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 -
BEAR-CUB

Does God expect to be worshipped by humans?

372 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
On 10/31/2020 at 12:36 AM, Guyver said:

Regarding the above......that is an interesting commentary Mr.Walker, you basically consider “god” a product of the mind... yet you yourself claim to have experiences with “god” that demonstrate the opposite.

In humans EVERYTHING is a product of our mind ,but some things are also real Ie have their own independent existence 

Many humans believe, via faith, in gods,  but never meet one

Others know them through personal contact and experience  (Physical, spiritual or cognitive)

In both cases we have to interpret the contact through our own minds, as we interpret anything and anybody we encounter. 

The hypothetical points i gave can apply equally to belief in a god (or a god construct ) and a contact with a real "god"   ie if your mind constructs a god, it ma also give you an internalised set of expectations  which you believe that god has of you 

If you  live with a real god it may actually speak with you and explain that i thas the same requirements  of you that the first person  constructed (or it may explain it has entirely  different expectations of you )

eg my "god" asks of me to be the best i can be, in order that i can best serve or help others (from  family, to community, to people across the earth) It tells me that this service applies to every human being and to animals and the environment. it gives me skills and resources to do what it asks of me, but allows me to do as i wish and to use those resources and skills as i choose to.

  it accepts tha t what i can do is limited but asks that i do my best.Sometimes, when my resources are not enough, it gives me more, to complete a task 

Every person who constructs a god will have slightly different inbuilt expectations of tha t god 

it also seems tha t each individual who encounters a god is asked for slightly different although often common things Biblically this is explained via the story of the gifts and talents Each person is  given different talents(skills)  and thus "god" has different requirements of each,  according to their talents   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Alchopwn
On 10/28/2020 at 1:27 PM, larryp said:

You're just a little confused, Alchopwn. But don't worry, I'll help you out!!

". . . but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. Acts 10: 35  

But racism isn't right, and never has been.  An omniscient deity would know that.  You are the confused one.

Did Jesus preach "Hate thy neighbor"?

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 10/19/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mr Walker said:

Its not twaddle. it is established scientific fact 

Human cognition begins before spoken language, and thus infants construct inner explanations for things the y observe

Before they have the power of language, infants have very little ability to consciously remember what they experience, hence the "peekaboo" game's great success with infants.  Their brains are definitely highly active, and working overtime to make sense of the random patterns around them, but that is not the same as "explanations", and more of a desperate chase for signal in amongst the noise of sensation that is assailing them.  Memory only develops to any great degree after the acquisition of language, when the tools of language provide a logical framework on which memory can be meaningfully constructed.

On 10/19/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mr Walker said:

Hence infants, all by themselves, invent invisible agents which are the precursor belief for gods Thus humans could NOT develop science or knowledge etc without constructing concepts of gods because those constructs come first BEFORE science and understanding    

 Children occasionally develop imaginary friends.  Please introduce me to the child who has spontaneously told their parents that they have a friend their parents cannot see called YHVH who is all powerful.  The latter is a delusion among adults.  I also debate the value of the Agency Attribution in Infancy Paper as a means of demonstrating "god" in the minds of children.  That is not the thrust of the paper at all and is pure projection on your part.

On 10/19/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mr Walker said:

ANY entity, animal or artificial, which evolves human level intelligence will do the same, and so will have the concept  of gods 

Complex societies evolved without belief in all-powerful deity

There are a great many societies that have evolved without having any belief in more than spirits, and then, generally as a way of discussing diseases (which they cannot see).

The Pirahã do not have any concept of a god or gods for example.  Your position is based on anthropological ignorance.

On 10/19/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mr Walker said:

I am the sort of person who cannot be manipulated or controlled (except by my wife, where i give consent) :)    I have here in the past suggested that peole walk awy from regions the y are not comfortable with, and if they need a religion, to join one which fits their needs, and where they are comfortable 

Or they need no religion at all because it is mainly destructive to believe in things that aren't true.

On 10/19/2020 at 1:27 PM, Mr Walker said:

You got it right that your response is an emotional construct based on your social values 

You got it wrong about my own opinion 

No, you are a narcissist who will never acknowledge your failures and faults.  You even persistently lie about not belonging to a religion when you have admitted to such in the past repeatedly.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Before they have the power of language, infants have very little ability to consciously remember what they experience, hence the "peekaboo" game's great success with infants.  Their brains are definitely highly active, and working overtime to make sense of the random patterns around them, but that is not the same as "explanations", and more of a desperate chase for signal in amongst the noise of sensation that is assailing them.  Memory only develops to any great degree after the acquisition of language, when the tools of language provide a logical framework on which memory can be meaningfully constructed.

 Children occasionally develop imaginary friends.  Please introduce me to the child who has spontaneously told their parents that they have a friend their parents cannot see called YHVH who is all powerful.  The latter is a delusion among adults.  I also debate the value of the Agency Attribution in Infancy Paper as a means of demonstrating "god" in the minds of children.  That is not the thrust of the paper at all and is pure projection on your part.

Complex societies evolved without belief in all-powerful deity

There are a great many societies that have evolved without having any belief in more than spirits, and then, generally as a way of discussing diseases (which they cannot see).

The Pirahã do not have any concept of a god or gods for example.  Your position is based on anthropological ignorance.

Or they need no religion at all because it is mainly destructive to believe in things that aren't true.

No, you are a narcissist who will never acknowledge your failures and faults.  You even persistently lie about not belonging to a religion when you have admitted to such in the past repeatedly.

 

Your first point is only partially true,

Very young children learn to observe and reason long before they have the abilty to speak audibly

Speech requires a whole new range of skills apart from thought  which have to be learned, from  observation and mimicry, (eg which use of tongue and facial muscles provides which sound) to vocabulary ie attaching commonly understood meanings to things and ideas.  Studies around the world indicate that infants construct the concept of slef directed agencies ie "gods"  to explain what they observe but cant explain    well before the y can express these concepts to others.  

children thus develop the concept of imaginary agencies This can include friends and gods 

What they call their own creations of mind will depend on the language the y are taught and the social concepts the y are surrounded by

I was raised an atheist secular humanist and so, when i encountered a powerful outside agency aged about 13 i perceived i as a universal consciousness.

An alien intelligence but not a god or religious figure.

However again studies of children have shown tha t children of atheists have no less tendency to construct god figures than children of theists Only later does surrounding culture influence their thinking So by the time i was 13 my parents beliefs meant that i never saw this as a religious experience or the being as a god  

There are NOTmany societies which evolved without spitualbleifs 

The evolution of god forms from animist  to mono theistic, to modern forms is a fascinating study in itself.

BUT ALL human societies even  the pirana  construct imaginary agencies.  Today we use god to mean the christian sort of god but early people had gods of the earth sun moon sky fire water etc The y saw these gods as real and manifest in every natural  thing The sumerians even saw human constructs like bricks and beer as being created  only through the involvement of natural spirits 

sceince show us tha t beliefs are an evolved POSITIVE cognitive adaptation. Thuis beliefs are positive and healthy   whether the thing believed in is true or not 

if you have read into my posts that i "belong"  to religion then you are wrong 

The most ive said in tha t direction  is tha t i approve of and live by some christian moralities (like not stealing not committing adultery etc).  but that is because the y affirm the earlier humanist teachings of my parents  AND the y are the basis for laws and customs in my community 

I belong to no church. I haven't been in a church except  for weddings and funerals, for 40 years I don't have any theology and i dont have any religious based  beliefs. 

As long as it recognised the presence of a"god" i could belong to any religion, but i don't need to do so.   I have an interpersonal connection to a real, powerful, and living "god" which makes religion, belief and   faith, superfluous.

  Below is my"religion"and how i have always lived my life 

The one difference is tha t I KNOW a being we often call god is real, and i know form science tha t beliefs are positive for human  beings Otherwise i would have remained a secular humanist, rather than a non secular humanist  :)  

Humanist beliefs 

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-principles-of-secular-humanism/#:~:text=We believe in the common,are tested by their consequences.

if you  read any of my posts objectively, you will find the y are all motivated by those ethical beliefs, and sometimes i annoy people by  saying so explicitly.

  I  Just read your source. It actually explains exactly what ive just said  about human societies and evolution of human beliefs. 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Your first point is only partially true,

Very young children learn to observe and reason long before they have the abilty to speak audibly

Speech requires a whole new range of skills apart from thought  which have to be learned, from  observation and mimicry, (eg which use of tongue and facial muscles provides which sound) to vocabulary ie attaching commonly understood meanings to things and ideas.  Studies around the world indicate that infants construct the concept of slef directed agencies ie "gods"  to explain what they observe but cant explain    well before the y can express these concepts to others.  

No.  Unless you can produce an academic quality peer reviewed paper which EXPLICITLY says that, it simply isn't true.  Worse still, what you are arguing for here is another version of the God of the Gaps, which is a very flawed argument.  The God of the Gaps argument is that whenever humans are ignorant they will immediately superimpose God.  This means that Ignorance is God and people who worship God are actually worshiping their own ignorance.  That is the worst form of idolatry imaginable imo.  In short, no baby ever said "idk therefore god", because babies can't talk.  That idea needs to be planted in their heads for it to take root.  Most babies will say "idk therefore ask mom" when they are of an age to do so.  Then it is mom who infects them with god.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

children thus develop the concept of imaginary agencies This can include friends and gods 

What they call their own creations of mind will depend on the language the y are taught and the social concepts the y are surrounded by

I was raised an atheist secular humanist and so, when i encountered a powerful outside agency aged about 13 i perceived i as a universal consciousness.

An alien intelligence but not a god or religious figure.

However again studies of children have shown tha t children of atheists have no less tendency to construct god figures than children of theists Only later does surrounding culture influence their thinking So by the time i was 13 my parents beliefs meant that i never saw this as a religious experience or the being as a god  

Many people have schizophrenic episodes, most often brought on my poisons in their environment.  When in India they see Brahma or Krishna, not YHVH or Jesus.  You are not unique, and this is not proof of a god, this is proof that you lack critical function.  Did your deity tell you anything original that could verify that it was genuine?  If not, you are just a bit unhinged, likely through some chemical imbalance in your brain, hopefully temporary.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There are NOTmany societies which evolved without spitualbleifs 

The evolution of god forms from animist  to mono theistic, to modern forms is a fascinating study in itself.

I agree with these statements to a point.  Yes, societies have spiritual beliefs, but on closer inspection you discover that they are often based on an imperfect but culturally valid series of observations about the natural world that often approximate science, but lack deeper material understanding of the phenomena they seek to explain.  Much spirituality actually comes down to stage magic, often performed by people who don't know they are performing stage magic.  The classic example of this is the weeping madonnas.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

BUT ALL human societies even  the pirana  construct imaginary agencies.  Today we use god to mean the christian sort of god but early people had gods of the earth sun moon sky fire water etc The y saw these gods as real and manifest in every natural  thing The sumerians even saw human constructs like bricks and beer as being created  only through the involvement of natural spirits 

Spirits and ghosts are not gods and never have been.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

sceince show us tha t beliefs are an evolved POSITIVE cognitive adaptation. Thuis beliefs are positive and healthy   whether the thing believed in is true or not 

How can you say that and pretend to be sane?  No.  Your position is wrong.  There is nothing positive about thinking make-believe things are real.  At best it is imaginative and harmless, but at worst it is schizophrenic and a terrible mental disorder.  I have seen people in the throws of a schizophrenic episode, unable to determine what in their environment is safe while they talk to, argue and even fight with imaginary entities.  There is nothing positive about this adaptation.

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Humanist beliefs 

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

You can have religion or science, not both.  To pretend otherwise is to undermine both and make a fool of oneself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

No.  Unless you can produce an academic quality peer reviewed paper which EXPLICITLY says that, it simply isn't true.  Worse still, what you are arguing for here is another version of the God of the Gaps, which is a very flawed argument.  The God of the Gaps argument is that whenever humans are ignorant they will immediately superimpose God.  This means that Ignorance is God and people who worship God are actually worshiping their own ignorance.  That is the worst form of idolatry imaginable imo.  In short, no baby ever said "idk therefore god", because babies can't talk.  That idea needs to be planted in their heads for it to take root.  Most babies will say "idk therefore ask mom" when they are of an age to do so.  Then it is mom who infects them with god.

Many people have schizophrenic episodes, most often brought on my poisons in their environment.  When in India they see Brahma or Krishna, not YHVH or Jesus.  You are not unique, and this is not proof of a god, this is proof that you lack critical function.  Did your deity tell you anything original that could verify that it was genuine?  If not, you are just a bit unhinged, likely through some chemical imbalance in your brain, hopefully temporary.

I agree with these statements to a point.  Yes, societies have spiritual beliefs, but on closer inspection you discover that they are often based on an imperfect but culturally valid series of observations about the natural world that often approximate science, but lack deeper material understanding of the phenomena they seek to explain.  Much spirituality actually comes down to stage magic, often performed by people who don't know they are performing stage magic.  The classic example of this is the weeping madonnas.

Spirits and ghosts are not gods and never have been.

How can you say that and pretend to be sane?  No.  Your position is wrong.  There is nothing positive about thinking make-believe things are real.  At best it is imaginative and harmless, but at worst it is schizophrenic and a terrible mental disorder.  I have seen people in the throws of a schizophrenic episode, unable to determine what in their environment is safe while they talk to, argue and even fight with imaginary entities.  There is nothing positive about this adaptation.

You can have religion or science, not both.  To pretend otherwise is to undermine both and make a fool of oneself.

Do your own research.

It has nothing to do with gods. itis the result of research by psychologists sociologists and anthropologists.

Indeed it explains to an atheist in nonreligious terms,  how and why humans are predisosed to spiritual religious beliefs. However it does upset people who believe that chilren are indoctrinated into belief by adults Others may shape a childs belief but all human children inherently construct their own from birth

Sure many people have a mental illness many are on drugs or drunk or tired.Thus many encounters are unreal.That cant be used to argue that all such encounters are unreal.

When a human sees anything they perceive it through their cultural and personal filters. That applies to hallucinations and real encounters. We can only interpret a contact given our own knowledge education and  social/cultural background.

Personally? yep my entity tells me lots of things which i could not know but its the physical evidences of its presence which are more convincing

Spirits were seen as gods long before monotheistic gods were thought of.Once upon atime every tree every river etc  was believed to have a  powerful spirit in it. Around the world there were thousands of gods in animism and pantheism.Its only in the last few thosand years that we have limited god to one powerful entity greeks romans egyptians sumerians etc all had many gods with different qualities. Some were even mortal and bred with humans

Modern medicine and science has proven that faith and  belief are positive forces for humansThey evolved to help us deal/cope with the fears and uncertainties which come with our level of self awreness. The point is of course that a positive belief is healing,  regardless of whether the belief is true.

 

Finally no one can prove gods do not exist Some people seem to encounter them

This allows a human being to logically and safely believe in them

You have a belief they dont exist. I hope it serves you well, but its no more fact or knowledge than that of a person who chooses to believe

Your last comment is demonstrably wrong. Some elements  of some religious beliefs conflict with some elements of science, but in general, most humans, including scientists reconcile, and live with, both in their lives Hard scientist are a bit ess likely to be religious but so are all people with a higher education. Even so, many scientists are religious and spritual people

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-24/three-scientists-talk-about-how-their-faith-fits-with-their-work/9543772

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 11/5/2020 at 12:06 AM, Mr Walker said:

Do your own research.

It has nothing to do with gods. itis the result of research by psychologists sociologists and anthropologists.

Thanks, I have done plenty of research, and as an academic I can report that your information is out of date.  Were you putting in a paper I would inform you that you needed to keep your sources current.

On 11/5/2020 at 12:06 AM, Mr Walker said:

Indeed it explains to an atheist in nonreligious terms,  how and why humans are predisosed to spiritual religious beliefs. However it does upset people who believe that chilren are indoctrinated into belief by adults Others may shape a childs belief but all human children inherently construct their own from birth

You see this is your problem.  You seem to think that every child is essentially going to recreate the same illogical processes that first led primitive humans in the deserts of the Middle East to conclude that there was a man in the sky who made things happen.  The facts are quite contrary to this.  Nobody is born inherently religious, but some folk are born with a predisposition to schizophrenia, and that is the root cause of religion.  These poor folk hear voices and have visions, and speak about them with a mad conviction that causes gullible people to believe in their delusions, and that appeals to the narcissists in the community who want to be considered important and steal the resources of the selfsame gullible people, so they become the priests.

On 11/5/2020 at 12:06 AM, Mr Walker said:

Sure many people have a mental illness many are on drugs or drunk or tired.Thus many encounters are unreal.That cant be used to argue that all such encounters are unreal.

  On the contrary, the Bible tells us to ask and we will be answered, but that doesn't work, so the alternative hypothesis, that religion is bunk and madness must be correct.

On 11/5/2020 at 12:06 AM, Mr Walker said:

When a human sees anything they perceive it through their cultural and personal filters. That applies to hallucinations and real encounters. We can only interpret a contact given our own knowledge education and  social/cultural background.

Ahh, but if there was a real deity, then the visions would have commonality between all cultures.  Instead we have a hodgepodge of crazy.  Surely a deity who is omnipotent has more than enough power to appear to all who ask?  Surely a deity who is all knowing will do so in the manner needed to ensure that people understand that the deity is for all people and wants only the best?  Why then al this cultural confusion?  The devil?  No, it happens because the root cause is madness, and culturally driven madness to boot.  A real deity would provide visions that would never mislead and could always be verified and true.  Thus we know there is no real god for there are no real visions.

On 11/5/2020 at 12:06 AM, Mr Walker said:

Personally? yep my entity tells me lots of things which i could not know but its the physical evidences of its presence which are more convincing

The Center for Inquiry will pay you handsomely for proof of the supernatural Walker, so if you aren't full of ****, why not earn some easy money?  Get in touch and let them verify your spiritual power.  Here are their contact details:

The Center for Inquiry-Los Angeles is the west coast home to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Visit our website at www.cfiwest.org , or call (323) 666-9797.

Optionally, admit you are full of crap and ST*U.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Thanks, I have done plenty of research, and as an academic I can report that your information is out of date.  Were you putting in a paper I would inform you that you needed to keep your sources current.

You see this is your problem.  You seem to think that every child is essentially going to recreate the same illogical processes that first led primitive humans in the deserts of the Middle East to conclude that there was a man in the sky who made things happen.  The facts are quite contrary to this.  Nobody is born inherently religious, but some folk are born with a predisposition to schizophrenia, and that is the root cause of religion.  These poor folk hear voices and have visions, and speak about them with a mad conviction that causes gullible people to believe in their delusions, and that appeals to the narcissists in the community who want to be considered important and steal the resources of the selfsame gullible people, so they become the priests.

  On the contrary, the Bible tells us to ask and we will be answered, but that doesn't work, so the alternative hypothesis, that religion is bunk and madness must be correct.

Ahh, but if there was a real deity, then the visions would have commonality between all cultures.  Instead we have a hodgepodge of crazy.  Surely a deity who is omnipotent has more than enough power to appear to all who ask?  Surely a deity who is all knowing will do so in the manner needed to ensure that people understand that the deity is for all people and wants only the best?  Why then al this cultural confusion?  The devil?  No, it happens because the root cause is madness, and culturally driven madness to boot.  A real deity would provide visions that would never mislead and could always be verified and true.  Thus we know there is no real god for there are no real visions.

The Center for Inquiry will pay you handsomely for proof of the supernatural Walker, so if you aren't full of ****, why not earn some easy money?  Get in touch and let them verify your spiritual power.  Here are their contact details:

The Center for Inquiry-Los Angeles is the west coast home to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Visit our website at www.cfiwest.org , or call (323) 666-9797.

Optionally, admit you are full of crap and ST*U.

Its not out of date 

its an argued position but is demonstrated across the globe  Its not what i think This is the case given known work on human cognition and evolved neurological patterning   Every human is born with a predisposition to belief due to the nature of ealry human thinking and reasoning.

  A child is JUST like a person from 10000 years ago (our brains  have made no significant evolutionary advancement intha t time )  It lacks the knowledge and experience to answer questions which its mind formulates about its surrounding environment. The difference is tha t, today, with greter knowledge and options, a child can be  raised in belief or disbelief and given alternatives.

The question then becomes which is better for a human being, belief or lack of belief ? Clinically the answer is conclusively belief  

arguably those incapable of belief are the ones suffering from a mental illness because it is an evolved natural  quality of the human mind, and to lack the abilty is to be less evolved :) 

You have a unique and weird opinion about religion Its simply formalised belief.

that is not schizophrenia because the beliefs cant be shown to be false, but rather promote well being and longevity in human beings 

if we accept your pov 90% of modern humans (who are not atheists) are suffering from  schizophrenia.  

I cant speak for others, only myself. I am totally sane and  i never asked for the presence of a "god' in my life

I suspect the" ask and  you  will be answered" is conditiona.l First it requires listening for an answer and second accepting the answer even if you  dont like it    

If you  cant hear the "voice of god" then it cant answer you.

  why would  perception and understanding of an alien entity be universal across cultures or time ?Nothing else is 

some see dogs as humans. Some love them as pets and companions Some see them as dangerous Some enjoy eating them; and those differences are with a common, well known entity    People describe encounters through their own understandings and knowledge. Thus someone from  2000 years ago might see something as a "chariot of the gods" while we would recognise it as a space craft  

Ps while interesting i dont need  more validation of my abilities That exists in objective form through the many people i have helped find lost objects 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Its not out of date its an argued position but is demonstrated across the globe  Its not what i think This is the case given known work on human cognition and evolved neurological patterning   Every human is born with a predisposition to belief due to the nature of ealry human thinking and reasoning.

What you have put together IS obsolete and faulty, biased and simplistic conclusions without foundation in reality.  For a start, you don't seem to even understand what a "predisposition to belief" actually means.  It isn't, as you suggest, a predisposition to believe in the supernatural, but a predisposition to believe what one's parents and educators tell you.  This comes up in studies of hypnosis as well as pediactric neurology and related fields.  We are now getting into my fields of specific interest.  As a person with a linguistic background I cut my teeth on the famous Chomsky vs Skinner debate in my undergrad years, and that has its foundation in pediatric neurology. This is what drove me into a brief study of pediatric neurology was part of my (secondary) psych qualification.  This is a question that has held my attention since the 1990s and I have read widely and deeply on the subject as a result.  While the media has simplified the debate into a simplistic nature vs nurture rerun, the behavioralist vs structuralist debate is in most ways superseded by actually coming to terms with a study of brain development, which is a huge topic spanning thousands of academic papers and articles.  The failing of the theories of both Skinner and Chomsky is that they are theorists, and the development of a child's brain is something they were unable to monitor back in the 1960s.  Suffice to say, instrumentality has improved dramatically in the last 60 years, and our growth of knowledge in this area is not quite exponential.  I am also quite up to date with neurotheology, and I can say with confidence that what you are saying is inaccurate.  Children at an early age are very susceptible to suggestion from authority figures in their early lives, and this is a function of evolution as these people are supposed to be their educators who prepare them for survival.  Children at this age are also highly susceptible to hypnosis as their sense of self is developing,and it is a process similar to hypnosis that allows them to become educated.  This education is however lacking in critical function and thus has the character of belief rather than the more adult capacity of a reasoned belief aka knowledge.  At no point is there a predisposition to spontaneously develop a belief in the supernatural; this comes when children are read Bible stories and other fairy tales. Children imbibe these myths uncritically "at the nipple" and if they aren't forced to confront the limitations of these ideas they may be sustained into adulthood as a form of infantile wish fulfillment, and a brain in a diminished capacity, when hallucinating will often draw upon these images as a source of comfort as often the brain regresses to a more infantile level of cognition.  This same style of processing has actually been modeled in computer programming architecture, where earlier but redundant elements of a program may come to the fore in analytical programs when they encounter unfamiliar information or experience errors.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
12 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

What you have put together IS obsolete and faulty, biased and simplistic conclusions without foundation in reality.  For a start, you don't seem to even understand what a "predisposition to belief" actually means.  It isn't, as you suggest, a predisposition to believe in the supernatural, but a predisposition to believe what one's parents and educators tell you.  This comes up in studies of hypnosis as well as pediactric neurology and related fields.  We are now getting into my fields of specific interest.  As a person with a linguistic background I cut my teeth on the famous Chomsky vs Skinner debate in my undergrad years, and that has its foundation in pediatric neurology. This is what drove me into a brief study of pediatric neurology was part of my (secondary) psych qualification.  This is a question that has held my attention since the 1990s and I have read widely and deeply on the subject as a result.  While the media has simplified the debate into a simplistic nature vs nurture rerun, the behavioralist vs structuralist debate is in most ways superseded by actually coming to terms with a study of brain development, which is a huge topic spanning thousands of academic papers and articles.  The failing of the theories of both Skinner and Chomsky is that they are theorists, and the development of a child's brain is something they were unable to monitor back in the 1960s.  Suffice to say, instrumentality has improved dramatically in the last 60 years, and our growth of knowledge in this area is not quite exponential.  I am also quite up to date with neurotheology, and I can say with confidence that what you are saying is inaccurate.  Children at an early age are very susceptible to suggestion from authority figures in their early lives, and this is a function of evolution as these people are supposed to be their educators who prepare them for survival.  Children at this age are also highly susceptible to hypnosis as their sense of self is developing,and it is a process similar to hypnosis that allows them to become educated.  This education is however lacking in critical function and thus has the character of belief rather than the more adult capacity of a reasoned belief aka knowledge.  At no point is there a predisposition to spontaneously develop a belief in the supernatural; this comes when children are read Bible stories and other fairy tales. Children imbibe these myths uncritically "at the nipple" and if they aren't forced to confront the limitations of these ideas they may be sustained into adulthood as a form of infantile wish fulfillment, and a brain in a diminished capacity, when hallucinating will often draw upon these images as a source of comfort as often the brain regresses to a more infantile level of cognition.  This same style of processing has actually been modeled in computer programming architecture, where earlier but redundant elements of a program may come to the fore in analytical programs when they encounter unfamiliar information or experience errors.

 

 

You are letting what you want to believe influence what you do believe :) 

There is an evolved cognitive mechanism in human beings (consisting of a number of sub  mechanisms) which predisposes us to belief as a survival mechanism  (both physical survival and emotional well being) 

This means we do tend to believe what we are told but also that we tend to construct believable explanations for observations where we dont have the evidences to know.  Infants begin to believe before they can ever understand the words of others , so we know that belief is selff constructed not taught 

Funny I had the same academic background  in human (specialising in infant /child) cognition and psychology  Plus ive read continuously since then

My understandings are very different to yours.  I dont disagree with much of what you say but  when it comes to the construction of belief a chid will always construct its own, even if is taught by an atheist  or a robot who never mentions religion or gods.

Its just how our minds operate to meet the requirements of our own self  awareness and the questions we raise internally 

 it is inevitable in any functioning developing human mind  and we will see the same thing occur in AIs and  other animals, as the y evolve self  aware consciousness 

Its true tha t, as we learn both information and  reasoning, we can be "educated out of belief" (or indoctrinated into a specialised form of belief)  However, because belief has evolved a s  a pro survival factor in human beings, a human without beliefs is less  "successful"  than one with positive beliefs, and thus less likely to reproduce (The beliefs dont have to be religious, the y can be philosophical, but religious are often the strongest, and thus  the most effective )Thus  less than 10% of modern humans have no belief in something bigger than themselves and about half specifically believe in a form of god 

You might argue that this article is a bit old but nothing has been shown to disprove it, since then.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief

 

Developmental psychologists have provided evidence that children are naturally tuned to believe in gods of one sort or another.

Children tend to see natural objects as designed or purposeful in ways that go beyond what their parents teach, as Deborah Kelemen has demonstrated. Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty.

Children doubt that impersonal processes can create order or purpose. Studies with children show that they expect that someone not something is behind natural order. No wonder that Margaret Evans found that children younger than 10 favoured creationist accounts of the origins of animals over evolutionary accounts even when their parents and teachers endorsed evolution. Authorities' testimony didn't carry enough weight to over-ride a natural tendency.

Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-olds attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions. Children then have to learn that mother is fallible, and dad is not all powerful, and that people will die. So children may be particularly receptive to the idea of a super creator-god. It fits their predilections.

That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief.

quote

A new study just published online in the Journal of Religion and Health by my lab at Columbia University shows that happiness and the character traits of grit and persistence go “hand in hand” with a deeper inner asset: spirituality, which this study measured as a deep spiritual connection with a sense of a sacred world.

More generally my research of more than 20 years on adolescence, depression and spirituality shows more specifically how putting a priority on performance stunts development of a child’s inner life and the single most powerful protection against depression and suffering, the spiritual self.

What we have learned is that children are born with an innate capacity for spirituality, just as they are born with the capability to learn a language, read and think. But just as it takes time and effort to develop the ability to speak or read, it also takes time and effort to develop our innate sense of the spiritual.

A strong new body of science, developed during the last decade to what we now consider to be a level of certainty, demonstrates, first, that any sort of spirituality becomes a source of health and thriving for kids and, second, that the lack of spirituality in families and youth culture can be a big source of suffering.

https://time.com/3825083/why-kids-who-believe-in-something-are-happier-and-healthier/

Lisa Miller, Ph.D. is Director of Clinical Psychology at Teachers College, Columbia University and author of the forthcoming book, The Spiritual Child; The New Science of Parenting for Health and Lifelong Thriving

quote

In general, recent findings in the cognitive sciences cast considerable doubt on the everyday atheist's assumption that religion can be explained by a simple "wish fulfilment" theory – that we believe because we wish it to be true. I do not think this type of generic explanation is entirely intellectually bankrupt but I do think it is perfectly circular. Why does ours species need to feel like there is something bigger out there or to have a sense of purpose and so on to begin with? Do other animals have these same existential needs? If not, why don't they?

These are not just aimless psychological musings. Many scientists believe human beings evolved a suite of cognitive traits that are more or less unique to our species. This does not make us "better" than other animals but only different. And one of these uniquely human traits, commonly referred to as "theory of mind", is at the heart of every profound existential question you could ever hope to ask: What happens when we die? What is the meaning of life? Why do bad things happen to good people?

But as the data mounts, it is becoming clear that even atheists experience the vague sense that they are here for a preconceived purpose, that their minds are endless, that there are inherent moral truths, and that the nonhuman world employs human justice. And these cognitive illusions are dramatically more potent than, say, your average Müller-Lyer, because they involve strong emotions, social dynamics and cultural institutions.

Is God a human instinct? It is instinctive for us to seek a grand, moralistic mind that is not there. God is the default stance. And as I describe in The God Instinct, the illusion of God solved a very specific evolutionary problem for our ancestors – that of reputation-harming (and thus gene-compromising) gossip. By inhibiting selfish behaviours that they feared would be punished by supernatural agents, our ancestors would have promoted their prosocial reputations among actual people

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/04/the-god-instinct-jesse-bering

Ps  i am aware that there is a whole new area of study called neuro theology, which examines the links between human neurology and theology  

It is interesting, but it doesn't reach the conclusions tha t you have reached  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3968360/

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 11/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, Mr Walker said:

You are letting what you want to believe influence what you do believe

Thanks but I have never needed the permission of deluded idiots to research and add to my knowledge.  I don't accept the validity of belief as a concept.  Belief is intrinsically a hand-me-down.  It means that you accept the here-say "evidence" of a supposed witness, which is not the same as actual evidence, it is accepting testimonials, and that is foolish.  You have nothing to offer anyone Walker, except reinforcing ignorance, and that is something nobody needs. 

On 11/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, Mr Walker said:

There is an evolved cognitive mechanism in human beings (consisting of a number of sub  mechanisms) which predisposes us to belief as a survival mechanism  (both physical survival and emotional well being) 

You don't even grasp that humans are not mechanisms.  You cannot tell that the map is not the territory.  Nobody talks about stupid concepts like "survivial mechanisms" anymore.  You are decades out of date.

On 11/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, Mr Walker said:

This means we do tend to believe what we are told but also that we tend to construct believable explanations for observations where we dont have the evidences to know.  Infants begin to believe before they can ever understand the words of others , so we know that belief is selff constructed not taught 

What you describe has not been supported, even properly by inference by any academic study.  You are clearly out of your depth here.  Your misuse of terms and concepts suggests you failed undergrad psych.  Come back and try again when your reading is up to date.

On 11/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, Mr Walker said:

Funny I had the same academic background  in human (specialising in infant /child) cognition and psychology  Plus ive read continuously since then

Funny?  YOu're goddamn hilarious you pathetic joker. Stop lying.  I know you are a malignant narcissist and you have to pretend that you know everything, but your claims are obvious crap.  Your grasp of present knowledge in the field is non-existent.  You are referring to data that multiple papers dismissed in the early 1980s, and you are misrepresenting the information and jumbling your terminology in a pathetically amateurish fashion.  You are behaving like you are a fluent Hungarian speaker because you have 12 words of vocab.  Now to someone who knows nothing, you might pass, but we both know the truth.  Pull your damn fool head in.  If you are genuinely interested in the field, you have 4 decades worth of reading to catch up on.

On 11/7/2020 at 2:49 PM, Mr Walker said:

My understandings are very different to yours.  I dont disagree with much of what you say but  when it comes to the construction of belief a chid will always construct its own, even if is taught by an atheist  or a robot who never mentions religion or gods.

This is your level of understanding unfortunately

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
20 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Thanks but I have never needed the permission of deluded idiots to research and add to my knowledge.  I don't accept the validity of belief as a concept.  Belief is intrinsically a hand-me-down.  It means that you accept the here-say "evidence" of a supposed witness, which is not the same as actual evidence, it is accepting testimonials, and that is foolish.  You have nothing to offer anyone Walker, except reinforcing ignorance, and that is something nobody needs. 

You don't even grasp that humans are not mechanisms.  You cannot tell that the map is not the territory.  Nobody talks about stupid concepts like "survivial mechanisms" anymore.  You are decades out of date.

What you describe has not been supported, even properly by inference by any academic study.  You are clearly out of your depth here.  Your misuse of terms and concepts suggests you failed undergrad psych.  Come back and try again when your reading is up to date.

Funny?  YOu're goddamn hilarious you pathetic joker. Stop lying.  I know you are a malignant narcissist and you have to pretend that you know everything, but your claims are obvious crap.  Your grasp of present knowledge in the field is non-existent.  You are referring to data that multiple papers dismissed in the early 1980s, and you are misrepresenting the information and jumbling your terminology in a pathetically amateurish fashion.  You are behaving like you are a fluent Hungarian speaker because you have 12 words of vocab.  Now to someone who knows nothing, you might pass, but we both know the truth.  Pull your damn fool head in.  If you are genuinely interested in the field, you have 4 decades worth of reading to catch up on.

This is your level of understanding unfortunately

You are ignorant both of me, and  the  field in which you claim expertise 

If all you can do is offer personal  criticism, which is unfounded and unevidenced, you are not worthy of speaking with 

I mean really :) 
you say you "dont  accept the validity of beliefs as a concept," and yet  you  claim  I am deluded  

Just a little research should prove to you that beliefs are individual and individualised personal constructs, which we build and maintain as individuals, to serve our individual psychological, emotional and material needs.  Sure they can be influenced by family, peers or society's beliefs, and are language dependent to a large degree,  but unless we construct, and internalise, and maintain them, they will not survive.  

You need to  explain what you mean about humans not being "mechanisms"  Because we  are self  aware and self directed, if we ARE mechanisms, we can consciously control the input and output from  the machine.

No the studies i used come form the last 10-15 years no older.  Much is still  being learned through modern science psychology etc   I suspect it must be you who is totally ignorant and thus resorting to abuse rather than any evidences a t all to support your case. 

 

eg

quote 

 Recently, cognitive neuroscience research addressed the human capacity of believing. We present evidence suggesting that believing is a human brain function which results in probabilistic representations with attributes of personal meaning and value and thereby guides individuals’ behavior. We propose that the same mental processes operating on narratives and rituals constitute belief systems in individuals and social groups. Our theoretical model of believing is suited to account for secular and non-secular belief formation.

Thus, a belief is to be considered as a putative brain product of a believing individual and in general is entertained as a belief by humans. We hypothesize that beliefs serve a purpose in that they are linked to personal intuitive judgments about the subjective certainty of mental constructs and sensory perceptions, which is in line with the claims of others ( Harris et al., 2008). Personal beliefs thereby function as part of the building blocks of intelligent behaviour

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200943/    2016

 

quote 

Two long-standing observations about human cognitive behaviour provide Michael Shermer with the fundamentals of his account of how people form beliefs. One is the brain's readiness to perceive patterns even in random phenomena. The other is its readiness to nominate agency — intentional action — as the cause of natural events.

Both explain belief-formation in general, not just religious or supernaturalistic belief. Shermer, however, has a particular interest in the latter, and much of his absorbing and comprehensive book addresses the widespread human inclination to believe in gods, ghosts, aliens, conspiracies and the importance of coincidences.

Shermer is well equipped for this task. He is a psychology professor, the founder of Skeptic magazine and resident sceptical columnist for Scientific American. Once an evangelical Christian, he lost his faith largely as a result of his college studies of psychology and cognitive neuroscience.

The important point, Shermer says, is that we form our beliefs first and then look for evidence in support of them afterwards. He gives the names 'patternicity' and 'agenticity' to the brain's pattern-seeking and agency-attributing propensities, respectively. These underlie the diverse reasons why we form particular beliefs from subjective, personal and emotional promptings, in social and historical environments that influence their content.

As a 'belief engine', the brain is always seeking to find meaning in the information that pours into it. Once it has constructed a belief, it rationalizes it with explanations, almost always after the event. The brain thus becomes invested in the beliefs, and reinforces them by looking for supporting evidence while blinding itself to anything contrary. Shermer describes this process as “belief-dependent realism” — what we believe determines our reality, not the other way around.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/474446a      2011

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ajay0
On 5/7/2020 at 1:03 AM, Desertrat56 said:

I agree with your definitions and agree that a perfect, omnipotent being would not expect or want to be worshiped.

 

God does not require our worship and reverence for Her ego-fulfilment.

By worshipping or praising God, we are actually uplifting ourselves and purifying our own consciousness of impurities in the form of cravings and aversions. Such purification of consciousness results in bliss , peace and auspiciousness which cannot be gained in sensory pleasures. On the other hand, all objective or sensory pleasures is bound to result in pain and misery in the long run due to the factor of impermanence.

A woman who was beautiful and admired in youth, cannot get the same ego-fulfilment when she ages and loses her smooth features. A body-builder similarly cannot expect to be praised or admired when he gets older and his muscles atrophy and skin wrinkles. People who invest their happiness or pleasure in external impermanent objects are bound to suffer a lot in similar ways and will be at a loss later on.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are ignorant both of me, and  the  field in which you claim expertise 

Actually no, I'm not ignorant of the field.  I am attacking you personally for lying about your expertise when it is clear that your understanding is based on your slim personal reading and misunderstanding of the terminology and they your ignorant superimposition of your wrongheaded ideas onto the subject matter.  It is akin to sitting down to play a game of chess only to have your opponent start shoving chess pieces up their ass and then having completed the process declare that they have "won".  In short, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, you are "not even wrong".  As such, any serious discussion with you is an utter waste of time on this issue, which is quite disappointing.  Any effort to educate a malignant narcissist such as yourself is an utter waste of time in any case, as you are pathologically unable to actually learn due to your mental illness.  I should have realized this earlier and for that I apologise, not to you, but to anyone else reading this.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
5 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

God does not require our worship and reverence for Her ego-fulfilment.

By worshipping or praising God, we are actually uplifting ourselves and purifying our own consciousness of impurities in the form of cravings and aversions. Such purification of consciousness results in bliss , peace and auspiciousness which cannot be gained in sensory pleasures. On the other hand, all objective or sensory pleasures is bound to result in pain and misery in the long run due to the factor of impermanence.

A woman who was beautiful and admired in youth, cannot get the same ego-fulfilment when she ages and loses her smooth features. A body-builder similarly cannot expect to be praised or admired when he gets older and his muscles atrophy and skin wrinkles. People who invest their happiness or pleasure in external impermanent objects are bound to suffer a lot in similar ways and will be at a loss later on.

 

 

So you think bliss and fulfillment are tied to admiration of our physical aspects?  That seems exceedingly shallow.  An older woman can find bliss and joy and fulfillment from interactions with her children and others.  Children aren't even necessary for fulfillment and bliss.  And like you said all of that is fleeting so the best we can do is learn to be content.

I don't remember welcoming you to the forum, so welcome.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 11/10/2020 at 9:27 PM, Alchopwn said:

Actually no, I'm not ignorant of the field.  I am attacking you personally for lying about your expertise when it is clear that your understanding is based on your slim personal reading and misunderstanding of the terminology and they your ignorant superimposition of your wrongheaded ideas onto the subject matter.  It is akin to sitting down to play a game of chess only to have your opponent start shoving chess pieces up their ass and then having completed the process declare that they have "won".  In short, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, you are "not even wrong".  As such, any serious discussion with you is an utter waste of time on this issue, which is quite disappointing.  Any effort to educate a malignant narcissist such as yourself is an utter waste of time in any case, as you are pathologically unable to actually learn due to your mental illness.  I should have realized this earlier and for that I apologise, not to you, but to anyone else reading this.

Going by your posts you ARE ignorant of the field eg you  claimed my position was based on old (last century ) reserch.

It is not It is based on modern research, no older than 15 years, and often much more current.

  So far you have offered not a single academic study to prove your own pov but simply rubbished mine without any academic support 

And then you have the hide to refuse to debate the facts (i suspect because there a re none to support your pov or you would have provided them)_ 

Ps I have a clinical diagnoses proving I am not just sane, but highly functional. Do you ?  My interpersonal relationships with family, colleagues, community, and friends,  are excellent. How are your own? 

I do not  have to resort to breaking the site rules and social norms by attacking you personally You are simply wrong  The evidences available prove this   The reasons why you are  so  insistently   wrong   don't bother me, and aren't really my concern, but there is a lot of anger which worries me 

If you say/believe  i am wrong, debate the sources and evidence i have given.

Calling me names just makes you look like an unpleasant churl.     

note to other readers

Note that alchopwn did not reply to a single factual matter in my post, nor to the sources i provided.   H e did not  (even attempt to)   answer the questions i posed 

He simply abused me  and offered no academic backing/support  

Who of us is likely to be the more reliable/correct, and truthful.? 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
On 11/1/2020 at 1:24 AM, Djedi said:

A good example of a remnant of the monolatry phase of the Hebrew religion, between the polytheistic and monotheistic phase. The existence of other gods is accepted but only one is considered worthy of worship. 

Smoke and mirrors !! 

“Listen, O Israel: YHWH our God is one YHWH. Deuteronomy 6:4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
32 minutes ago, larryp said:

:sm Yes you are!! Okay, I'm going to "dumb" this down a bit.

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research . . . "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html

Maybe you should read the article you cited.

Or maybe you did and didn't understand it.

It definitely does not say life came from clay, but clay may have helped facilitate the development of proteins and othe necessities for life.

"In seawater, clay forms a hydrogel - a mass of tiny spaces which soak up other minerals, chemicals and tiny molecules from its surrounding area."

"Professor Dan Luo of Cornell said: 'In early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions."

"Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work."

Apparently it needs to be dumbed down a little bit more for you.

Why isn't clay listed in the composition of the human body?

"Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All 11 are necessary for life."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

"Clay mineral, any of a group of important hydrous aluminum silicates with a layer (sheetlike) structure and very small particle size. They may contain significant amounts of iron, alkali metals, or alkaline earths."

https://www.britannica.com/science/clay-mineral

So, no, I am not made of clay. Try again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
larryp
15 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

So, no, I am not made of clay. Try again.

I can't dumb this down for you any further: 

Everyone knows that their are eight major elements in earth crust or clay, found in every human body; here they are.

How Do the Different Elements in the Body Compare with Those Found on the Earth?

Specific elements play critical roles in the structures of proteins and the activities of enzymes in the human body. The table below outlines some of the uses of elements in humans6 and in the soil which forms the crust of the earth.7 Soils (including clay) contain dissolved minerals which are incorporated and stored by plants for our consumption or eaten by an animal that we later consume. The most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust are oxygen (46.6%) and silicon (27.7%). Minerals that combine these two elements are called silicates, which are the most abundant minerals on the Earth. Eight main elements account for more than 98 percent of the crust’s composition. The earth’s crust contains most of the mineral nutrients our body requires. Oxygen is the most abundant element in both the human body and the earth’s crust. is fThe human body is made up almost entirely of 13 elements. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen make up 96% of our body’s mass. The other 4% of body weight is composed almost entirely of sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, and iodine. Silicon as an element in the human body (less than one percent) is not as prevalent as it is in the earth’s crust; however we require this small amount of silicon for bone development, and itound in skin and connective tissue. Silicon dissolves in water and can be abundant in oceans and nearly all other waters. Microscopic single-celled algae, called diatoms, and some brown (Phaeophycota) and green (Pediastrum boryanum) algae require silica to build their cell walls.8 So we can see that the composition of living things is not simply a mirror image of the elements available to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
14 minutes ago, larryp said:

I can't dumb this down for you any further: 

Everyone knows that their are eight major elements in earth crust or clay, found in every human body; here they are.

How Do the Different Elements in the Body Compare with Those Found on the Earth?

Specific elements play critical roles in the structures of proteins and the activities of enzymes in the human body. The table below outlines some of the uses of elements in humans6 and in the soil which forms the crust of the earth.7 Soils (including clay) contain dissolved minerals which are incorporated and stored by plants for our consumption or eaten by an animal that we later consume. The most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust are oxygen (46.6%) and silicon (27.7%). Minerals that combine these two elements are called silicates, which are the most abundant minerals on the Earth. Eight main elements account for more than 98 percent of the crust’s composition. The earth’s crust contains most of the mineral nutrients our body requires. Oxygen is the most abundant element in both the human body and the earth’s crust. is fThe human body is made up almost entirely of 13 elements. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen make up 96% of our body’s mass. The other 4% of body weight is composed almost entirely of sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, and iodine. Silicon as an element in the human body (less than one percent) is not as prevalent as it is in the earth’s crust; however we require this small amount of silicon for bone development, and itound in skin and connective tissue. Silicon dissolves in water and can be abundant in oceans and nearly all other waters. Microscopic single-celled algae, called diatoms, and some brown (Phaeophycota) and green (Pediastrum boryanum) algae require silica to build their cell walls.8 So we can see that the composition of living things is not simply a mirror image of the elements available to them.

None of that mean humans are made of clay.

There are only 118 elements.

The fact that clay and humans share some of these elements does not mean humans are made of clay.

The human body is roughly 60% water.

Is water made out of clay?

Edited by onlookerofmayhem
Added
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Thread cleaned... enough with the personal attacks and insults folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.