Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker

I do not believe that you have no agenda for one second, you have been pushing relgion and beliefs for several threads now.

Yes it is about indoctrination, without that, people move on, we are forced to dumb ourselves down so relgion may persist.

I do not believe it is the default or we would not have Einsteins, Darwins of Hawkings. We move past our childhood wonders as we develop and move that to understanding.

I do not believe that either, huge health benefits come from many aspects of life that are pleasurable, I had a particularly bad year last year, and my doctor told me Gym was the only thing that kept me out of hospital last year, it did not only keep me out, it gave me the motivation and strength to accomplish more than I normally would. The placebo effect is largely a mystery, I have little doubt that chemical reactions based on one's state of being have as much to do with perceived health benefits as does anything.

That sounds a heck of a lot like what I have said in the past - relgion helped man create communities, law, and lead to science, it is now redundant. That system of trust is also what splintered the species when we started to interpret the wild claims and challenge them. That was natural too, but you do not seem to account for it at all. And that too indicates that relgion is well redundant.

If your beliefs make you comfortable who am i to deny them

Belief is redundant for me. I know a powerful god so I don't need belief But as a student of childhood cognitive development, the nature of human belief has always fascinated me Showing the evolved propensity for humans to believe in magical agents doesn't further an argument for the existence of god, rather the opposite, so I cant understand why people would think i can use it like that as a argument for gods.

. BUT the medical and sceintific evdence for the benefits of belief to human beings is overwhelming and indisputable. it appears it is an evolutionary benefit connected into our bio chemical systems due to our self aware nature which affects our body and mind eg we feel guilt we certe feed back iia our consciences, we get lonely, we get depressed by other than chemical causes. We have greater fear and the medical consequences of fear because we r are cognitively awre of so many dangers. For example just believing in a god can reduce your blood pressure, stress etc and reduce depression. In turn this reduces strokes and cardio vascular disease etc. So for me, as a logical thinker, if we did not already construct beliefs in gods we should learn to do so, for the benefit of our health.

Learning in this way to believe, we could cut out al the associated crap and destructive elements which have evolved within established religions. Faith is evolved to be an Individual connection between the conscious self awareness of one human being and their perception of god(s) it requires no religious trappings. Those come from other human needs like the desire to belong to a group and the attraction of routines, ceremonies and fancy dresses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Thanks, but I , and I observe a few other posters, dont even bother looking at any evidence Walker puts up ... as it isnt the evidence at all that is revelant, its his 'interpretation' of it ... so there is no point anymore in even reading his supposed proof .

Unfair some say ? - Go ask the 'boy who cried wolf' about it .

But this one must be the classic Walkerlogic of all time ! ;

Child, from year 0, has everything supplied by parents , then presents 'mysteriously' appear under tree at Christmas ... so of course, child goes against all previous conditionings to postulate some 'God' must have done .... hence walkers 'theory' proved.

:su :su :su :su :su :su :su :su :su :su

You didn't read my post AGAIN. i said this happens if the parents DENY putting the presents there Belief evolves when a child has no knowledge or evidences to explain a change Ask a very young child how a toy got in a drawer ( when he didn't see it happen and it is a new event) and he is likely to give an answer involving "magical" agents . . it also connects to what a child believes a god could KNOW compared to a parent.

For instance, children who had been shown that a biscuit packet actually contained stones were asked whether adult human beings and God would know what was in the packet or be fooled by appearances. Three-year-olds easily attributed super-knowing to both God and human beings. Sometime between ages four and five children appear to stop attributing super-knowing abilities to humans; children of this age realised and enjoyed the fact that ‘Mommy can be fooled’ but persisted in the belief that God knows the true contents.They distinguished God-cognition from human-cognition.

Using a similar false-belief task, Knight (2008) showed Yukatek Maya children, aged four to eight years, a ho’ma (a dried-out gourd conventionally used to hold tortillas). Instead of the assumed tortillas, underpants were revealed to be inside the gourd. Children were asked if various native animals, a human puppet and various supernatural agents (e.g. the Catholic God, the Sun God, the forest spirits, and the ChiiChi – spirits often invoked by parents to children who misbehave) would know what was found in the ho’ma. Similar to past studies, (Barrett et al., 2001; Knight et al., 2004) children did not use an anthropomorphic approach to reason about God, but said that God would know what was in the ho’ma.

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-4/cognitive-science-religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

It just seems to me that no two experiences are actually alike, but hold common elements, which many perceive to be alike.

I think so, as well. :)
Well it seems that what influences a person is where the spiritual experience comes from, a Priest will see a vision, or a statue crying, a Native American might see a spirit world, a surfer feels more than alive in a barrel, this seems to indicate that our most impressive experiences are what call to us, and what we consider some sort of insight, when it seems it is a personal view. Part of being the individual, even birth, most of us feel great joy but I think we experience different emotions due to personal situations. When these are particularly powerful I feel people call these experiences "spiritual" or an "Epiphany" They seem to walk hand in hand.

Yeah, I think it's the best way people are able to put words to feelings that are more so that words really cannot describe. Plus, the way I see it, I see a plus, to look at the material world and it's uses, and then the spirit world (under my perspective, I guess ) and I see it as useful. ( or more so even adventurous, I guess as well. )
Wouldn't a "soul sense" have a link with that which we hold dear, and that is what strives us to seek out the activities that we like? Our natural abilities will lead us down these paths, someone who is good at running will love running, and feel a personal connection with the exercise.

The senses described in that link are something I feel are more demarcated, for instance, Thermoception and touch, they seem to be rather similar. It is probably a good idea to do so, in order to gather a greater understanding, but they do not seem to be new, or unusual?

But I seriously doubt that pregnant women can sense gay men. Mannerisms seems more likely to be the tip off there.

I think that is what best describes it. A link from what we have to our souls, and that makes us alive. From my perspective mind you. ;)

I can understand your doubt about the pregnant women sensing gay men. I would not see that either. This was a site, when trying to find sites to best explain how I can word spiritual in another way, this site popped up, and it made me think, "Bingo!"

The problem there is it needs to be assessed by reputable people, and reputable people find nothing leading to a supernatural force to investigate, but fringe seems to remain at that catch 22. You have nothing to prove, so there might be something you cannot comprehend, unfortunately the people making these statements generally do not comprehend science, so we are just taking back steps. That in turn puts of reputable scientists. And I can see why top be honest, so any time wasters, so few results.

Some Supernatural claims have been thoroughly investigated, the US wasted about 20 billion on remote viewing to no avail. These spectacular failures are good reason to dismiss the paranormal, or we have Randi offering a million dollars for proof of the Supernatural. Hated by the same crowd because not one of them can prove their claims on demand, it makes it very, very hard to accept these claims at all.

I feel everything can be explained by science given time. But science needs something to work with, if it is a "feeling" is there a reason to consider it more?

Good point, and good question. And I would think, no, it shoudln't be considered it more, by just a feeling. I often have found more have come from situations, than just feelings. Sometimes they could be coincidences, or just unexplained scientific reasoning. I still have the thought, that with anything spiritual, feelings, or other things that go with that, is still very personal. And it should stay that way. Let it be personal as one views and experiences various logical things. Those who do want to push their spiritual, their personal feelings on others, do not understand how it's like outside of their world. Well................ That's my feeling. ;)
:D I find often when I return to one of these Threads the Segway has gone wild and 20-30 pages have passed, and a reply seems lost and pointless.

But I cannot stay away, the posters in these threads are above average IMHO, and you are a star gem. Your hubby did very well for himself.

:blush: Awwww, shucks.................. *looks bashful*

I like to think I did too. But your words warm my heart. :):wub:

thanks

I find Atheism is all about asking questions, and challenging claims. To be an atheist, I think you have to ask that very controversial question of "why do I believe in God"? I do feel few in the past have had this opportunity, and we blindly follow the paths set before us. The modern world with tolerance for Atheism is just letting the cat out of the bag the way I see it - Religion has no basis in truth and is a manmade construct, physics cannot lie. When I see that, I fail to understand why Religion continues to enjoy so much support.

I cannot fathom what would lead anyone "back" to a Church, perhaps it is because I have only embraced Atheism this decade, but to me it is like the example I used earlier, Phlogiston and Elements. I cannot see why anyone would still subscribe to Phlogiston for the same reasons I do not understand a return to relgion. The flaws are wide open, and well illustrated in a modern world, relgion cannot be the correct answer, it makes no sense with regards to what the Universe is telling us.

I would love to know what brought faith back into your life, to me, that is a complete Unexplained Mystery. I respect your position of course, which is why I ask politely, but would love to be able to understand this move. I understand if you do not wish to share such a personal item, but if anyone wants to chime in, I would love to know why one would go back to that which is shown to be flawed and incorrect. I just genuinely struggle to fathom that.

Well, you know something, I'm honored. :yes:

I'm not sure, if I was brought back. As I have said before, I grew up secular. I saw secular, and not Atheist, because my folks had their perspective protestant religions, but when I was growing up, there was no church, no bible readings, no quoting scripture, .nothing. There was the neighborhood, the schools, and the media, but with the home being the first part of coming into awareness, I would think it would be described as Atheistic. There was nothing that would be 'believed in'. I guess, we all kind of ascribed to what floats our boats.

My mom told us kids, well I know she told us daughters, that when we reached the age of eighteen, we had the right to follow our own religious or non-religious path. And we did.

I do feel, there were some forms of desires, maybe some forms of wanting ways to deal with some disappointments that I saw throughout my town and schooling. I think that coupled with varying degress of experiences that had me questioning that, not coming up with answers readily availiable but couldn't let it go still. And then I got excited about it, and then more experiences and ways of 'practicing' it, caused my life to turn into a more satisfying path. So, I never went back, I went into it new.

Yeah, I had my 'Atheist years' as a young adult, only because of so many things that couldn't be explained, and that is the way it was. ( Probably also because I was in college too. *shrugs* )

I also thought, it was a way of being observant to so many things, and ..... taking notes. In my head. ;)

LOL, I have seen the TV show once or twice - didn't really grab me, and heard his views on Muslims and Refugees too - considering that, I do wonder how he made it as far as he did.

I have to stick with you, I feel lucky I have not had to put up with that level of drama for an election, the campaigns are just crazy compared to what we have here - usually some mud slinging 6 weeks before election right up to voting day.

Then the Sausage SIzzle!! :D

Yeah well, I'm jeolous. :o I tend to drown out a lot of it. When it gets down to the nitty gritty, I' hoping that he's out of it by then.

Can a crazy girl dream?! :w00t:

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Oh come on you really aren't that unaware, are you? Those are demonstrations of EXACTLY the evolved biological drivers i was speaking of in animals

Trying to doge a bullet by typical obfuscation ... the pictures are related to your statement

Mr Walker, on 05 January 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

. No other animals share this understanding of a common internal belief, and thus remain separated by evolved biological drivers into small groups.

or is it your 'correct' sentence structure again ..... and you are saying people remain separated into small groups ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I didn't say it was a god shaped hole That was the description of the author ANd yes without any adult intervention young children will construct beliefs about how things happen such as a present appearing under a tree. they will logically thay will impute or deduce that an unknown Agent did this (an agent is a very particular construct of ealry cognitive development when children first realise there are agents and non agents in their world .)

Agents initiate and are responsible for changes in the child's environment. and, without understanding of the world, this agent can be magical rather than real. So fairy or a spirit or god but the child wont attach those words to its construct until it learns them

No ... they wont ... hey will start with words like Da then Da da or Maa then Mum ma .... but not every child ....

Baby Walker : " ... Ma .... ma .... ..... "

Grandma Walker : "Come quick Horace ! baby is about to say his first word ! "

" Ma . ma .... ma sterious agent "

:passifier:

Then when the idea of santa is introduced (or the idea of a particular god ) the response is sort of " Oh yes, well of course,. that explains everything" The child has already created its own construct of a magical agent of change and just attaches an adult's label to it.

i though this was all fairly simple to understand but the i have spent years studying childrens cognitive development so that might be unfair This is all fairly recent work based on studies around the world

... and 9 out of 10 dentists agree !

Even the whole concept of Santa is based on the benevolence of the parental figure ... Father Christmas, Walker.

How the hell are you going to bring a child up, or to any stage, " without any adult intervention " and I am sure the studies say they did that :-* .

yes, somewhere in the world is a laboratory where they get new born babies, and have robots look after them . .... then, at a crucial stage they stick a little pine tree in the corner and leave a present under it . The child assumes, all of a sudden, after its life of observation , of now the robots supplying its needs, some mysterious God like agent has done it ... which they dont have a word for or terms to explain it . BUt then when an adult appears or a robot tells them it was santa , they think "Ohhhh riiiight ... thats why I had that 'mysterious agent ' feeling about that present ! " :-*

Or, to do the experiment properly , there would be no robot or parent or person involved in the child's raising ... they would supply all the child needs without the child knowing where things came from and develop a sense of 'mysterious agents' supplying everything then . yes, they would see the present under the tree as from a 'mysterious agent' ... except then, the whole experiment would be a fudge .

..... without any adult intervention .... right , like the whole study wasnt done without adult intervention ... even lying to the kids about how the thing got there in the first place.

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

yes it is .

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

You didn't read my post AGAIN. i said this happens if the parents DENY putting the presents there Belief evolves when a child has no knowledge or evidences to explain a change Ask a very young child how a toy got in a drawer ( when he didn't see it happen and it is a new event) and he is likely to give an answer involving "magical" agents . . it also connects to what a child believes a god could KNOW compared to a parent.

For instance, children who had been shown that a biscuit packet actually contained stones were asked whether adult human beings and God would know what was in the packet or be fooled by appearances. Three-year-olds easily attributed super-knowing to both God and human beings. Sometime between ages four and five children appear to stop attributing super-knowing abilities to humans; children of this age realised and enjoyed the fact that ‘Mommy can be fooled’ but persisted in the belief that God knows the true contents.They distinguished God-cognition from human-cognition.

Using a similar false-belief task, Knight (2008) showed Yukatek Maya children, aged four to eight years, a ho’ma (a dried-out gourd conventionally used to hold tortillas). Instead of the assumed tortillas, underpants were revealed to be inside the gourd. Children were asked if various native animals, a human puppet and various supernatural agents (e.g. the Catholic God, the Sun God, the forest spirits, and the ChiiChi – spirits often invoked by parents to children who misbehave) would know what was found in the ho’ma. Similar to past studies, (Barrett et al., 2001; Knight et al., 2004) children did not use an anthropomorphic approach to reason about God, but said that God would know what was in the ho’ma.

https://thepsycholog...cience-religion

No ... this post is actually proof of you missinterpreing the data to try and make your point .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

That is an excellent link and summarises some of the studies i was thinking of If you read it you will find it is saying EXACTLY what i am saying and explaining it in detail. You are ASSUMING I am misinterpreting due to bias. when my posts are saying precisely what this article says eg the reasoning evolved in childhood persists into adulthood.

More recently, Kelemen and Rosset (2009) provided experimental evidence that, under conditions of high cognitive demand, even science-educated adults show signs of scientifically inappropriate teleological reasoning.

That children at first attribute super knowing or god like abilities to ALL Agents but slowly distinguish between non god like agents and god like agents

and see God as the ‘man in the sky’. This view was largely accepted until a series of studies suggested that not only can children reason about God non-anthropomorphically, but they may do so from as early three years old (Barrett et al., 2001, 2003; Knight et al., 2004). These studies used ‘false belief tasks’ and other methods derived from cognitive developmental research on theory of mind – how we reason about others’ mental states. For instance, children who had been shown that a biscuit packet actually contained stones were asked whether adult human beings and God would know what was in the packet or be fooled by appearances. Three-year-olds easily attributed super-knowing to both God and human beings. Sometime between ages four and five children appear to stop attributing super-knowing abilities to humans; children of this age realised and enjoyed the fact that ‘Mommy can be fooled’ but persisted in the belief that God knows the true contents.

And here is confirmation of my main point, tha t children intuitively develop their own god concepts but then adapt those of others as the ylearn to cmmunicate.

The research reported above represents a growing body of work suggesting that many religious ideas are largely intuitive. One prominent contributor to CSR, Pascal Boyer, has argued that ideas that are mostly intuitive but have just a little tweak or two are the best candidates for transmission

And finally thier summary repersents my own feelings on this issue

Findings and theory from CSR are sometimes used as part of an argument against the truth or justification of religious belief (Dawkins, 2006; Dennett, 2006). We find no reason to draw such eliminativist conclusions (Barrett, 2007a; Schloss & Murray, 2009). Perhaps such evidence could even be used as part of an argument affirming a divinely implanted receptivity to the transcendent. Whether any given religious beliefs are true or false, helpful or harmful, to be realised and successfully transmitted they must enjoy some support by human cognitive systems. Here, we are only concerned with the latest published evidence relevant to just how well supported by cognition key religious ideas are.

Belief is belief These studies make no comment on the validity of beliefs just how and why human beliefs are constructed and exist.

MW there is no way to tell if a child under three constructs their own god, they can't take multiple choice tests or understand the material enough to address the questions, not to mention they typically don't remember what they thought at 1 or 2 years old.

This is absurd, at best one can say that kids do believe anything they are told and it is reinforced by their parents and their culture and their traditions. How can you come up with a study that will get inside the kids head at 2? How can you possibly separate culture and parents from their kids to determine this. Come on you need to think a bit more.

And, Nonsense you are not a specialist in children's cognitive development, who do you think you are fooling?

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Trying to doge a bullet by typical obfuscation ... the pictures are related to your statement

Mr Walker, on 05 January 2016 - 09:28 PM, said:

. No other animals share this understanding of a common internal belief, and thus remain separated by evolved biological drivers into small groups.

or is it your 'correct' sentence structure again ..... and you are saying people remain separated into small groups ?

No it is self evident that evolved dynamics in herd animals fish and birds cause them to flock in groups for protection on a statistical basis. But other animals including other primates ONLY chose to group together in small family or related groups Smell, group bonding tasks like grooming etc reinforce this small group dynamic, but it only stretches out to a relatively small number ( For example humans can only feel evolved empathy for about 60-70 other humans whom they can recognise as family or clan.) After that they need to construct an intellectual empathy for others. Humans overcame this tendency (according to psychologists and anthropologists) when they developed a belief structure enabling them to consciously TRUST people of a similar belief who were otherwise strangers to them and not related.

Animals CANNOT form this intellectually driven wider bond, as they have no equivalent belief system, nor the needed self awareness to form it.. Ants, for, example distinguish colony from non colony members by their sense of smell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

this happens if the adults deny putting any present there ... yet this is without any adult intervention . ... and kids just come up with this 'something mysterious just happened' ... all by themselves

:su

and you have to ask me if I am "really that unaware". :-*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

MW there is no way to tell if a child under three constructs their own god, they can't take multiple choice tests or understand the material enough to address the questions, not to mention they typically don't remember what they thought at 1 or 2 years old.

This is absurd, at best one can say that kids do believe anything they are told and it is reinforced by their parents and their culture and their traditions. How can you come up with a study that will get inside the kids head at 2? How can you possibly separate culture and parents from their kids to determine this. Come on you need to think a bit more.

And, Nonsense you are not a specialist in children's cognitive development, who do you think you are fooling?

he is at 'his best' today :clap:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

he is at 'his best' today :clap:

What is wrong with him? Don't answer, I don't care, I don't want to know.

He reminds me so much of my sister it's uncanny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

MW there is no way to tell if a child under three constructs their own god, they can't take multiple choice tests or understand the material enough to address the questions, not to mention they typically don't remember what they thought at 2 years old.

This is absurd, at best one can say that kids do believe anything they are told and it is reinforced by their parents and their culture and their traditions. How can you come up with a study that will get inside the kids head at 2? How can you possible separate culture and parents from kids to determine this. Come on you need to think a bit more.

Nonsense you are not a specialist in children's cognitive development, who do you think you are fooling?

Argue with the experts. Children begin to develop cognitive awareness and thought processes from before birth and it develops quickly after birth You can test for something like their abilty to distinguish agents from non agents at a very young age, well before they can communicate verbally , using non verbal assessments.

Children's ideas, like adult ideas, do not simply come from what they are told (or their thinking could not begin until they were able to communicate verbally) Their minds process and teach them internally, and will do so in a environment with NO formal teaching. You can construct your own thoughts on a matter, without having someone instruct you. Well, so can a one year old child, and even younger If this was not possible young children could not learn so easily and quickly The process of learning to walk is a non verbal process, involving observation, testing, experimenting, and cognitive processing. .

A child processes all environmental data, to learn inner abilities, in the same way as it learns to walk.

Specialist? No but part of my teaching training was specifically in children's cognitive development and in oral and written linguistic development. i also did a full 3 years of psychology, specialising in child psychology. A lot has changed since then but as a teacher I was required to keep up to date through reading and conferences.

And it just fascinates me i was reading and writing before i was 3 years old and i cant remember learning how i did this so i read everything i can on the subject The belief construct area is just one part of this.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

this happens if the adults deny putting any present there ... yet this is without any adult intervention . ... and kids just come up with this 'something mysterious just happened' ... all by themselves

:su

and you have to ask me if I am "really that unaware". :-*

Children AND adults have an apparently evolved need to have answers to questions, (understand their environments) in order to feel more secure. Thus, yes, a HUMAN child will construct a rationale for something happening where it has no knowledge This is due to its self awareness and its environmental awareness at even an early age.

If you want NO adult intervention, just put a present there and ask a child how it appeared there. With NO adult intervention/presence seen to explain the presents appearance, it will come up with a logical but magical agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

No it is self evident that evolved dynamics in herd animals fish and birds cause them to flock in groups for protection on a statistical basis. But other animals including other primates ONLY chose to group together in small family or related groups Smell, group bonding tasks like grooming etc reinforce this small group dynamic, but it only stretches out to a relatively small number ( For example humans can only feel evolved empathy for about 60-70 other humans whom they can recognise as family or clan.) After that they need to construct an intellectual empathy for others. Humans overcame this tendency (according to psychologists and anthropologists) when they developed a belief structure enabling them to consciously TRUST people of a similar belief who were otherwise strangers to them and not related.

Animals CANNOT form this intellectually driven wider bond, as they have no equivalent belief system, nor the needed self awareness to form it.. Ants, for, example distinguish colony from non colony members by their sense of smell.

If you are trying to say primate behavior in forming extended family groups is over ruled in humans by extension of or cutting across those groupings due to the factors of religion, that is also a fudge , it relates more to the human culture of clan extensions ... of which religious beliefs are a part of, but not the driver at all.

Even being a certain type of 'driver' can cut across all sorts of divisions .... or make them .

voclogo.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

IMO you are trying t make a very complex issue too simple and also starting a the wrong end A book doesn't make people hate. People hate from inner fears anger loneliness etc learned as children. From the bible or from the koran you can learn or get love OR hate just as you can take and develop either from the world and people around you

Not at all, you just overthink things all the time, that is how the flaws in your arguments become blatant to be frank.

Of they are individual, why are they all quoting the same violent verses? There are quite a few, one would think if individuality had say here that certain verses would appeal to certain understandings, and we would get an array of violent verses when Islamic Terrorists slaughter innocents randomly, but we do not, we hear the same crap over and again.

Every individual by nature of our mental isolation and processing HAS to become themselves via how they internally process information from outside be it books or other influences

And if that is one book full of violence, that is how you will be influenced. Many Middle Eastern are illiterate and have the Koran read to them. They do not have a choice at all, they are simply indoctrinated as violent people from the moment they can understand that book being read to them. Processing is done for them, relgion turning men into mindless killing machines.

It doesnt surprise or worry me tha t PA and i have different interpretations. He is a good man in the classic sense with good ethics moralities and principles who would try to to good He doesnt read the old testament and say

" kill the unbelievers" and he wouldn't read the Koran and see that message in it.

his interpretation of god has come from his own learned knowledge and his own learned moralities and ethics.

He is a most excellent person with a sound understanding of his faith. He can also talk about life in general without debate, and is a very pleasant fellow, we had coffee just before Christmas.

Only fundamentalists insist on taking the Bible's literally, that is why Westboro stand out amongst Christians. Christianity matured, so we see very little moronic acts of faith like the AOG or Westboro. Islam did not, so we see radicals slaughtering people for 11th century ideals every other week. That alone shows the faiths and indoctrination heavily influence the person.

Its not the bible or the koran which is the problem it is "simply" that every individual inherently MUST come to any book or any situation with a personal and individual inner world view which shapes how they will respond and react .

That is not going to happen when it is forced upon one from birth. That indoctrination steals that process of thought from us and replaces it with what certain authorities want you to think. That is how God remains in these times, when rationally, he should not.

I live by the bible without hurting anyone, without breaking any laws and earning love and respect form those around me ( And this is apart from the very positive effect such a life has on me and others) I could live by the koran in exactly the same manner .

My interpretation of god has come form my experiences with god. I chose my lifestyle from internal ethics moralities and principles. to bring strength and empowerment to myself and others. So, i think, does PA

Look, with all due respect, I just cannot discuss God or your understanding of that ideal at all. As you feel God visits you and speaks to you, I almost feel I have an unfair advantage here. What you need is a shrink, with all due respect, anyone who says God appears in their backyard for chats, before taking off through the solar system for a jaunt with Aliens does.

You try to push God, that is damaging although you just refuse to believe it.

I have to say that from the evidences of my life , god is a god of great love, justice, and mercy. These are also qualities any human being can choose for themselves, to live by. Sometimes humans find those too strong and uncompromising to live by and with in their pure form, and want to play around with the balance to say, have more mercy and less justice, or more justice and less mercy or only love SOME fellow human beings as themselves.

You mean some people are honest, and some do not play by a book of rules. There is no moral code, we are what we are and have to abide by each other in society, we do not get a choice there.

All I can say of the evidence of my life says God is just imagination, which explains what the smart guys like Darwin have been trying to point out for some time now. Your backyard chats with God enforce my Atheism as it shows just how far belief can remove one from reality. You living your life as you do, turn people away from relgion. You might have noticed by now that most posters seem to see you are pretty darn whacky, if that is what relgion does to a person I doubt many want a part of it.

So any one who preaches against love justice and mercy for ALL, and every individual human being, in MY mind, is not preaching the word of god (nor the best of mankind) but the word of god's opposite (and the worst of man kind's traits)

And yet they still not only convince millions of people, but also incite thousands to fight some religious war for an imaginary being.

Remember Anthony Mundine's stupid remarks about 911? And he was raised by indigenous parents and played footy. Look at the clown now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

No ... this post is actually proof of you missinterpreing the data to try and make your point .

If that is your belief, then you need to explain how and why you hold it, because the whole article (and many others ) are quite clear and direct in what they are saying.

Just a few words will do. What do YOU think this article is saying?

What have i MISINTERPRETED, and how can you interpret it differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Yes, it does seem to support that religion is a childish stage that many never evolve up from .

I wonder if My Segway realises that is what his argument spells out?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

What is wrong with him? Don't answer, I don't care, I don't want to know.

He reminds me so much of my sister it's uncanny.

your sister is like this ? :w00t:

220px-PercyKilbride.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

What is wrong with him? Don't answer, I don't care, I don't want to know.

He reminds me so much of my sister it's uncanny.

Speaking with my psychologists hat on, perhaps that is part of the problem. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Argue with the experts. Children begin to develop cognitive awareness and thought processes from before birth and it develops quickly after birth You can test for something like their abilty to distinguish agents from non agents at a very young age, well before they can communicate verbally , using non verbal assessments.

Children's ideas, like adult ideas, do not simply come from what they are told (or their thinking could not begin until they were able to communicate verbally)

What ????

If that is your belief, then you need to explain how and why you hold it, because the whole article (and many others ) are quite clear and direct in what they are saying.

Just a few words will do. What do YOU think this article is saying?

What have i MISINTERPRETED, and how can you interpret it differently?

I already wrote that above. How many people does it need to tell you you need help ... all in a row ... one after the other ?

Edited by back to earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I wonder if My Segway realises that is what his argument spells out?

Absolutely. But childish, in that it is a form of thinking we develop early in childhood. It is not necessarily a foolish or childish way of thinking, as it is evolved to protect us and help us make sense of our world. It works for adults too, but it is important to be aware that we tend to think in this way. and learn other cognitive methods to give us other ways of interpreting our environments.

All humans have belief constructs and use faith in things to survive. Religious belief is only a part of this wider application, of this form of cognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

your sister is like this ? :w00t:

220px-PercyKilbride.jpg

No. I am sure sherapy meant her sister is incredibly attractive and intelligent. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

If you are trying to say primate behavior in forming extended family groups is over ruled in humans by extension of or cutting across those groupings due to the factors of religion, that is also a fudge , it relates more to the human culture of clan extensions ... of which religious beliefs are a part of, but not the driver at all.

Even being a certain type of 'driver' can cut across all sorts of divisions .... or make them .

voclogo.gif

Go argue with a cultural anthropologist or psychologist They are the experts i got this from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I wonder if My Segway realises that is what his argument spells out?

Did you see the news last night ? The new Walker (segway) 'hoverboards' burst into flames ... sometimes just sitting there ... sometimes when being used and sometimes when recharging ... one burnt a house down last night .

The Walker one has been 'recalled' ... we can live in hope I suppose ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.