D film, since I find my eyes get very stressed when viewing a 3D film and I get headaches. This is because my brain is not designed to view 3D as the film presents it to us, 3D films are a hack, they do not mimic 3D perfectly and as such the brain can struggle to process it.

Take off the 3D glasses and look at something else and my brain returns to processing the world in the normal fashion. This is mentally pleasurable to my brain, but it is not as if I'm aware of this beyond simply not feeling sick any more.

Newsite wrote: »

And so the theory of hyperactive agency detection asserts that it's because believing the house is 'haunted', and that there is an external 'agent' influencing the scenario, is more satisfying than the other more probable explanations in 1-3 above.

It goes a bit deeper than that. You don't believe that there is a ghost because you believe the house is haunted.

You believe the house is haunted in the first place because of hyperactive agency detection.

So you are in the house and you hear a noise. Your first instinct (no matter who you are) is that someone made that noise. That instinct is very powerful, even if you rationalize it away that there no one here and that old houses just make noise on their own you will be fighting against your first instinct that someone made that noise.

This leads to stories of hunted houses and ghosts in the first place.

Newsite wrote: »

And so, applied to the topic of Christianity and God, you could extrapolate it to assert that God is not ruling over men, or over the universe, and that he does not cause bad things or good things to happen, and so on, because all of these things are random, simply a product or result of evolution. And that the latter explanation is far less pleasing than the former, we have belief.

Correct. It is far too difficult to mentally model the world as a massive set of multi-parrallel natural processes. Our brains are simply not designed for that. We default to viewing things as happening and being caused by human like agents.

Gods, including your own, are classic examples of this. They think like us, they do thinks for human like reasons (love, jealousy, anger). They allow us to view nature in understandable terms.

Newsite wrote: »

The thrust of your post above is that we choose to believe in God because out of all the available options presented before us, we choose belief in God because it is the one most pleasing to our minds.

Yes though you don't choose to do this any more than you choose to have headaches at 3D movies.

It is most pleasing to your minds, that is just a quirk of how your brains work. It is most pleasing to my mind as well, since I am also a human.

This is just the way human brains have evolved, you can't choose or not choose it. You can become aware of it, which like become aware of a magic trick, tends to lead people to atheism.

But their brains continue to work exactly the same way, something like Christianity or Hinduism is still far more pleasing to my mind than atheism.

Newsite wrote: »

We believe because God is acting us in the Holy Spirit, giving us the free gift of belief. Such that belief is the evidence of God, not that someone who believes does so on account of their own merit and choosing.

Imagine you met a person suffering from hearing voices in his head. The doctors say to him you are suffering from schizophrenia and that is why you hear voices in your head.

The patient thinks about this for minute and then turns to the doctors and says "Doctors that is an interesting idea but you are forgetting one very important fact. I hear voices in my head because there are people in my head!"

Now of course religious faith is not a mental illness, it is far more mundane than that, but saying I'm forgetting that you believe because God makes you believe is circular reasoning. It only holds if we accept the premise that God exists, and he most likely doesn't. You are imagining it.

You believe in the existence of God. You believe that because of the reasons already detailed. You believe it because the story presented by Christianity, in things like the Bible, is mentally pleasing to you and makes sense to you.

God no more exists than the man actually has people in his head. The question then becomes why do you and millions of other people believe each of their religions is true? And that is what evolutionary psychology is explaining.

The man thinks he hears voices because damage to the brain, you think God is real because of the particulars of how the brain works. It is not damage, it is just the normal way the brain works.

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

No. Simple common sense would say that this cannot be true. This is essentially 'predestination to hell'. Now, if this were true - if, as you say, man has no hand act or part in his punishment, then how could he be condemned for this? Surely it would be no more than a 'get out of jail free card' to behave how you like. Clearly this would be ridiculous since the Bible preaches nothing if not a call to repentance.

But you preach that understanding of the bible is decided not by the reader but by god, therefore this call for repentance will only be heeded (assuming its even understood) by those that god had already chosen. It doesn't matter what I do, god has already decided that I cant be saved and no amount of reading the bible will help as god wont let me understand because I'm a "blasphemous unbeliever".

Newsite wrote: »

And if you are called to repentance then how can repenting, i.e. seeking to avoid hell and go to heaven - be impossible?

Its impossible if you are actually repenting for something that was gods choice (ie whether or not you believe).

Newsite wrote: »

He that believes is under the influence of the Spirit, he is in grace. He that rejects him cannot be saved, and the wrath of God (his displeasure) is evident.

But you have said that "he that believes" only does so because of the spirit, ie god chooses to let the reader truly "understand" the bible, not the reader. God is exercising his wrath upon people who are only doing what he lets them do.

Newsite wrote: »

Translation: 'God keeps His patience with you, enduring your disobedience, given that, you are suitable to be made an example of His power (wrath) at the time of your final judgment'

But my disobedience is gods choice not mine, you said so yourself, my understanding of the bible is hidden because god doesn't want me to have it. God is going to punish me for his choices, not mine.

Newsite wrote: »

Yes this means that God has given us the means to eternal life - His Son. Simple as that. Notice how it doesn't mention the 'law' here

'He who believes has eternal life, he who does not, does not.

I didn't post those verses for a clarification from you, I posted them to back up the point that you are supposed to believe in god in order to get into heaven.

All you have done in this post is explain how your argument is a logical fallacy, not explain how it isn't.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

Ha

Doubt it though, on a serious note atheists tend to be less happy and have more stress in their lives and worse health. It is difficult to see how atheism is mentally pleasing and reduces stress in the way we know religious faith does. I'm open to correction though if anyone has any evidence.



Correct, though we have to be careful that we are using pleasing in the same sense.

It is not consciously pleasing, like thinking of bunny rabbits. It is subconsciously pleasing. You aren't aware that it is pleasing, it manifests itself in simply making a lot of sense to you.

The awareness comes from the opposite, when you try and think of the world in different terms and find yourself getting stressed and addled and finding the whole experience dis-pleasurable.

I liken it to viewing a 3D film, since I find my eyes get very stressed when viewing a 3D film and I get headaches. This is because my brain is not designed to view 3D as the film presents it to us, 3D films are a hack, they do not mimic 3D perfectly and as such the brain can struggle to process it.

Take off the 3D glasses and look at something else and my brain returns to processing the world in the normal fashion. This is mentally pleasurable to my brain, but it is not as if I'm aware of this beyond simply not feeling sick any more.



It goes a bit deeper than that. You don't believe that there is a ghost because you believe the house is haunted.

You believe the house is haunted in the first place because of hyperactive agency detection.

So you are in the house and you hear a noise. Your first instinct (no matter who you are) is that someone made that noise. That instinct is very powerful, even if you rationalize it away that there no one here and that old houses just make noise on their own you will be fighting against your first instinct that someone made that noise.

This leads to stories of hunted houses and ghosts in the first place.



Correct. It is far too difficult to mentally model the world as a massive set of multi-parrallel natural processes. Our brains are simply not designed for that. We default to viewing things as happening and being caused by human like agents.

Gods, including your own, are classic examples of this. They think like us, they do thinks for human like reasons (love, jealousy, anger). They allow us to view nature in understandable terms.



Yes though you don't choose to do this any more than you choose to have headaches at 3D movies.

It is most pleasing to your minds, that is just a quirk of how your brains work. It is most pleasing to my mind as well, since I am also a human.

This is just the way human brains have evolved, you can't choose or not choose it. You can become aware of it, which like become aware of a magic trick, tends to lead people to atheism.

But their brains continue to work exactly the same way, something like Christianity or Hinduism is still far more pleasing to my mind than atheism.



Imagine you met a person suffering from hearing voices in his head. The doctors say to him you are suffering from schizophrenia and that is why you hear voices in your head.

The patient thinks about this for minute and then turns to the doctors and says "Doctors that is an interesting idea but you are forgetting one very important fact. I hear voices in my head because there are people in my head!"

Now of course religious faith is not a mental illness, it is far more mundane than that,

You believe in the existence of God. You believe that because of the reasons already detailed. You believe it because the story presented by Christianity, in things like the Bible, is mentally pleasing to you and makes sense to you.

God no more exists than the man actually has people in his head. The question then becomes why do you and millions of other people believe each of their religions is true? And that is what evolutionary psychology is explaining.

The man thinks he hears voices because damage to the brain, you think God is real because of the particulars of how the brain works. It is not damage, it is just the normal way the brain works.

You're making a couple of assumptions here though:

1) You're talking in a limited sense when you discuss trying to understand the world, and life, being so stressful to contemplate as 'randomness'. Before believing, I hardly even considered or gave a thought to how the world operated or came about, let alone got stressed over it.

2) That believing in terms of Christianity is 'more pleasing to the mind'. Christianity is not easy per se. In fact it is the complete opposite - that is the fundamental message of Scripture, of Christianity - and one of the reasons why I mentioned that your understanding of the Bible could be limited. Christ told us 'enter ye at the strait gate', and we are to 'keep ourselves unspotted from the world'. Does that sound easy or something the subconscious mind would choose? Does being persecuted sound like the way to go for the subconscious mind, which would generally avoid same? Does believing in something which the vast majority of society scoff and mock at sound like the way to go?!

Zombrex wrote: »

but saying I'm forgetting that you believe because God makes you believe is circular reasoning. It only holds if we accept the premise that God exists, and he most likely doesn't. You are imagining it.

Not really. It's that you cannot believe if you do not come to repentance and acknowledge your own sinful nature. Your accepting or rejecting God in word or deed does not have a bearing on whether or not you come to believe.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

1) You're talking in a limited sense when you discuss trying to understand the world, and life, being so stressful to contemplate as 'randomness'. Before believing, I hardly even considered or gave a thought to how the world operated or came about, let alone got stressed over it.

Well no actually. Saying you don't consider how the world works is not true. You consider it ever second you are alive, it is what stops you walking into a door, it what causes you to bring an umbrella with you when you go out, it is what prevents you getting hit by a car, it is what allows you to use a telephone and understand that there is someone on the other end of the line.

Your entire life is spent processing the world around you and how it works around you.

Attempting to mentally model these actions in increasing levels of accuracy causes stress. That is what mental stress is, it is a failed attempt at modelling the world around us in an accurate fashion, be it mental stress at trying to walk down a crowded street or trying to figure out how to do your job in an optimum fashion.

Like it or not your brain spends a huge amount of time and effort processing the world around you and your interactions with it. Evolution has provided short cuts for that, one of which is hyperactive agency detection. The off shoot of this is that while it allowed us to spread across the world it also produced magical thinking and religion.

Newsite wrote: »

2) That believing in terms of Christianity is 'more pleasing to the mind'. Christianity is not easy per se. In fact it is the complete opposite - that is the fundamental message of Scripture, of Christianity - and one of the reasons why I mentioned that your understanding of the Bible could be limited.

You are comparing a Christian to a non-Christian and saying Christians endure hardship for their faith. I accept that and that isn't the issue. It isn't that your life would be easier if you didn't think like this. It is that you wouldn't be able to function. Your brain would have a melt down. If you weren't a Christian you would most likely be a Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or Scientology or some other religion. Everyone's brains work like this, it is not just Christians.

The question is how does religion present the world around us to our brain for processing. And the answer is in a fashion that allows for easier processing that how the world really is, a hugely complex system of interdependent processes.

Newsite wrote: »

Christ told us 'enter ye at the strait gate', and we are to 'keep ourselves unspotted from the world'. Does that sound easy or something the subconscious mind would choose? Does being persecuted sound like the way to go for the subconscious mind, which would generally avoid same? Does believing in something which the vast majority of society scoff and mock at sound like the way to go?!

Yes, when you consider the alternative. The alternative is not being able to process the natural world around you in an effective and energy efficient fashion. It is doubtful that you would make it out of your apartment alive, though given that this was developing in humans thousands of years ago a more apt example would be you would have been eaten by something by now.

Evolution does not develop the best solution. It develops the good enough solution. Christianity and other religions may produce people who struggle in life but relatively speaking they don't struggle that much compared to what would have been the case if these systems never developed.

Religious and magical thinking allows you to co-opt some of your brains abilities for processing human to human interaction to also process human to world interaction. This saves on the requirements your brain has to develop. The alternative is not an easy life, the alternative is never getting out of the plains of Africa.

Newsite wrote: »

Not really. It's that you cannot believe if you do not come to repentance and acknowledge your own sinful nature.

Which is only true if Christianity is true. If Christianity is not true then this isn't true.

Thus supporting Christian faith with an argument that only holds if Christianity is true is circular reasoning.

It is just a slightly more complicated version of "Everything the Bible says is true, we know that because it says so in the Bible"

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you preach that understanding of the bible is decided not by the reader but by god, therefore this call for repentance will only be heeded (assuming its even understood) by those that god had already chosen. It doesn't matter what I do, god has already decided that I cant be saved and no amount of reading the bible will help as god wont let me understand because I'm a "blasphemous unbeliever".

I didn't say it is 'decided' by God that you shouldn't understand it. The idea behind the parables is that Jesus wants you to come to find out more about them, to find out their true meaning 'willing that all men come to repentance...'

If God has already decided that you are not to be saved, then we're back to that 'get out of jail free card', which clearly does not exist. If you can't be saved then why would He want you to come to repentance? Doesn't make any sense. You're an unbeliever because you won't turn to God in recognition of your need for a Saviour. Not because God wills that you not believe in him. You don't see the need to repent. You don't see the need to recognise your sin even though the need to do so is staring you in the face and being preached to you now.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its impossible if you are actually repenting for something that was gods choice (ie whether or not you believe).

But you have said that "he that believes" only does so because of the spirit, ie god chooses to let the reader truly "understand" the bible, not the reader. God is exercising his wrath upon people who are only doing what he lets them do.

The Spirit is influencing the person, with the result that the truth is revealed. Yes you have 'free will'. His wrath is exercised upon those who are in rebellion towards him.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But my disobedience is gods choice not mine, you said so yourself, my understanding of the bible is hidden because god doesn't want me to have it. God is going to punish me for his choices, not mine.

Again, it is ludicrous to suggest that God chooses for you to be disobedient, if He asserts that He wants you to come to repentance. It's a bit like inviting you to come to my house, then blocking your every attempt to make it here.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't post those verses for a clarification from you, I posted them to back up the point that you are supposed to believe in god in order to get into heaven.

All you have done in this post is explain how your argument is a logical fallacy, not explain how it isn't.

The verses present the free gift of salvation for those who believe - His mercy on whom He will have mercy.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

Which is only true if Christianity is true. If Christianity is not true then this isn't true.

Thus supporting Christian faith with an argument that only holds if Christianity is true is circular reasoning.

It is just a slightly more complicated version of "Everything the Bible says is true, we know that because it says so in the Bible"

You have a choice. Either you say 'I believe', or you say 'I do not believe' (which you say).

If you say 'I don't believe', then for you God may as well not exist, as you can never come to know Him.

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

I didn't say it is 'decided' by God that you shouldn't understand it.

You said that understanding is hidden from blasphemous unbelievers. You said that belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on (in your first post in this thread). Just like your last response, your posts amount to "I cant be wrong, because if I'm wrong, then I would be wrong". Explaining why you argument is a logical fallacy doesn't change the fact that it is a logical fallacy.

If we cant choose to understand the bible and believe in god (and you cant have one without the other) then any wrath inflicted upon us is done so because of something that is entirely out of our control, something done to us by the very being who dolls out the wrath.

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said that understanding is hidden from blasphemous unbelievers. You said that belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on (in your first post in this thread). Just like your last response, your posts amount to "I cant be wrong, because if I'm wrong, then I would be wrong". Explaining why you argument is a logical fallacy doesn't change the fact that it is a logical fallacy.

It's not that it is hidden full stop. You can read the Bible, can't you. You can pick it up and understand quite a bit I'm sure. What I said was that Jesus spoke plainly to his apostles, but in parables to the crowd. Why? Well, here's why: If I stood up in front of a crowd and declared something to be 'X', then I might expect to lose a lot of people who didn't agree with my plain words or teachings. But, on the other hand, if I spoke in parables which naturally cause people to contemplate and reflect on, there is a better chance that the crowd will come to me or my apostles to find out more. So 'if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost' = if you find parts very hard to grasp, if it looks to contradict itself (the famous cry of the atheist), then maybe, just maybe, it's because your eyes have not been fully opened to it because you haven't sought the truth of it yet.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If we cant choose to understand the bible and believe in god (and you cant have one without the other) then any wrath inflicted upon us is done so because of something that is entirely out of our control, something done to us by the very being who dolls out the wrath.

I think you're adding 2 and 2 and getting 5. As I said you can hardly be condemned for something if that something is nothing you can control. Are you saying that it is out of your control to not commit adultery? Is it out of your control not to have casual sex, or lie, cheat or steal? By your logic we might as well get rid of the police, because stealing is out of your control, right? That's actually what you're saying!

Is it out of your control to say humbly in your heart 'I am a sinner, and I am lost without your mercy'. Please help me'? God's wrath is not for those who call upon him, now, is it? 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'. What part of that is out of your control? Surely by the very literal interpretation of God's words here suggest 'free will', God's desire that you approach him?

Faith is a gift - being 'born again' is a gift that comes from God without any effort on your part. But to receive that gift, you must first recognise your sin and ask him to help. I think you are confusing not being able to have faith and be saved (which only God can do) with not being able to approach Him to seek an understanding in the first place.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

You have a choice. Either you say 'I believe', or you say 'I do not believe' (which you say).

If you say 'I don't believe', then for you God may as well not exist, as you can never come to know Him.

I'm not sure if you are not following or simply ignoring what I wrote.

You don't know God either. The question becomes why do you think you do, what processes causes this delusion. That is the discussion on this thread.

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are not following or simply ignoring what I wrote.

You don't know God either. The question becomes why do you think you do, what processes causes this delusion. That is the discussion on this thread.

My point is that someone who sees no need for God, sees no need for God. That is the default setting for you, me and all mankind. Unless we realise that we are (spiritually) 'dead in trespasses and sin', then we can't have a new spiritual birth ('ye must be born again').

So what I'm saying is that since you clearly believe that belief in God is a delusion, you cannot, by definition, be born again. And since you can't be born again, faith in God is an impossibility to begin with.

In other words, your belief, and arrival at deducing through human logic and reasoning, that 'God is a delusion', based on hyperactive agency detection theory, is a product, or outward expression, of your rejection of the existence of God in the first place.

robindch

Newsite wrote: »

It'If I stood up in front of a crowd and declared something to be 'X', then I might expect to lose a lot of people who didn't agree with my plain words or teachings. But, on the other hand, if I spoke in parables which naturally cause people to contemplate and reflect on, there is a better chance that the crowd will come to me or my apostles to find out more.

So let me get this straight:If something is deleted from the bible, then the bible doesn't change.

And some piece of biblical prose has so many meanings that you don't know which one is right and have to query to find out, you still think that the bible transmits a single, immutable, forever-true message?

Not that I believe this nonsense for a second. Though you have hit on one of the reasons for the popularity of religion -- it's splendid applicability inasmuch as you can take your favourite pieces of text and make them mean whatever you want to.

It's relativism on speed.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

My point is that someone who sees no need for God, sees no need for God.

That isn't the case. As I explained atheists have the same brain as theists. There is an evolutionary need to view the world using hyperactive agency, that applies universally to all humans.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unless we realise that we are (spiritually) 'dead in trespasses and sin', then we can't have a new spiritual birth ('ye must be born again').

We aren't spiritually dead. You only think we are because you believe in Christianity. You only believe in Christianity because it happens to be the religion that was presented to you. You accept religion (any religion for that matter) because your brain is designed to accept stories that fit in the context of hyperactive agency.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what I'm saying is that since you clearly believe that belief in God is a delusion, you cannot, by definition, be born again.

Well we both agree with that

The point is that there is no such thing as being born again. That was just something made up by early Christians.

It is appealing to you because of the reasons we have already discussed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In other words, your belief, and arrival at deducing through human logic and reasoning, that 'God is a delusion', based on hyperactive agency detection theory, is a product, or outward expression, of your rejection of the existence of God in the first place.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but if you mean it is a conclusion from the determination that religion is a delusion, then yes.

It is like realizing that a schizophrenic person doesn't really have people inside his head. Even if you are that schizophrenic person you can still realize that you are not really hearing people speaking to you.

Let me ask you a question, why do you believe what you have been saying to me, such as believing that God exists and communicates with you? Is it because you read about it in the Bible and you believe the Bible? Have you ever considered why you believe the Bible?

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't the case. As I explained atheists have the same brain as theists. There is an evolutionary need to view the world using hyperactive agency, that applies universally to all humans.

First off, let me categorically say that I agree with you 100% that there is a need in all humans to believe. If that need wasn't there, nobody could believe in God by definition.

Zombrex wrote: »

We aren't spiritually dead. You only think we are because you believe in Christianity. You only believe in Christianity because it happens to be the religion that was presented to you. You accept religion (any religion for that matter) because your brain is designed to accept stories that fit in the context of hyperactive agency.

I believe in Christianity because I sought God in recognition that I needed Him. In receiving His grace, I had faith (the free gift). This is the spiritual rebirth, in which I seek to know more and more about Him and His words (Scripture), and have a spiritual thirst to learn more. If I had not been born again, I would have no need for any of this, just as a physically dead man has no need for water to satisfy his physical thirst.

Zombrex wrote: »

Well we both agree with that

Woohoo I think that's two things now

Zombrex wrote: »

The point is that there is no such thing as being born again. That was just something made up by early Christians.

It is appealing to you because of the reasons we have already discussed.

It wasn't made up by early Christians, it was what Jesus said to a Pharisee leader, Nicodemus.

Zombrex wrote: »

Not entirely sure what you mean, but if you mean it is a conclusion from the determination that religion is a delusion, then yes.

What I mean is this: man, in his natural state, loves himself more than He loves His maker. He loves to do as he pleases according to his own heart's desire. You, for instance, based on your posts on Boards, delight in reason, rationality and the expounding of same (not a criticism, I enjoy your posts, just an accurate observation). In other words, you love the idea of rationality more than you want to acknowledge that you need a Saviour. This very fact precludes you from knowing God. You won't come to God, so that you might know him and be saved. You know you will die someday, but you won't look for eternal life.

John 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Zombrex wrote: »

Let me ask you a question, why do you believe what you have been saying to me, such as believing that God exists and communicates with you? Is it because you read about it in the Bible and you believe the Bible? Have you ever considered why you believe the Bible?

The only reason I believe God and the Bible - the only reason - is because I turned to Him. I won't go into why I did turn to him, but I did. And lots of other people, over the course of the past 2,011 years have done so too. And they have received faith in due course.

I don't believe because I need to know there is someone pulling the strings, because this is my natural state, because HAAD exists, because I like the stories and they fit with the context that I want their to be someone who is the puppet master. It would be impossible for me to have faith all on my own - that is the whole point. That is a reason why the Bible can seem so 'ludicrous' to unbelievers.

Newsite

In addition - just as I was saying before about 'by their fruits shall ye know them' - the works of the Spirit are evident, as are the works of the flesh.

Personally, I don't feel a slave to things like lust, career, jobs, money in the way that I used to be.

That's pretty liberating

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

It's not that it is hidden full stop. You can read the Bible, can't you. You can pick it up and understand quite a bit I'm sure. What I said was that Jesus spoke plainly to his apostles, but in parables to the crowd. Why? Well, here's why: If I stood up in front of a crowd and declared something to be 'X', then I might expect to lose a lot of people who didn't agree with my plain words or teachings. But, on the other hand, if I spoke in parables which naturally cause people to contemplate and reflect on, there is a better chance that the crowd will come to me or my apostles to find out more. So 'if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost' = if you find parts very hard to grasp, if it looks to contradict itself (the famous cry of the atheist), then maybe, just maybe, it's because your eyes have not been fully opened to it because you haven't sought the truth of it yet.

Its funny, as much as you try to waffle over the enormous logical fallacies in you points, you just end up reasserting them. The bit in bold just supports my point because, as you said in the Ratzinger thread: "an understanding of [the bible] is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers". Searching for "the truth of the bible" implies reading it with an open mind, not reading it already believing. So a blasphemous unbeliever, no matter how much he searches in the bible for truth, will never find any, because god has hidden these truths. And god will punish the unbeliever for not finding the truths that god has hidden from him/her.

Newsite wrote: »

I think you're adding 2 and 2 and getting 5. As I said you can hardly be condemned for something if that something is nothing you can control.

Except that is how god works. He condemns us for not getting a meaning that he has hidden from us in the first place. This is your own argument.

Newsite wrote: »

Are you saying that it is out of your control to not commit adultery? Is it out of your control not to have casual sex, or lie, cheat or steal? By your logic we might as well get rid of the police, because stealing is out of your control, right? That's actually what you're saying!

That's not at all what I'm saying, don't take the piss.

Newsite wrote: »

Is it out of your control to say humbly in your heart 'I am a sinner, and I am lost without your mercy'. Please help me'? God's wrath is not for those who call upon him, now, is it? 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'. What part of that is out of your control? Surely by the very literal interpretation of God's words here suggest 'free will', God's desire that you approach him?

Faith is a gift - being 'born again' is a gift that comes from God without any effort on your part. But to receive that gift, you must first recognise your sin and ask him to help. I think you are confusing not being able to have faith and be saved (which only God can do) with not being able to approach Him to seek an understanding in the first place.

""Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on"]An understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself"
"Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on"
These are your own words. Both belief and understanding are given by god, not chosen by man. We cant understand without first believing, and we cant believe without first understanding. That these contradict is just evidence that you are flip-flopping on a position that you have held without really thinking about it before and has now been shown to be completely contradictory.

Knasher

Newsite wrote: »

The only reason I believe God and the Bible - the only reason - is because I turned to Him. I won't go into why I did turn to him, but I did. And lots of other people, over the course of the past 2,011 years have done so too. And they have received faith in due course.

I don't believe because I need to know there is someone pulling the strings, because this is my natural state, because HAAD exists, because I like the stories and they fit with the context that I want their to be someone who is the puppet master. It would be impossible for me to have faith all on my own - that is the whole point. That is a reason why the Bible can seem so 'ludicrous' to unbelievers.

So you admit that the only reason you believe is because you chose to believe (you stated it a bit differently, but it is essentially what you said). After a certain amount of time you "received faith", which as per the dictionary definition of faith, would be the recognition that you are believing something is true without any good evidence. Seeing as you won't go into any detail (neither do I want you to, it's pretty immaterial and I don't want to pry), but you did mention you had a reason to look for something, so I'm going to guess you had some sort of traumatic experience, you turned to faith and then things got better and now this serves as the foundation for your faith.

But that would be an incredibly poor (though rather common) justification for faith. It is possible that your life simply got better, it is possible that associating with a group of people with a vested interest in making you feel better made you feel better and it is possible that believing in the existence of an all powerful being that cares about you and loves you made you feel better. And if I'm any bit close to the mark I'm glad it made you feel better, but it still isn't a justification to any of us to believe it is true, and it should be a justification to you either.

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its funny, as much as you try to waffle over the enormous logical fallacies in you points, you just end up reasserting them. The bit in bold just supports my point because, as you said in the Ratzinger thread: "an understanding of [the bible] is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers". Searching for "the truth of the bible" implies reading it with an open mind, not reading it already believing. So a blasphemous unbeliever, no matter how much he searches in the bible for truth, will never find any, because god has hidden these truths. And god will punish the unbeliever for not finding the truths that god has hidden from him/her.


Except that is how god works. He condemns us for not getting a meaning that he has hidden from us in the first place. This is your own argument.


That's not at all what I'm saying, don't take the piss.


""Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on"]An understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself"
"Belief in God is not something we can choose or decide on"
These are your own words. Both belief and understanding are given by god, not chosen by man. We cant understand without first believing, and we cant believe without first understanding. That these contradict is just evidence that you are flip-flopping on a position that you have held without really thinking about it before and has now been shown to be completely contradictory.

You are talking in absolute terms about understanding, which is not what I am asserting. The verse is:

'If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost'

'Hid' does not imply impossible to understand. My initial post was in reply to a claim that it makes no sense. Why have you left out my reference to parables? Are parables impossible to understand, or do they by their very nature suggest a more 'hidden' truth that calls for you to seek it?

The point I am making is that if the Bible is unclear to you, if you cannot see its glory, then it is up to you to take a look at yourself and see if you are the one preventing yourself from understanding it (seeing its glory). Here is a good explanation:

It is not the fault of the sun when people shut their eyes and will not see it. It is not the fault of a running stream, or a bubbling fountain, if people will not drink of it, but rather choose to die of thirst. The gospel does not obscure and conceal its own glory anymore than the sun does. It is in itself a clear and full revelation of God and his grace; and that glory is adapted to shed light upon the benighted minds of people.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

First off, let me categorically say that I agree with you 100% that there is a need in all humans to believe. If that need wasn't there, nobody could believe in God by definition.

Or any other religion for that matter. The actual religion you believe doesn't matter. Islam, Hinduism, Greek mythology, Norse gods, New Age pixies, it all works just as well.

You believe in Christianity probably because it is was the one in front of you. If you had been born 3,000 years ago in North America you would no doubt believe a different religion that fits the same pattern.

Newsite wrote: »

I believe in Christianity because I sought God in recognition that I needed Him. In receiving His grace, I had faith (the free gift). This is the spiritual rebirth, in which I seek to know more and more about Him and His words (Scripture), and have a spiritual thirst to learn more.

That is the Christian spin on what happened to you. What actually happened to you is that you embraced religious thinking, which happened to be Christianity, and you experienced feelings of relief and de-stressing, even euphoria.

Newsite wrote: »

It wasn't made up by early Christians, it was what Jesus said to a Pharisee leader, Nicodemus.

According to whom..?

Newsite wrote: »

What I mean is this: man, in his natural state, loves himself more than He loves His maker. He loves to do as he pleases according to his own heart's desire.

Again that is the Christian spin. You need to look beyond that. Or more specifically you need to look at why you accept it in the first place.

At this stage you are the observer who thinks the magician is actually levitating, or the schizophrenic who thinks there are actually people in his head. You accept the first story you are given, about Jesus and God and salvation, because it is presented to you in a mentally pleasing and reassuring manner.

If this is the way the world worked we would all still be banning rocks in a cave. You need to have the wisdom to look beyond the first explanation presented to you.

I don't expect you to just accept what I'm saying either, but you should at least explore it and I'm not than willing to help you do that.

Newsite wrote: »

The only reason I believe God and the Bible - the only reason - is because I turned to Him. I won't go into why I did turn to him, but I did.

You don't need to go into why you turned to him, I already know. You were in a period of stress and confusing and embracing religious thinking improved your outlook, made you happier and made the world feel like it made sense.

This is what happens to everyone. in fact you can cause this reaction in people understand scientific circumstances in a lab.

Newsite wrote: »

And lots of other people, over the course of the past 2,011 years have done so too. And they have received faith in due course.

Yes. And a lot of people have turned to other religions and received the same feelings.

It isn't the religion per say that produces this. Any religion can do it.

Newsite

Knasher wrote: »

So you admit that the only reason you believe is because you chose to believe (you stated it a bit differently, but it is essentially what you said). After a certain amount of time you "received faith", which as per the dictionary definition of faith, would be the recognition that you are believing something is true without any good evidence. Seeing as you won't go into any detail (neither do I want you to, it's pretty immaterial and I don't want to pry), but you did mention you had a reason to look for something, so I'm going to guess you had some sort of traumatic experience, you turned to faith and then things got better and now this serves as the foundation for your faith.

But that would be an incredibly poor (though rather common) justification for faith. It is possible that your life simply got better, it is possible that associating with a group of people with a vested interest in making you feel better made you feel better and it is possible that believing in the existence of an all powerful being that cares about you and loves you made you feel better. And if I'm any bit close to the mark I'm glad it made you feel better, but it still isn't a justification to any of us to believe it is true, and it should be a justification to you either.

On the last paragraph, I totally get what you're saying. People go through a hard time, they 'turn to God' as they say, things get better, and they say that 'God helped me through the tough time', or 'with the help of God I got through it'.

But whether God helped them through it or not is neither here nor there. What matters is that they have faith, and whether this faith is shown to be a 'flash in the pan', or whether they are truly born again. That's not to say that if a person sins again, that they were never truly born again.

raah!

Perhaps you could answer these few questions Wicknight, I fail to see anything new in anything you are saying here. And you seem to think this is the best argument ever invented.

So you are saying that religious belief was at some stage evolutionary advantageous and that it is comforting. What in this statement suggests that religious belief is false?

(I'll answer the question for you, you'll say that this is an evolved and comforting belief. And then that the belif is false because [argument external to theory] .This is just you assuming religious belief is false, and then showing how we would come to these false beliefs anyway. That's rather circular and not very good.

But, evolutionary speaking, all we can say about any of our cognitive capacities that they are advantageous in some way. They are never necessarily true. For this theory to say anything about religion you must just tack on all your old arguments.

So why are certain evolved cognitions/beliefs true and why are others false? Since we can say that most existing ones are advantageous in some way, or accidental, and since you've already said religious belief was useful at some stage in our evolutionary history, then why is it false?

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

Or any other religion for that matter. The actual religion you believe doesn't matter. Islam, Hinduism, Greek mythology, Norse gods, New Age pixies, it all works just as well.

You believe in Christianity probably because it is was the one in front of you. If you had been born 3,000 years ago in North America you would no doubt believe a different religion that fits the same pattern.



That is the Christian spin on what happened to you. What actually happened to you is that you embraced religious thinking, which happened to be Christianity, and you experienced feelings of relief and de-stressing, even euphoria.



According to whom..?



Again that is the Christian spin. You need to look beyond that. Or more specifically you need to look at why you accept it in the first place.

At this stage you are the observer who thinks the magician is actually levitating, or the schizophrenic who thinks there are actually people in his head. You accept the first story you are given, about Jesus and God and salvation, because it is presented to you in a mentally pleasing and reassuring manner.

If this is the way the world worked we would all still be banning rocks in a cave. You need to have the wisdom to look beyond the first explanation presented to you.

I don't expect you to just accept what I'm saying either, but you should at least explore it and I'm not than willing to help you do that.



You don't need to go into why you turned to him, I already know. You were in a period of stress and confusing and embracing religious thinking improved your outlook, made you happier and made the world feel like it made sense.

This is what happens to everyone. in fact you can cause this reaction in people understand scientific circumstances in a lab.



Yes. And a lot of people have turned to other religions and received the same feelings.

It isn't the religion per say that produces this. Any religion can do it.

It's dangerous to assume things. Would you believe me if I said that my embracing and turning to religion had the opposite effect to what you claim above?

Again, here is the nub of the issue.

God is willing to give everyone life after death.

If you reject Him (which = not recognising your sinful state, i.e. not feeling any need for him), you will never know Him, nor feel the effects in your life

If you ask Him for help, He turns no-one away.

But for you to say 'you believe in Him because of the nice feelings you get from the pleasing notion you experience from believing in a story which fits your needs', means that you are shutting yourself off from God in the first place. Would you accept that?

Think of it like this.

**************

A man has been walking in the desert for weeks. He is moving towards a destination he hopes he will reach, but he doesn't know exactly what to expect when he gets there. He is frequently tired and thirsty, but manages to stumble upon desert towns here and there, where he gets to eat, drink and sleep. Along the way, he has met and talked with some people who tell him of a place where he can drink of a lake which will help him on his journey and guarantee that he makes it to his destination. Since this is the desert, he has dismissed these people, claiming they are delusional and that they are probably seeing, what has been proven using logic, to be a mirage.

'But', they say - it is not a mirage - we have drunk from it! 'We heard about this place from others, and on our journey we were sceptical too. However, we were tired and thirsty at times, and at other times we were doing fine. Nevertheless, we came to trust that what they said was true, and we headed for the lake. Our journey involved a lot of difficulty, and we felt like straying from the narrow path at times. But when we made it there, we were glad, and wanted to know more about this place. We were changed, and thirsted to know more about the details of this place, how it had come to be, and to learn more about its ways. Out of all the people we met on the way back, most would not believe, and many attacked us for even suggesting such a thing. It would have been easier for us to deny its existence given the grief our belief brought upon us. But we did not - for we know that the reward is greater than any persecution that can come upon us on this earthly place.

'Hmm', the man said, I dunno. I'm doing just fine as I am really. There are towns along the way, and they keep me going for a while, until I find another town further up the road. Plus, I've read that this place can only be a mirage, and so I will rely on my own steam to get to where I want to go!

'Ok,' said the others. It's up to you. There is a gift waiting for you, if you would go along the path. But you are not forced too, just as were not forced to, moving along this desert path.

**************

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

It's dangerous to assume things.

It is. Why do you assume that what has happened to you has anything to do with God?

Newsite wrote: »

Would you believe me if I said that my embracing and turning to religion had the opposite effect to what you claim above?

Probably not, though I'm not sure you are following what effect I'm describing.

Newsite wrote: »

God is willing to give everyone life after death.

Says Christianity.

Newsite wrote: »

If you reject Him (which = not recognising your sinful state, i.e. not feeling any need for him), you will never know Him, nor feel the effects in your life

Actually it is relatively easy to feel the effects, like I said they can be produced in a lab under the right conditions.

Newsite wrote: »

But for you to say 'you believe in Him because of the nice feelings you get from the pleasing notion you experience from believing in a story which fits your needs', means that you are shutting yourself off from God in the first place. Would you accept that?

No I wouldn't accept that. Like I said how you feel can be produced in a lab. I can feel like I'm experiencing God.

This is odd if such a feeling doesn't come if someone shuts themselves off from God, don't you think.

Newsite wrote: »

'Ok,' said the others. It's up to you. There is a gift waiting for you, if you would go along the path. But you are not forced too, just as were not forced to, moving along this desert path.

Like I said, the "gift" is recreatable in a lab.

You seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that because a religion has already explained to you why you feel the way you do that their explanation is the correct one.

That is some what foolish, don't you think?

You also seem to find it very difficult to discuss this topic without simply repeating back the party line so to speak. Can I ask, have you ever seriously critically analyized your beliefs, thought about why you believe what you believe, why you accept what you have been told?

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

You are talking in absolute terms about understanding, which is not what I am asserting. The verse is:

'If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost'

'Hid' does not imply impossible to understand. My initial post was in reply to a claim that it makes no sense. Why have you left out my reference to parables? Are parables impossible to understand, or do they by their very nature suggest a more 'hidden' truth that calls for you to seek it?

The point I am making is that if the Bible is unclear to you, if you cannot see its glory, then it is up to you to take a look at yourself and see if you are the one preventing yourself from understanding it (seeing its glory).

From your first post in this thread:"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:". By your own words, god prevents me from understanding the bible, and without understanding, I cannot believe. From your post in the other: "understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself". By your own words again, understanding is hidden because I don't believe. Everything else in this thread, or that one, simply explains the fallacy, it explains the contradiction between all-knowing all merciful god and a vindictive moron who punishes those who uncontrollably end up in inescapable positions that he puts them in, but it doesn't explain it away.

Newsite wrote: »

Here is a good explanation:

It is not the fault of the sun when people shut their eyes and will not see it. It is not the fault of a running stream, or a bubbling fountain, if people will not drink of it, but rather choose to die of thirst. The gospel does not obscure and conceal its own glory anymore than the sun does. It is in itself a clear and full revelation of God and his grace; and that glory is adapted to shed light upon the benighted minds of people.

And this contradicts both of your posts I quoted before, as in them you say that god does actually obscure the gospel (quite specifically you say it: "understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself") and god does decide on whether or not you believe (by acting on the holy spirit).

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From your first post in this thread:"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:". By your own words, god prevents me from understanding the bible, and without understanding, I cannot believe. From your post in the other: "understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself".

I think you're just getting confused now.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:"

Literally: 'No man can come to me, unless God draws him to me".

is not the same as saying 'God prevents you from coming to Him'

If you can show me a verse which shows God's express desire to prevent you from reaching Him, I'd love to see it.

What you're doing here is inferring something which isn't actually there. Not being able to approach something does not equate to that same something blocking you from approaching it.

And again, 'obscured' does not mean 'impenetrable'.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By your own words again, understanding is hidden because I don't believe. Everything else in this thread, or that one, simply explains the fallacy, it explains the contradiction between all-knowing all merciful god and a vindictive moron who punishes those who uncontrollably end up in inescapable positions that he puts them in, but it doesn't explain it away.

He's not actually 'all merciful'. A cursory glance at the Bible will show you are mistaken I'm afraid. That you got that fundamentally wrong suggests you could be wrong here too, no?

As I said before - and references to which appear in the Bible are too numerous to even attempt to quote - there is no inescapable position

'For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'

Can you show me how the inescapable position is compatible with His willing for you to be saved?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And this contradicts both of your posts I quoted before, as in them you say that god does actually obscure the gospel (quite specifically you say it: "understanding of it is 'hidden' and 'obscured' to blasphemous unbelievers like yourself")

'But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to those who are lost'

Again...you are inferring something which isn't actually there. There is no action verb in the verse above . It is simply an observation on the condition of a man who is 'lost', i.e. unwilling to come to a recognition of his sinful nature and need for God, so that he may see more clearly.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

and god does decide on whether or not you believe (by acting on the holy spirit).

Correct yes. But that does not preclude you from receiving the Holy Spirit. What precludes you from receiving it is your unwillingness to ask Him.

To be honest it looks like you're confusing two things:

1) Uncontrollable by you: God's sovereign right to determine who receives the Holy Spirit, bestowing it upon those who ask for it.

2) Controllable by you: The inability to receive that grace in a state of rebellion towards Him (the default setting for all men who see no need for God).

To put it into the most basic terms possible - it's hard to get into a nightclub when you call the head bouncer a 'moron'.

swampgas

Newsite wrote: »

To put it into the most basic terms possible - it's hard to get into a nightclub when you call the head bouncer a 'moron'.

Bad analogy.

In this case the bouncer created the universe, including the night club and the bolshy patron trying to get in. This bouncer is claimed to be all-powerful and loving, yet has created a situation where one of his creations is calling his creator a moron.

In my opinion, the fault lies with the allegedly omnipotent, omniscient bouncer guy for creating his universe/nightclub/patron in a flawed way.

The way you describe it, God's hands are tied and he has to play along with these rules where many of his creations -sorry, his children - have to burn in hell forever. Not a very appealing deity, really.

Newsite

Newsite wrote: »

First off, let me categorically say that I agree with you 100% that there is a need in all humans to believe. If that need wasn't there, nobody could believe in God by definition.

if only 99% of all humans had a need to believe then nobody could believe? :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

I think you're just getting confused now.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:"

Literally: 'No man can come to me, unless God draws him to me".

is not the same as saying 'God prevents you from coming to Him'

Actually, yes its exactly the same thing. I cant accept Jesus unless God lets me, so therefore God not letting me is what's stopping me from accepting Jesus.

Newsite wrote: »

If you can show me a verse which shows God's express desire to prevent you from reaching Him, I'd love to see it.

Sure:
Matthew 13:13 'Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand'.

Deuteronomy 29:4 'Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day..'
I didn't even have to go far, you posted them recently in another thread when explaining to someone why god doesn't want them to believe in him.

Newsite wrote: »

What you're doing here is inferring something which isn't actually there. Not being able to approach something does not equate to that same something blocking you from approaching it.

And again, 'obscured' does not mean 'impenetrable'.

When in it is an omniscient, omni-powerful god playing hide and seek with meanings, obscure does mean impenetrable.

Newsite wrote: »

He's not actually 'all merciful'. A cursory glance at the Bible will show you are mistaken I'm afraid. That you got that fundamentally wrong suggests you could be wrong here too, no?

I'm pretty sure that God is supposed to be all merciful in christianity (islam too). Deuteronomy 4:31 says something along that line ("For the LORD thy God is a merciful God; he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.").

Newsite wrote: »

As I said before - and references to which appear in the Bible are too numerous to even attempt to quote - there is no inescapable position

'For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'

Can you show me how the inescapable position is compatible with His willing for you to be saved?

I cant, but thats the point. Gods overall actions, according to the bible, unavoidable creates an inescapable position. This is expected of an ideology that was made up as it went along, but that's your problem, not mine.

Newsite wrote: »

'But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to those who are lost'

Again...you are inferring something which isn't actually there. There is no action verb in the verse above . It is simply an observation on the condition of a man who is 'lost', i.e. unwilling to come to a recognition of his sinful nature and need for God, so that he may see more clearly.

But the Gospel is hid because we are lost, Matthew 13:13 and Deuteronomy 29:4 (above) say as much. We need to understand the bible to recognise our sinful nature, but god makes the bible hidden to those with a sinful nature.

Newsite wrote: »

Correct yes. But that does not preclude you from receiving the Holy Spirit. What precludes you from receiving it is your unwillingness to ask Him.

I don't ask because I don't believe that there is someone to ask because I don't see any meaning in the bible. And I don't see this meaning because I don't believe anyone is there to ask. Catch 22, created by god.

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually, yes its exactly the same thing. I cant accept Jesus unless God lets me, so therefore God not letting me is what's stopping me from accepting Jesus.

As I've said already a couple of times and don't mind repeating here...if the above is true then what it means is that you cannot be blamed for anything you do or do not do. But the Bible expressly says the opposite. Right?

The 'accepting' Jesus is a misconception too....you don't accept anything, it's through grace that you are saved alone.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sure:
Matthew 13:13 'Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand'.

Deuteronomy 29:4 'Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day..'
I didn't even have to go far, you posted them recently in another thread when explaining to someone why god doesn't want them to believe in him.

As I said, the intention of the parables is to have you explore what the parables mean, to engender curiosity.

The above verses support the truth that you are 'dead in trespasses in sin' until you are spiritually reborn. And this can only happen by calling on His name 'anyone who calls on my name will be saved'. This latter verse proves your theory wrong - because it shows you have an option in what happens to you.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the Gospel is hid because we are lost, Matthew 13:13 and Deuteronomy 29:4 (above) say as much. We need to understand the bible to recognise our sinful nature, but god makes the bible hidden to those with a sinful nature.

If it is impenetrable then it means that you cannot understand a single word of the Bible. Can you confirm this is the case for you? If you cannot confirm this you are admitting that you are wrong about it being impenetrable.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't ask because I don't believe that there is someone to ask because I don't see any meaning in the bible. And I don't see this meaning because I don't believe anyone is there to ask. Catch 22, created by god.

Yes exactly. As I said on other posts and again above, the 'natural man' is 'dead in trespasses and sin' - and sees no need for God. This relates to the part in bold above.

You don't see this meaning because you won't recognise that you need God, recognise your sinful nature. That you need Him if you want eternal life. 'Ye do not come to me, that ye might have life'. Does that verse sound like you are stymied and have no option?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Perhaps you could answer these few questions Wicknight, I fail to see anything new in anything you are saying here. And you seem to think this is the best argument ever invented.

It is as good as any other idea that expands understanding I guess.

raah! wrote: »

So you are saying that religious belief was at some stage evolutionary advantageous and that it is comforting. What in this statement suggests that religious belief is false?

Not religious belief per say. Viewing the world around us in terms of human like agents, along with other human traits such as mentally separating a persons physical body for their mind (theory of mind).

These proved to be very advantageous. That isn't what makes them comforting. What makes them mentally comforting is that they are how your brain has evolved to view the world, thus attempting to process ideas that are different to this framework causes extra stress on the brain.

What suggests that religious belief is false is that this demonstrates the belief itself is arbitrary. You can cause this effect with any belief that fits a particular pattern.

Of course it is always possible that one religious belief would, by pure coincidence, turn out to be true. But this seems very unlikely doesn't it, like saying that just because the vast majority of magicians are tricking you doesn't mean that one of them isn't actually real.

raah! wrote: »

But, evolutionary speaking, all we can say about any of our cognitive capacities that they are advantageous in some way. They are never necessarily true. For this theory to say anything about religion you must just tack on all your old arguments.

Well yes and no.

Certainly if you remove really the only argument for religious faith in the first place, that it makes sense to believers, and then demonstrate that humans will make up religious stories in the absence of any given to them, you have to my mind constructed a very powerful argument against the likelihood that any particular religion is true.

Now some may argue that that doesn't mean one of them, by coincidence actually is true. But to my mind that really is the responsibility of those who follow that religion to demonstrate that despite all the evidence that humans make up religions that their particular religion happens to be one that isn't in fact made up.

raah! wrote: »

So why are certain evolved cognitions/beliefs true and why are others false? Since we can say that most existing ones are advantageous in some way, or accidental, and since you've already said religious belief was useful at some stage in our evolutionary history, then why is it false?

I'm not quite sure I'm following.

If for example you came to your doctor and said I keep hearing people speaking in my head. And the doctor realized that you had a tumour in your brain and once the tumour was removed you stopped hearing voices in your head, would it be safe to conclude that you didn't actually have people in your head, that in fact it was the tumour causing you to hullicinate people in your head?

Now Oden knows how you prove the person didn't have supernatural people in his head, and if he continues to believe this I really don't see how anyone could demonstrate to him otherwise.

But it seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to conclude that the statement "I have people in my head" is false.

Would you disagree?

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

Not religious belief per say. Viewing the world around us in terms of human like agents, along with other human traits such as mentally separating a persons physical body for their mind (theory of mind).

These proved to be very advantageous. That isn't what makes them comforting. What makes them mentally comforting is that they are how your brain has evolved to view the world, thus attempting to process ideas that are different to this framework causes extra stress on the brain.

What suggests that religious belief is false is that this demonstrates the belief itself is arbitrary. You can cause this effect with any belief that fits a particular pattern.

Yes, people will detect agency in certain patterns. Why is it wrong that they detect this agency? Do you think that all religious belief amounts to detecting patterns in the sky?

Of course it is always possible that one religious belief would, by pure coincidence, turn out to be true. But this seems very unlikely doesn't it, like saying that just because the vast majority of magicians are tricking you doesn't mean that one of them isn't actually real.

If the example you used earlier, that our brains assume that the card kept going a certain way, and the magician tricked us, is anything to go by. Then this agency detection is something very different.

What the magician in this example tricks is the best our preceptive and sensory processing brain has to offer. If this magician tricking our brains ability to form judgements about moving objects demonstrates that objects don't move, then we are in a very bad position.

Well yes and no.

Certainly if you remove really the only argument for religious faith in the first place, that it makes sense to believers, and then demonstrate that humans will make up religious stories in the absence of any given to them, you have to my mind constructed a very powerful argument against the likelihood that any particular religion is true.

Now some may argue that that doesn't mean one of them, by coincidence actually is true. But to my mind that really is the responsibility of those who follow that religion to demonstrate that despite all the evidence that humans make up religions that their particular religion happens to be one that isn't in fact made up.

Well, this is the same argument that "if you were born in pakistan you'd be a muslim, so all religion is wrong". What I was asking is what is new about this theory in particular, which so demolishes religious belief, and arguments for it. As to this "if you were born ..." argument, a common response would be that because of the similarities of these beliefs, this actually amounts to support for each of those beliefs.

I'm not quite sure I'm following.

If for example you came to your doctor and said I keep hearing people speaking in my head. And the doctor realized that you had a tumour in your brain and once the tumour was removed you stopped hearing voices in your head, would it be safe to conclude that you didn't actually have people in your head, that in fact it was the tumour causing you to hullicinate people in your head?

That would be a solid inference yes.

Now Oden knows how you prove the person didn't have supernatural people in his head, and if he continues to believe this I really don't see how anyone could demonstrate to him otherwise.

But it seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing to conclude that the statement "I have people in my head" is false.

Would you disagree?

Just to further press my questions. Does this mean, if you show someone a pattern, similar to like... smiley clouds, and they say "I detect agency in this pattern i.e that those clouds make a smiley face" and you took away the pattern, and they stopped detecting agency in the patter, what conclusions can we come to here?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Yes, people will detect agency in certain patterns. Why is it wrong that they detect this agency? Do you think that all religious belief amounts to detecting patterns in the sky?

What do you mean by "wrong"? If you mean morally I'm not making a moral argument. I'm saying that these agents that people imagine are in nature are not actually there, despite people thinking they are (for the reasons already outlined)

raah! wrote: »

If the example you used earlier, that our brains assume that the card kept going a certain way, and the magician tricked us, is anything to go by. Then this agency detection is something very different.

The magician analogy was simply an example of other commonly understood tricks of the mind. Hyperactive agency detection is not what is happening when viewing a magic trick, that has more to do with optical processing in the brain.

The over all point was simply a point about how the brain takes short cuts when processing the world around us to cut down on how complicated the brain has to be.

raah! wrote: »

What the magician in this example tricks is the best our preceptive and sensory processing brain has to offer. If this magician tricking our brains ability to form judgements about moving objects demonstrates that objects don't move, then we are in a very bad position.

Well human to human interaction takes place, no one is disputing that. It is applying this to nature where the problems arise.

raah! wrote: »

Well, this is the same argument that "if you were born in pakistan you'd be a muslim, so all religion is wrong". What I was asking is what is new about this theory in particular, which so demolishes religious belief, and arguments for it.

Well "new" is a relative term, but what is new compared to say 50 or 100 years ago is that we now understand the biological processes that are taking place in the brain when this is happening.

In fact you can cause someone to have what we would call a "religious experience" in a lab, it is relatively easy, you simply put them into a state of stress and feelings of the world being out of their control.

This has striking parallels with reports from religious people about when they embraced their particular religion.

raah! wrote: »

As to this "if you were born ..." argument, a common response would be that because of the similarities of these beliefs, this actually amounts to support for each of those beliefs.

This is some what beside the point, but how does it support each of these beliefs? How is Greek mythology "similar" to Christian mythology?

raah! wrote: »

Just to further press my questions. Does this mean, if you show someone a pattern, similar to like... smiley clouds, and they say "I detect agency in this pattern i.e that those clouds make a smiley face" and you took away the pattern, and they stopped detecting agency in the patter, what conclusions can we come to here?

Not sure where you got "smiley clouds" from, perhaps I confused the matter with the analogy with magicians.

Agency detection is not visual. It is experience based. For example you fall down the stairs and brake your leg, causing you to not get on a flight that ends up crashing.

You conclude that "someone up there" likes you, ie you conclude (with varying degrees of seriousness depending how prone you are to thinking like this) that agents in nature causes you to break your like in order to save you from the plane crash.

This is far easier an idea to process using our brains designed for human interaction, than attempting to model all the random events that conspired to prevent you from dying in a plane crash.

Most if not all religions have the notion of divine plan, god or gods manipulating nature in order to cause or prevent particular events from happening.

We do this in all aspects of our lives, not simply religious though religion is the most direct expression of this form of thinking. Concepts such as luck, fate and destiny are a result of this thinking as well (while the agents do not take on such specifically human like form as gods the reasons given for why fate or luck would conspire to cause something to happen are always very human like).

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

As I've said already a couple of times and don't mind repeating here...if the above is true then what it means is that you cannot be blamed for anything you do or do not do. But the Bible expressly says the opposite. Right?

Er, that the bible contradicts something it says more than once is not an argument that it doesn't contradict what it says.

Newsite wrote: »

The 'accepting' Jesus is a misconception too....you don't accept anything, it's through grace that you are saved alone.

Grace as in the grace of god? As god decides to give you his grace?

Newsite wrote: »

As I said, the intention of the parables is to have you explore what the parables mean, to engender curiosity.

The above verses support the truth that you are 'dead in trespasses in sin' until you are spiritually reborn. And this can only happen by calling on His name 'anyone who calls on my name will be saved'. This latter verse proves your theory wrong - because it shows you have an option in what happens to you.

Are you reading the same parables as me? The first says that god speaks in parable in order to hide messages from non believers (Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not etc) and the second is an explanation for why we are non believers (Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive etc). Your random misreadings of plain (well, for the bible anyway) English aren't going to hide this, the catch 22 is explicitly there.

Newsite wrote: »

If it is impenetrable then it means that you cannot understand a single word of the Bible. Can you confirm this is the case for you? If you cannot confirm this you are admitting that you are wrong about it being impenetrable.

Its impenetrable in that I cannot understand a single word in the way that god supposedly wants me to.

Newsite wrote: »

Yes exactly. As I said on other posts and again above, the 'natural man' is 'dead in trespasses and sin' - and sees no need for God. This relates to the part in bold above.

You don't see this meaning because you won't recognise that you need God, recognise your sinful nature. That you need Him if you want eternal life. 'Ye do not come to me, that ye might have life'. Does that verse sound like you are stymied and have no option?

Yes, obviously. I wont recognise god because, according to Deuteronomy 29:4 and Matthew 13:3, he hides his meaning in parables, and has created me without heart nor eyes nor ears with with which to properly understand. I dont control the heart, eyes and ears I was created it with, thats gods job.

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

What do you mean by "wrong"? If you mean morally I'm not making a moral argument. I'm saying that these agents that people imagine are in nature are not actually there, despite people thinking they are (for the reasons already outlined)

Sorry yes, poor choice of words. Not actually there. What is there in this to suggest that they are not actually there?

The magician analogy was simply an example of other commonly understood tricks of the mind. Hyperactive agency detection is not what is happening when viewing a magic trick, that has more to do with optical processing in the brain.

The over all point was simply a point about how the brain takes short cuts when processing the world around us to cut down on how complicated the brain has to be.

Ok, but the case is there. Outside arguments are needed to show the magician thing is false. We know the magician tricks aren't what's really happening because we have been able to go around the back of them, and see "the card didn't actually go forward, we can see this".

Now what is there, aside from all the regular arguments, which are distinct from this new thing which you are saying is the big new challenge, that show that these agencies being detected aren't really there?

Well human to human interaction takes place, no one is disputing that. It is applying this to nature where the problems arise.

Well "new" is a relative term, but what is new compared to say 50 or 100 years ago is that we now understand the biological processes that are taking place in the brain when this is happening.

I was only using "new" in the sense that you were using it. You are saying that there is something novel and particularly compelling about the arguments against religious belief that you can derive from this theory. As far as I can see none have actually been derived from it.

In fact you can cause someone to have what we would call a "religious experience" in a lab, it is relatively easy, you simply put them into a state of stress and feelings of the world being out of their control.

This has striking parallels with reports from religious people about when they embraced their particular religion.

Ok, putting someone into stress induces a "religious experience", and you can do that in a lab. Why does this illegitmise the experiences? It's already well documented that people have religious experiences when they are stressed etc. What has this new study revealed? That you can do this in a lab?

This is some what beside the point, but how does it support each of these beliefs? How is Greek mythology "similar" to Christian mythology?

Well when you look at the notions many greek philosophers like Plato and them had about there being a God behind all of those gods with names, the godhead etc. The qualities attributed to this thing, that it created the universe etc.

But this is beside the point, and if you'd like to discuss this then perhaps anohter thread would be more suitable.

Not sure where you got "smiley clouds" from, perhaps I confused the matter with the analogy with magicians.

Agency detection is not visual. It is experience based. For example you fall down the stairs and brake your leg, causing you to not get on a flight that ends up crashing.

You conclude that "someone up there" likes you, ie you conclude (with varying degrees of seriousness depending how prone you are to thinking like this) that agents in nature causes you to break your like in order to save you from the plane crash.

This is far easier an idea to process using our brains designed for human interaction, than attempting to model all the random events that conspired to prevent you from dying in a plane crash.

Ok, well "someone looking out for you" and "this this and this blah blah sequence of events" are not mutually exclusive. What is it in what you have said here that suggests that the idea that "someone is looking out for you" is false. All I want is one clear logical connection. I think you are jumping the gun with this, and there seem to be quite large gaps in your argument.

Most if not all religions have the notion of divine plan, god or gods manipulating nature in order to cause or prevent particular events from happening.

We do this in all aspects of our lives, not simply religious though religion is the most direct expression of this form of thinking. Concepts such as luck, fate and destiny are a result of this thinking as well (while the agents do not take on such specifically human like form as gods the reasons given for why fate or luck would conspire to cause something to happen are always very human like).

Ok, well I'll say again. What is there in noticing that people attribute this meaning to events like "someone is up there" (this seems to be what the thoery amounts to) that suggests that "someone is not up there".

Newsite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you reading the same parables as me? The first says that god speaks in parable in order to hide messages from non believers (Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not etc) and the second is an explanation for why we are non believers (Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive etc). Your random misreadings of plain (well, for the bible anyway) English aren't going to hide this, the catch 22 is explicitly there.

Yes, obviously. I wont recognise god because, according to Deuteronomy 29:4 and Matthew 13:3, he hides his meaning in parables, and has created me without heart nor eyes nor ears with with which to properly understand. I dont control the heart, eyes and ears I was created it with, thats gods job.

Why are you disregarding the other verses I'm giving you? 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'?

Can you not see plainly that your turning to Him can result in you getting that understanding?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Sorry yes, poor choice of words. Not actually there. What is there in this to suggest that they are not actually there?

What, agents in nature? Mutual exclusivity. If I can get you to think that the reason you are lucky is because of the TV remote control, and I can get someone else to think that it is because of a lucky rock, it is safe to assume neither the rock nor the remote control is actually doing anything.

raah! wrote: »

Ok, but the case is there. Outside arguments are needed to show the magician thing is false. We know the magician tricks aren't what's really happening because we have been able to go around the back of them, and see "the card didn't actually go forward, we can see this".

We have done this but it is not actually necessary. If the magician pretended that actually he was making things teleport between his hands you would still be able to demonstrate that the trick can just as easily be done without teleportation.

So if you saw a magician do a magic trick and he said it was really teleportation, and then I explained how he did it without using teleportation but made you think something was teleported, would you believe the teleportation explanation or the explanation that didn't require teleportation but produced the same outcome.

raah! wrote: »

I was only using "new" in the sense that you were using it. You are saying that there is something novel and particularly compelling about the arguments against religious belief that you can derive from this theory. As far as I can see none have actually been derived from it.

Well none of the science existed. We couldn't explain how humans could believe in religious and magical thinking, we have no explanation for why the brain would consider such thinking normal, thus a very common argument was that people believed it because it was true (this argument is still used to support religious stories even today).

raah! wrote: »

Ok, putting someone into stress induces a "religious experience", and you can do that in a lab. Why does this illegitmise the experiences?

I'm not sure what you mean by illegitmise the experience. It illegitmises a older yet very popular explanation for the experience, that being that the person is being touched by God or some other supernatural deity.

Just like "they are possessed by demons" gave way to "they have a chemical imbalance in their frontal lobe" in relation to mental diseases.

Your question is like asking how do we know for sure demons don't cause mental illness.

raah! wrote: »

It's already well documented that people have religious experiences when they are stressed etc. What has this new study revealed? That you can do this in a lab?

Yes, and why the phenomena happens at these times. It is a self defense mechanism of the brain.

raah! wrote: »

Ok, well "someone looking out for you" and "this this and this blah blah sequence of events" are not mutually exclusive. What is it in what you have said here that suggests that the idea that "someone is looking out for you" is false. All I want is one clear logical connection. I think you are jumping the gun with this, and there seem to be quite large gaps in your argument.

Again I'm struggling to understand exactly what you are asking. At the moment it seems to be equivalent to asking even though we have a detailed scientific explanation for germ theory how do we know a black cat walking across your path doesn't cause the plague.

If I can take two completely random events (say I roll a dice to decide the two events) and then make you believe they are connected, are you seriously asking how does this demonstrate that they aren't connected?

You seem to be taking a stab in the dark at this one, I hope this thread doesn't turn into another Well how do you prove God isn't ultimately behind everything, type arguments.

raah! wrote: »

Ok, well I'll say again. What is there in noticing that people attribute this meaning to events like "someone is up there" (this seems to be what the thoery amounts to) that suggests that "someone is not up there".

Because what or who they assign this too is arbitrary and inconsistent and can be manipulated into basically anything you want given the right conditions.

If I had enough time and access to you I could make you think my TV remote control decides your destiny. Are you seriously asking how do I know for sure my TV remote control doesn't actually decide your destiny.

Again this seems to be last gasp stuff.

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

What, agents in nature? Mutual exclusivity. If I can get you to think that the reason you are lucky is because of the TV remote control, and I can get someone else to think that it is because of a lucky rock, it is safe to assume neither the rock nor the remote control is actually doing anything.

There is nothing mutually exclusive about two different people in two different scenarios having a "lucky rock" or a "lucky remote control" where you set up situations in which they will say that the rock or the remote control is lucky.

We have done this but it is not actually necessary. If the magician pretended that actually he was making things teleport between his hands you would still be able to demonstrate that the trick can just as easily be done without teleportation.

So if you saw a magician do a magic trick and he said it was really teleportation, and then I explained how he did it without using teleportation but made you think something was teleported, would you believe the teleportation explanation or the explanation that didn't require teleportation but produced the same outcome.

Yes, this would be an example of an external argument. If however, you used the argument "I can demonstrate that people are prone to coming to this conclusion about the magic trick" it would not suggest anything. Only that people perceive things in this way.

Well none of the science existed. We couldn't explain how humans could believe in religious and magical thinking, we have no explanation for why the brain would consider such thinking normal, thus a very common argument was that people believed it because it was true (this argument is still used to support religious stories even today).

You should not use the word "magical thinking" to be on a par with "magic tricks" if you mean "magical thinking" to mean supernatural thinking. Because "magic tricks" are very different. It rather confuses the point, especially when you use "magic tricks" as an example analogous to "magical thinking".

And People often put forward alot of arguments for why they believe this are that, few are as simple as "because it's true". Now I think that you think this is a good anti-theist argument because it is consistent with saying "the belief is false", but so far as I've seen, it's also consistent with saying "the belief is true". Any claims as to the veracity of the beliefs seem to have to rely on outside arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean by illegitmise the experience. It illegitmises a older yet very popular explanation for the experience, that being that the person is being touched by God or some other supernatural deity.

Please explain how it illegetimises this. And use direct logical connections.

Just like "they are possessed by demons" gave way to "they have a chemical imbalance in their frontal lobe" in relation to mental diseases.

Your question is like asking how do we know for sure demons don't cause mental illness.

Well, you could answer that very easily. You could say, demons are incorporeal and if they are continually inside the person, "possessing them" then things like medecine shouldn't work as cures.

However, this is not the same as the groundbreaking thesis "people under stress have religious experiences". This pretty much says nothing.




Yes, and why the phenomena happens at these times. It is a self defense mechanism of the brain.

Again I'm struggling to understand exactly what you are asking. At the moment it seems to be equivalent to asking even though we have a detailed scientific explanation for germ theory how do we know a black cat walking across your path doesn't cause the plague.

Well germ theory does not show that black cats aren't unlucky. And this theory is no way on par with germ theory, where we could go back along and say "the cat had no influence on all of these things".

If I can take two completely random events (say I roll a dice to decide the two events) and then make you believe they are connected, are you seriously asking how does this demonstrate that they aren't connected?

It doesn't demonstrate they aren't connected...

This is actually a very good example. You just said "I can take two completely random events" , where you are clearly already starting with the assumption that the events are random. Does this reasoning seem a bit suspect to you?

This dice example, where you can put people in certain conditions and then they come to bad conclusions about dice, is only a valid argument if you alreaday assume that the dice are random. Perhaps you see the weakness of the argument from this example.

You seem to be taking a stab in the dark at this one, I hope this thread doesn't turn into another Well how do you prove God isn't ultimately behind everything, type arguments.

I'm simply asking you to logically connect your premises to your conclusion. Surely that shouldn't be difficult? The above example shows that perhaps you are doing so in a rather circular fashion.

And tbh, this does seem similar to the kind of arguments related to the "evolution is incompatible with theistic belief". People can just say that "yeah, that's how god operates". If you think your argument is good evidence that religious belief is false, then you should at the very least be able to connect the study to the conclusion of the study. Or else it's not an argument at all.

Because what or who they assign this too is arbitrary and inconsistent and can be manipulated into basically anything you want given the right conditions.

If I had enough time and access to you I could make you think my TV remote control decides your destiny. Are you seriously asking how do I know for sure my TV remote control doesn't actually decide your destiny.

Again this seems to be last gasp stuff.

Again this seems to be circular tastic.

You already know the tv remote doesn't decide my destiny. Do you appreciate the circularity in your argument? This is exactly what I was talking about when I said "there's nothing in the study that decides this, only it is consistent with the belief being false". And furthermore, you couldn't do that.

Just to be clear, and we can continue this example since it's such a silly one:

Go ahead to describe this. And then go ahead and show how "being able to reproduce this agency assignment to the control" shows that "assigning agency to the control is incorrect". Now if it's so simple, then it should be very simple to make a simple logical argument. No matter how simple your oponent is, they can understand logic, and I assure you I understand logic, so go ahead and connect your premise to your conclusion. If you can't do that, you have no argument.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

There is nothing mutually exclusive about two different people in two different scenarios having a "lucky rock" or a "lucky remote control" where you set up situations in which they will say that the rock or the remote control is lucky.

No, I'm talking about religious doctrine. God and Zeus cannot, by definition, both exist since they share properties that are mutually exclusive.

Either the Greeks were worshipping a god that wasn't real, or Christians worship a god that isn't real, or you both do.

raah! wrote: »

Yes, this would be an example of an external argument. If however, you used the argument "I can demonstrate that people are prone to coming to this conclusion about the magic trick" it would not suggest anything. Only that people perceive things in this way.

But that is the same thing. How do you demonstrate that people are prone to coming to this conclusion about a magic trick without demonstrating a false magic trick that still produces the same result in human observers.

raah! wrote: »

You should not use the word "magical thinking" to be on a par with "magic tricks" if you mean "magical thinking" to mean supernatural thinking. Because "magic tricks" are very different. It rather confuses the point, especially when you use "magic tricks" as an example analogous to "magical thinking".

Magical thinking is supernatural thinking, it means the same thing but the technical term is magical thinking. Magic after all is a supernatural thing.

raah! wrote: »

And People often put forward alot of arguments for why they believe this are that, few are as simple as "because it's true". Now I think that you think this is a good anti-theist argument because it is consistent with saying "the belief is false", but so far as I've seen, it's also consistent with saying "the belief is true". Any claims as to the veracity of the beliefs seem to have to rely on outside arguments.

I'm not following your logic and frankly you seem happy that applied to other things like magic or voices in your head it demonstrates that the older claims (its teleportation, its demons) are invalidated by newer scientific understanding.

So I can't help but feel that it is just your own religion that you don't like applying this to.

raah! wrote: »

Please explain how it illegetimises this. And use direct logical connections.

Sure. Occam's razor. It negates the need for God to explain a religious experience, in the same way germ theory negates the need for black cats to explain the plague.

raah! wrote: »

Well, you could answer that very easily. You could say, demons are incorporeal and if they are continually inside the person, "possessing them" then things like medecine shouldn't work as cures.

But it would be impossible to demonstrate that to the requirement you are expecting me to demonstrate that religious experiences are caused by stress on the brain.

If someone was determined to continue believing in demons they could just say that the demons go on holiday when the medicine is applied.

This is what I'm talking about, you are happy to apply particular standards to other things but not to your own religion.

raah! wrote: »

However, this is not the same as the groundbreaking thesis "people under stress have religious experiences". This pretty much says nothing.

No it doesn't just way they have religious experiences. It says why they have religion experiences and explains what is happening in the brain. It is a completely natural explanation for religious experiences that doesn't require supernatural elements.

It is exactly the same as contrasting germ theory with black cat theory.

raah! wrote: »

Well germ theory does not show that black cats aren't unlucky.

People used to believe that black cats were agents of witches and that the cat itself would curse you and that is why you would get the disease.

Now, just so I have a frame of reference, can you explain how germ theory demonstrates that black cats are not agents of witches and them cursing you isn't what causes you to get the disease.

raah! wrote: »

And this theory is no way on par with germ theory, where we could go back along and say "the cat had no influence on all of these things".

If you believe in supernatural cats how could you ever go back and say that the cat had no influence on the diesease?

Again can you explain this so I can at least have a frame of reference for what standard you are expecting from me here.

raah! wrote: »

It doesn't demonstrate they aren't connected...

It demonstrates that as much as you can demonstrate cats are not related to the plague.

raah! wrote: »

This is actually a very good example. You just said "I can take two completely random events" , where you are clearly already starting with the assumption that the events are random. Does this reasoning seem a bit suspect to you?

They are random because I roll a dice to decide what events I choose. Are you suggesting that the dice roll itself might be controlled by something?

How do you suggest then that I get two random events?

raah! wrote: »

This dice example, where you can put people in certain conditions and then they come to bad conclusions about dice, is only a valid argument if you alreaday assume that the dice are random. Perhaps you see the weakness of the argument from this example.

The test subjects dont' see the dice. The dice picks the event that I decide to instill the feeling of connection.

Say I have 6 events. I roll a dice twice which picks two events at random. I then instill in the mind of the test subject that these two events are significantly linked.

I then repeat that test with another test subject. I roll a dice twice and pick two random events. I then instill in the second test subject that these two events are significantly link.

I repeat this experiment until I'm confident that I can get any test subject to believe that any two events are connected.

Now I cannot prove that some supernatural magical force is some how controlling the dice every time I roll the dice. But come on, if you think that you are really grasping, and I notice you aren't apply that same logic to supernatural cats or magicians.

raah! wrote: »

You already know the tv remote doesn't decide my destiny. Do you appreciate the circularity in your argument?

I have confidence that the random item I pick in my living room isn't one that controls your destiny, yes.

Again, for a frame of reference, can you describe how scientists know that black cats don't control disease.

raah! wrote: »

Go ahead to describe this. And then go ahead and show how "being able to reproduce this agency assignment to the control" shows that "assigning agency to the control is incorrect". Now if it's so simple, then it should be very simple to make a simple logical argument. No matter how simple your oponent is, they can understand logic, and I assure you I understand logic, so go ahead and connect your premise to your conclusion. If you can't do that, you have no argument.

The logic is very simply. You simply invoke the supernatural.

I randomly pick an item in my living room and then get you to think it has signficiance through psychological manipulation.

You response that I can't really know that my randomly picking of the item in my living room wasn't in fact actually picking the one item that does actually control your destiny.

Frankly you are just being silly at this stage. Explain how none of what you are saying applies to germ theory and cats and then we can talk. At the moment it is just invoking the supernatural in order to hold on to your supernatural beliefs.

After all if you are determined to believe in the supernatural the supernatural can explain anything. Oh you think germs cause disease. Well it is still black cats, and you cannot prove me wrong. :rolleyes:

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

No, I'm talking about religious doctrine. God and Zeus cannot, by definition, both exist since they share properties that are mutually exclusive.

...Did you read the passage I just quoted? You were talking about remote controls and rocks.

Either the Greeks were worshipping a god that wasn't real, or Christians worship a god that isn't real, or you both do.

As to god and zeus, see what I said earlier on in the thread vis Plato and the other Greeks. There is more to Greek religion than the writings of Homer. Furthermore, this argument has nothing to do with agency detection.

It would, if it was the exact same kind of experience in both cases. Then you would have to say whatever causes these impressions of God and of Zeus are the same thing. This is not really much the same as any religious person would say. The believer in Zeus would already say that the believer in god is just experiencing Zeus vice versa.

But that is the same thing. How do you demonstrate that people are prone to coming to this conclusion about a magic trick without demonstrating a false magic trick that still produces the same result in human observers.

The point was that these experiments demonstrate only that people are prone to coming to these conclusions about magic tricks. Not that the magic tricks are false. Note you said here, characteristically of your arguments on this matter, that the magic trick was first false, and then that it produces the impression. The falseness is clearly independent of this impression it's producing.

Magical thinking is supernatural thinking, it means the same thing but the technical term is magical thinking. Magic after all is a supernatural thing.

You don't seem to be reading what I am saying at all. These last three parts have been complete misinterpretations of what I said. My point was that there is a difference between magic tricks, and supernatural thinking. Being tricked by an optical illusion is not the same as holding a supernatural belief.

I'm not following your logic and frankly you seem happy that applied to other things like magic or voices in your head it demonstrates that the older claims (its teleportation, its demons) are invalidated by newer scientific understanding.

So I can't help but feel that it is just your own religion that you don't like applying this to.

You're right. You're really not following my logic. Nor do you seem to be able to follow your own.

Sure. Occam's razor. It negates the need for God to explain a religious experience, in the same way germ theory negates the need for black cats to explain the plague.

It's not quite on par with germ theory I'm afraid. It would be if germ theory amounted to "people are prone to getting the plague when they are stressed". But it doesn't, germ theory is rather more substantial than this. And there was never really a "need" for god to explain religious experience. It was always possible to just say "that person's a lunatic".

And really, it shows a terrible misunderstanding of science to put this on part with germ theory. Evolutionary psychology amounts to observing behaviours and infering backwards from them. They are not proper biologists like neuroscientists. They have not seen the neutral structures producing these stresses which lead to this particular kind of agency detection, which is wrong, compared to other correct agency detection instances.

Furthermore, it's not the case that religious experience can be described as "an experience, for which the explanation is such and such" but rather "an experience of such and such". It's not even necessarily the case that you can call all religious experience "agency detection". And furthermore, when people write poems and things about how they see "God's hand in nature" this is not because they are having some instantaneous physiological fit, or anything which would be described as a "spiritual experience", but rather a conclusion they come to after contemplating the thing for a while. So there are some things about the nature of religious exerience you would have to straighten out before you go mentioning it as 'religious experience is when people impute their not dying to divine intervention', as this is a very simplified and wholey inadequate account of the matter, even if you think it all leads to false beliefs, you would still be completely wrong to categorise it as such.

And also, it's also more like saying "you can't believe in god because of evolution", even though this theory is still not on par with evolution.

But it would be impossible to demonstrate that to the requirement you are expecting me to demonstrate that religious experiences are caused by stress on the brain.

If someone was determined to continue believing in demons they could just say that the demons go on holiday when the medicine is applied.

Why would the demon go on holiday's everytime the medecine is applied? Eventually you could construct an argument saying (as I just did) "the demon is incorporial, the medecine need not have any effect on him, yet it causes him to go away. On the ohter hand, this medecine kills such and such germs. The demon's going away at the time of administration is not really consistent with the nature of the demon, but it is consistent with the nature of the germs".

And that would be an argument where you had demonstrated (inductively/scientifically) that the state of affairs is not consistent with its being a demon.

This is what I'm talking about, you are happy to apply particular standards to other things but not to your own religion.

I've asked you for an argument similar to that I've given above. You haven't been able to give it. Note that the demon argument is far stronger than saying:

-all religious belief stems form religious experience
-all religious experience stems from agency detection
-the agency detection from whcih religious belief stems from is a malfunctioning cognition... for some reason".

These three things are almost all arbitrary to begin with, and bear almost no relation to each other. All I am asking is that you connect them up. You have given only hilarious circularities. And you can be sure I do hold everyone one of my own beliefs of conclusions up to the standard of non-circularity.

No it doesn't just way they have religious experiences. It says why they have religion experiences and explains what is happening in the brain. It is a completely natural explanation for religious experiences that doesn't require supernatural elements.

Actually, could you give me a link to this study. It's not neuroscience, and saying that it "explains what is happening in the brain" is a very generous way to describe what it is that a psychologist does.

It is exactly the same as contrasting germ theory with black cat theory.

Well, see above (and above again) and link me up.

People used to believe that black cats were agents of witches and that the cat itself would curse you and that is why you would get the disease

Now, just so I have a frame of reference, can you explain how germ theory demonstrates that black cats are not agents of witches and them cursing you isn't what causes you to get the disease.

You could do things like show that "the germs entered your body before you saw the cat" that would be one conclusive proof. In a case where the cat came after the germs, and the cat made you unlucky so that you got to the germs, then you can't really show that, not even if you could completely chart the causal chain from cat to witch. And this is because, unlike the demon, which specifies the source and ongoing cause of the mental disorder, the cat only concerns luck, the ultimate cause, and the meaning of the sickness.

Other arguments would be necessary in this case.

An easy one would be to have lots of black cats walk past a person, and have them in a germ free room. And then they wouldn't get a disease so they could say the cats don't cause the disease. If they say it's a specific cat that is magic. Take the cat to the vet first, and then go back to the room with them.

If you believe in supernatural cats how could you ever go back and say that the cat had no influence on the diesease?

Again can you explain this so I can at least have a frame of reference for what standard you are expecting from me here.

You couldn't do that. If you believe in cats that cause diseases, and a cat crosses your path, and you get loads of germs, then saying "that's loads of germs" is not an argument against cats which cause you to be unlucky and get disease.

This next part is rather confusing. How you thought the things you typed were responses to what I said I don't know, so I'm gonna quote myself(that is, I'm going to quote the parts you responded to) as well:

If I can take two completely random events (say I roll a dice to decide the two events) and then make you believe they are connected, are you seriously asking how does this demonstrate that they aren't connected?

It doesn't demonstrate they aren't connected...

It demonstrates that as much as you can demonstrate cats are not related to the plague.

It doesn't at all. There is no place you can apply Okham's razor here. There is nothing but a circular argument.

What this actually implies, is that people can form incorrect beliefs (since you caused a person to form a false belief). But I'd also like to see the study where it relates to this.

They are random because I roll a dice to decide what events I choose. Are you suggesting that the dice roll itself might be controlled by something?

Ok I gave up with all the mutliquoting. No, where do you think I am suggesting this? The dice are random before hand. My believing they are connected does not make them random. How can you not understand that? Nothing about someone forming a false belief about dice makes them random.

How do you suggest then that I get two random events?

What is this question? This is irrelevent. Dice are random (well they're not, but we know what we mean when we use random in this context). I wasn't saying dice aren't random.

The test subjects dont' see the dice. The dice picks the event that I decide to instill the feeling of connection.

Say I have 6 events. I roll a dice twice which picks two events at random. I then instill in the mind of the test subject that these two events are significantly linked.

I then repeat that test with another test subject. I roll a dice twice and pick two random events. I then instill in the second test subject that these two events are significantly link.

Why are the events unconnected? Are the events unconnected because the test subjects said they were connected? No. That's my point.

I repeat this experiment until I'm confident that I can get any test subject to believe that any two events are connected.

Now I cannot prove that some supernatural magical force is some how controlling the dice every time I roll the dice. But come on, if you think that you are really grasping, and I notice you aren't apply that same logic to supernatural cats or magicians. [/quote]
I didn't apply circular logic to cats or magicians. The events are random and disconnected. Because they started out like that. You said "take to random events". That is what made them random.

Further more, I'd like to see the parts of the study which imply you can get people to form these beliefs.

I have confidence that the random item I pick in my living room isn't one that controls your destiny, yes.

Again, for a frame of reference, can you describe how scientists know that black cats don't control disease.

I hope you're able to understand how the logical form of the two arguments are different. The one with the random dice is attrocious and circular.

The logic is very simply. You simply invoke the supernatural.

I randomly pick an item in my living room and then get you to think it has signficiance through psychological manipulation.

You response that I can't really know that my randomly picking of the item in my living room wasn't in fact actually picking the one item that does actually control your destiny.

Do you really think that this is what my response was? I've already addressed this anyway.

Frankly you are just being silly at this stage. Explain how none of what you are saying applies to germ theory and cats and then we can talk. At the moment it is just invoking the supernatural in order to hold on to your supernatural beliefs.

After all if you are determined to believe in the supernatural the supernatural can explain anything. Oh you think germs cause disease. Well it is still black cats, and you cannot prove me wrong.

Do you understand that the black cats and the germs aren't mutually exclusive? And please, less of the smiley faces. I wouldn't mind, but to see them after a whole sprig of non-sequitors and circular reasoning is almost too much for my irony meter to bear.

Mark Hamill

Newsite wrote: »

Why are you disregarding the other verses I'm giving you? 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'?

Because they only reinforce the contradiction. Saying that verse A cant contradict verse B because it would also contradict verse C is not an argument against the contradiction, its an argument for it.

Newsite wrote: »

Can you not see plainly that your turning to Him can result in you getting that understanding?

Can you not plainly see that I cannot turn to him until He gives me grace, until He deigns to let me believe, until He bestows understanding upon me?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I've asked you for an argument similar to that I've given above. You haven't been able to give it. Note that the demon argument is far stronger than saying:

-all religious belief stems form religious experience
-all religious experience stems from agency detection
-the agency detection from whcih religious belief stems from is a malfunctioning cognition... for some reason".

These three things are almost all arbitrary to begin with, and bear almost no relation to each other. All I am asking is that you connect them up.

I've already done that, you seem to be just ignoring the answer.

There is no "for some reason". The reason is reasonably well understood, tested and examined.

You seem to accept that we have demonstrated that when you are sick it is not because a black cat has cursed you. You seem to accept that because the connection between a black cats and disease has been demonstrated to simply be human superstition, this in turn has been demonstrated by showing that disease appears and operates independently to anything the cat is doing.

You can never prove beyond all doubt that a supernatural cat isn't doing something some where, you can demonstrate thought that there is no requirement any more to believe that is the case in order to explain sickness, that you can have a model of sickness that explains what is happening and why it is happening that has nothing to do with black cats and witches, negativing any need for the black cat theory.

Exactly the same has been shown with religious feeling and magical thinking. They have been shown to be independent to the actual objects or events (see randomly picking objects or events) that no matter what the objects or events you can induce religious feelings and magical thinking through purely natural means, and this has given rise to a testable biological theory as to what the brain is doing when these feelings or thinking arise and this has been put in an evolutionary context as to why we would have brains that operate in this manner in the first place.

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

I've already done that, you seem to be just ignoring the answer.

There is no "for some reason". The reason is reasonably well understood, tested and examined.

I did not ignore your circular arguments. I showed you they were circular.I think you don't understand the difference between psychology and neuroscience. And I think you don't understand this theory either, so link me to the actual study and I'll explain it to you. Although that might not be possible, since I've already explained to you how your arguments were circular.

You seem to accept that we have demonstrated that when you are sick it is not because a black cat has cursed you. You seem to accept that because the connection between a black cats and disease has been demonstrated to simply be human superstition, this in turn has been demonstrated by showing that disease appears and operates independently to anything the cat is doing.

I showed you explicitly in the post above why they are not the same. I showed you exactly how we can demonstrate empirically that cat's don't cause disease. And I've showed that that is not what you are doing here. If you think you are, then you have no understanding of science.

You can never prove beyond all doubt that a supernatural cat isn't doing something some where, you can demonstrate thought that there is no requirement any more to believe that is the case in order to explain sickness, that you can have a model of sickness that explains what is happening and why it is happening that has nothing to do with black cats and witches, negativing any need for the black cat theory.

Exactly the same has been shown with religious feeling and magical thinking. They have been shown to be independent to the actual objects or events (see randomly picking objects or events) that no matter what the objects or events you can induce religious feelings and magical thinking through purely natural means, and this has given rise to a testable biological theory as to what the brain is doing when these feelings or thinking arise and this has been put in an evolutionary context as to why we would have brains that operate in this manner in the first place.

You've given circular arguments and shown that you don't understand the rudimentary means by which scientists come to conclusions. I've shown you all this, and now you're ignoring it and just restating your conclusions.

If you'd like to link me to the study, I can show the parts you don't understand. Because there's obviously somethign you don't understand here. The main part you don't understand is that agency detection has some use. There is "hyper active" or "over sensitive" agency detection. But my point all along was "what makes it "over sensitive". And this is going to have to be external arguments. Just like you need external arguments to show that there was some optical error when you percieved the magicians cards flying about as you normally do.