Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Debate with Loren on God arguments: Religious Instinct

Photobucket




Loren is one of the faithful opposition, the friendly enemies who post regular. I am glad for her participation as it keeps me having to answer good objections to my ranting. Now we are arguing (from comments further down) about the innate sense of God.

I we are going to debate I might as well give her the full argument. This is from my Argument for religious instinct which No 5 on the list.


The full list of reasons for the argument includes more than just the God part f the brain:

The argument actually says that the fact of a religious species is far too coincidental to be merely the product of random chance. Why why would it be that we are fit to be religious, that it is our isitinct and our way of life? That would indicate that an object of religious devotion desinged religiosity into humans. In summation the following factors indicate that religiosity is part of human nature:

a) Historical Tendency:

The vast Majority of Humans have been religious as far back as we have evidence of humanity (50,000 years) [see above A. 3]

b) Believers have always been vast numerical majority

That is not appeal to popularity, it's an argument about behavior which indicates an innate condition. Almost 90% currently of world population are religious believers in some sense.

c) Trans cultural

When anthropologists see a behavior that transcends culture they assume it is innate. There has never been a culture that was atheistic. Every culture we have ever seen or found traces of on earth going back as far as we can has been religious in some way.

d) Even in cultures such as China where the government attempted irradiation of religious belief there are still 51% religious and many more undecided but not "anti-"religious

e) Physical fitness for religion

Our bodies work better when we are religious, it is the major factor in health and far more of a motivator than any other trigger of the Placibo effect [see above C.3]

f) Archetypes Universal

Archetypes are natural part of the human psyche (see the next argument). Also see Jesus Christ and Mythology page II. Archetypes are psychological symbols which point to transcendent ideal beyond the material realm. Studies show that they are natural to all people and emerge under a broad variety of psychological techniques.Maslow says that they are found among all people using ever technqiue of psychoanalysis. [above B.3]

g) Psychologically fit for religion

Psychological factors, religious believers have far less depression and incidence of mental illness so the human mind works best when religious. [above C]

h) Transformative power

IF the appeal of the argument were merely popularity, it would not turn on things other than popularity. Obviously these reasons I'm giving here are not popularity. But, the transformative power of religious expeirnce is another aspect of the argument which proves that it' not merely an appeal to popularity. Religious expernce trasnforms lives, it gives people life affirming experinces which makes them better as people and makes life worth living. Not all psychological factors are capable of doing that. We are so contituted as a speices that we respond to these experiences in such a way that they do transform our lives. That proves that we are fit to be religious, and that is not an appeal to popularity.[see also point C above on psychological normality and self actualization]

i) brain wave patterns

Brain wave patterns are changed by religious experience. We go from Alpha waves to Beta and to other levels of Brain wave patterns when we have these experinces.

j) "God pod" (God moduel in the brain)

Scientists have identified a cluster of neurons in the brian which, when stemulated, produce feelings of extacy and thoughts about God and the trasncendent. This is too great a coincidence that nature would just produce this by random chance, expecially when taken together with all the other ways in which we are fit to be religious. It's an evidence of design, we are made to be a religious sepcies.

k) Sense of the Numenous universal



Lorens comments form the comment section to a previous post, concerning "God pod" or aka "God part of the Brain."

Meta:
We know now that we are born with innate concepts of God. Scietnific fact. see Newberg, see Ramachandrin

Loren:

Is this Vilayanur Ramachandran that you are talking about? He seems to think that mystical experiences are a kind of hallucination, rather than a perception of some supposed superbeing that rules the Universe.

That's his theory to explain the data, becuase he can't accept the explanation about God being real. But the data clearly shows that God is real, he does present the data. The data shows that every one has some sense in which their brains react positively to God talk more so than to any other form of speech. The way he explains it doesn't hold water, and Newberg explains that. Newberg does actually lean to the idea that it proves God.




Meta:

Not believing in God is a pathological state.

Loren:
No more than disbelieving in the efficacy of sorcery is. Aren't you afraid that someone will cast a hex on you?

Yes actually more than that. You are only saying that as a personal opinion, the fact which you cannot deny is that the data indites innate idea in our minds, innate ideas impossible so moer than evolution put it there.



Meta:
It contradicts the basic human experience of the vast majority of people. you don't get to privilege your position based upon nothing but a snide a attitude.

Loren
Metacrock, I have some bad news for you. The large majority of people have not believed in your god. Instead, they've believed in "big man in the sky" sorts of gods, and often more than one of them.

Again you make this mistake very singel time you post here. When will you actually start to remember my answers to thinks. I correct you on this every single time I talk to you. Write it down!

There is no such thing as "My God." I have proven that the attributes of God are mutually exclusive. So anything that has those attributes is uniquely God. If that's the Muslim concept of God then so be it. If it's Zeus, (which it's not) so be it. Whatever has those is God. And all people are experiencing God at some level. God is at work in all religions. God is beyond our understanding we experience him at a subliminal level, so we can't oppose one tradition to another and say "this is right." Jesus is the common denominator because he was a concrete guy in hsitory, so we can follow his example as the revelation. But as far as ideas of God go all religious traditions stand the same equal chance of understanding God, which is that we don't.

It is therefore foolish to speak of "your God." There is only each traditions misconceptions of God. The various concepts of each religion that represent god are just metaphors that point to the one reality behind all traditions.



Loren
(What evidence do you have that a deity or God exists?)

Meta:
42 arguments I've been working on for 10 years.

Loren
Metacrock, it's really hard for me to keep score. Are those proofs or warrants for belief in a god whose existence cannot be proved?

Follow the link an see what it says about that. One of the lies that brain washed atheists tell about me is that I switch back and forth from "proof" to "rational warrant." But I've explained that on carm numerous times, just lie what I said above it's one of those really simile explanations that atheists can't bother themselves to remember. When I say it's not proof I mean it's not actual absolute proof like empirical observation. When I say it is proof I mean in a practical sense as in "close enough for government work," its enough to justify belief.


Loren
And would you want me to link you to refutations of those arguments?

They are all crap. There's not a one that I have not answered and beaten. If you mean the joke kpage where he answers like 300 stupid jokes and includes mine, I've seen those. If you mean real serious attempts to answer my arguments, sure, I'll have more fodder for my blog. But if they are the jokes don't bother. Of course they are all jokes but if they the intentional jokes, don't bother.



Meta:
because God created consciousness so we could know him. He wants to us to know him.

Loren:
That alleged entity is not trying very hard with me, and you are implying that that alleged entity is something like a big man in the sky.

Of course you are doing so much to give him a chance aren't you? That's why you mock and ridicule religious people and label yourself in opposition to him and run around thinking pessimistically, nursing your anger and so on. Yea you are so open! Have you ever read the Bible when you weren't looking for examples to mock and ridicule?

Meta:

Because what you are really saying is that you don't have to live by God's rules.

Loren:
How did you figure that out? I find no such implication.
If the shoe fits



Meta:
What I"m saying is love is universal and God loves us and cares about us. You spit in his face and despise him for loving you.

Loren:
Do you hate Zeus or Odin or Brahma or all the other gods you don't believe in?

No I don't hate them. I also don't mock and ridicule them, I don't hang out on message boards getting a rush form mocking and ridiculing people who follow them. They are contingent so they can't really be God, but they are metaphors that point to the reality behind all religious traditions. The Greeks had the sense of the numinous that is a sense of the true God. Paul on Mars Hills even said they worshiped the true God they just didn't know his name.


Meta:
there is no evidence of an alternative to God. There is no proof the universe popped out of nothing,

Loren:
Why do you think that the only possible alternatives are (1) your god and (2) popping out of nothing?

That's a totally unfair way to frame the question. I've explained that I'm a Christian universalist. I believe that God is working in all cultures, that we can't understand God we can only experience him. But the one concrete example of God's character we do have is Jesus. That doesn't change the fact, as Paul tells us (Rom 2:6-15/Acts 17:21-29) God is working in all cultures and in all hearts. All people have an innate sense of God. So farming he question of my God vs everything else is clearly unfair and unwarranted.

The only rational choices that do exist are these:

(1) some version of God

(2) something form nothing

(3) infinite string of causal Regression (ICR)

Since the 2 and 3 can be disproved as irrational and unwarranted 1 is the only one left. So you show me an alternative. I just honestly can't think of a foruth one.

Loren:
I can think of oodles of alternatives, like our Universe being a lab experiment in a super-Universe, our Universe being eternal, and our Universe being a bubble in some multiverse.
But isn't that first one just the atheist idea of God? Is it very likely as a possibility? Why shouldn't probability be part of the equation?

Our universe being eternal is disproved.

(1) it's not a theory regarded by any major scientist. odenwald once said energy is created in the big ban and that's why most scientists believe.

(2) Universe is a closed sysetm, it will burn off it's finite order in heat death and can't re-coup.

(3) Given infinite chances it would have done this long ago. Thus there is no way it could be eternal Because if it were eternal it could not cease to be.

Bubble in multiverse does not solve any of these problems. All that option does is to move the problem back one step. But where did the mutliverse come from? That's an invitation to ICR and I have disproved ICR.



Meta:

this is self defense. you little brainwashed thugs are attacking us, we have to begin to take care of ourselves. no more little nice Christian door mat.

Loren:
Jesus Christ taught that we ought to love our enemies, not hate them.



Are you ignoring what I said in my previous post, or don't remember, or didn't read it? I said I choose not to hate them.

Just because I"m cataloging their faults and pointing out the dangers of their own hatred doesn't mean I hate them. I pity rather than hate.

8 comments:

J.L. Hinman said...

There was a comment by one of the stupidest people I've ever run across. He actually offered no evidence what soever and kept crowing about how stupid I am and how Occam razor beats my arguments, of cousre he never explained how. This is the kind of mindless stupidity I just will not published. you if you think you have something of value to say it had better be specific and contain real knowledge of theology not just blathering atheist bigotry.

this guy was also so stupid he thinks that all religious people are agaisnt evolution. He thinks mentioning evolution is somehow a victory over my arguments. I don't have time for fools. I don't have time for shallow stupid people who can bother to read something and learn about theology.

if you can't be bothered to learn about theology you do not have the right to criticize belief in theology.

you are a dumb fuck and you don't know anything about Occam.

Of course the dildo misquoted Occam. Of cousre he's never read Occam like all atheists he doesn't know anything about it he's quoted what he hears his atheist brain washers tell him on message boards.

J.L. Hinman said...

part of being stupid is that atheists don't think about ideas they just react to buzz words. So this idiot has been told by other brain washed lacies that "Occam beats God." But Occam doesn't' beat god, Occam was a priest and hew as well aware that his idea did not disprove God.

Little atheist know nothings haven't read any books, they don't know what's been said by the great men they just repeat the lies their little brainwashers tell them to say.

Loren said...

The argument actually says that the fact of a religious species is far too coincidental to be merely the product of random chance.

That same argument could prove that we are also a superstitious species, that we are a false-religion-believing species, etc. Believing in things like multiple gods, anthropomorphic gods, Hell, etc.

As far as one can reasonably extrapolate, humanity has believed in polytheist religions for nearly all of its existence. We would otherwise be faced with the bizarre hypothesis that people became polytheist just as about the time that their beliefs could be written down, which is asking a LOT of coincidence.

As far as I can tell, Metacrock, you are claiming that the gods of polytheist religions are pure fiction. Yet why have people believed in all those false gods and worshipped them to the exclusion of the presumed One True God?

Our bodies work better when we are religious, it is the major factor in health and far more of a motivator than any other trigger of the Placibo effect

Demonstrably false. I've seen lots of studies of how religiosity correlates with affluence and the like -- the correlation is negative, not positive. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds aren't exactly religious maniacs. The members of the National Academy of Sciences aren't exactly religious maniacs either.

Metacrock, did you know that the least religious doctors are psychiatrists? You'd expect them to drive everybody up the wall with hyper religiosity on the ground that they recognize what's necessary to be sane and happy and fulfilled. But they aren't.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070903094243.htm

(V. Ramachandran's hypothesis of hallucination...)

That's his theory to explain the data, becuase he can't accept the explanation about God being real.

Where did he state that? I'm not him, but I'm guessing that he considers it a hallucination the way that he considers phantom limbs to be hallucinations.

And why would he conclude your theology from it, anyway? If he decided to convert to Buddhism or Taoism as a result of concluding that mystical experiences access some other plane of reality, would you join him?

Metacrock said...

The argument actually says that the fact of a religious species is far too coincidental to be merely the product of random chance.

That same argument could prove that we are also a superstitious species, that we are a false-religion-believing species, etc. Believing in things like multiple gods, anthropomorphic gods, Hell, etc.


At that point it doesn't matter. Either God is real or not but we are real and we do better in life when we believe in God and practice what we believe. That means it's more rational to do so.

As far as one can reasonably extrapolate, humanity has believed in polytheist religions for nearly all of its existence. We would otherwise be faced with the bizarre hypothesis that people became polytheist just as about the time that their beliefs could be written down, which is asking a LOT of coincidence.


that's not really the point either. Choosing a particular tradition is just a practical matter of having a guide. Religious traditions are shaped by cultural constructs. the same reality stands behind all of them. But logic dictates that there can be only one ground of being.

As far as I can tell, Metacrock, you are claiming that the gods of polytheist religions are pure fiction. Yet why have people believed in all those false gods and worshipped them to the exclusion of the presumed One True God?

all cultures have had the notion of one creator God behind the pantheon. The pantheon is really irrelevant.

Our bodies work better when we are religious, it is the major factor in health and far more of a motivator than any other trigger of the Placibo effect


Placebo can't be behind RE since it contradicts the basic notion of Placebo as not always expected. (btw atheist made spelling error on word placebo. But you refuse to use spell check--sorry I couldn't resist ;-)

Metacrock said...

Demonstrably false. I've seen lots of studies of how religiosity correlates with affluence and the like -- the correlation is negative, not positive.

so called "studies" are part of the phony er zots atheist would be social science, not done by real scientists. Also not dealing with religious experiences. People of all socioeconomic levels are religious.


Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds aren't exactly religious maniacs. The members of the National Academy of Sciences aren't exactly religious maniacs either.


Irrelevant. 45% of all people with scinece degrees are religious. NSA is self selecting, that means the original group of atheists selected atheists and keep selecting more atheists.

The studies used by atheists a few years go (Luba) used bad questions and dealt only with fundie idea of God, big man in sky. Studies that use more liberal concept of God show percentage fo believers in NAS goes way up when you deal with liberal ideas.


Metacrock, did you know that the least religious doctors are psychiatrists? You'd expect them to drive everybody up the wall with hyper religiosity on the ground that they recognize what's necessary to be sane and happy and fulfilled. But they aren't.


most shrinks don't do psychology of religion. Those who do are pro religion. The whole sub discipline of transactional psychology started by Maslow is pro religion. The 300 studies that show religion is so good for you are done by mainly psychologists and psychiatrists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070903094243.htm

(V. Ramachandran's hypothesis of hallucination...)

That's his theory to explain the data, becuase he can't accept the explanation about God being real.

Where did he state that? I'm not him, but I'm guessing that he considers it a hallucination the way that he considers phantom limbs to be hallucinations.


No he does not. He doesn't say it's God but he explained through e evolution but his explanation doesn't explain how it could be an innate idea.

And why would he conclude your theology from it, anyway? If he decided to convert to Buddhism or Taoism as a result of concluding that mystical experiences access some other plane of reality, would you join him?

He does not have to agree with my theology for his data to prove my point.

Loren said...

(Me on negative correlation between religiosity and affluence...)

so called "studies" are part of the phony er zots atheist would be social science, not done by real scientists.

The No True Scotsman fallacy. Are "real" social scientists those that tell you what you want to believe?

Also not dealing with religious experiences.

I'd like to find out who first coined "transcendence hallucination" for mystical experiences. :D

NSA is self selecting, that means the original group of atheists selected atheists and keep selecting more atheists.

Do you have direct evidence of that?

The studies used by atheists a few years go (Luba) used bad questions and dealt only with fundie idea of God, big man in sky.

Here is James Leuba's exact wording: belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind".

Metacrock, are you claiming that God has no communication with humanity? And that every True Xian and other True Religious Person agrees with you that God has no communication with humanity?

I didn't know that you were a deist.

Studies that use more liberal concept of God show percentage fo believers in NAS goes way up when you deal with liberal ideas.

Like a deist god or "God" as another term for the laws of nature? No wonder Spinoza got called an atheist.

The 300 studies that show religion is so good for you are done by mainly psychologists and psychiatrists.

Defining "religion" so broadly that they catch a lot of agnostics and atheists -- that's what you get when you ask about "peak experiences".

(V. Ramachandran...)

He doesn't say it's God but he explained through e evolution but his explanation doesn't explain how it could be an innate idea.

That seems like the "everything must be directly adaptive" misconception of evolution. Side effects do exist.

Metacrock said...

Me on negative correlation between religiosity and affluence...)

so called "studies" are part of the phony er zots atheist would be social science, not done by real scientists.

The No True Scotsman fallacy. Are "real" social scientists those that tell you what you want to believe?

so you don't even understand that the academy (do you even what that means?) has a real standard of scholarship and you don't meet it just having a strong opion? calling the systems of academic credentials "true scottsman" shows the total sutpidty of atheists.

real scholars: as in Ph.D. teach at university, present papers at conferences, members of professional guild. this speaks volumes about atheist ignorance.


Also not dealing with religious experiences.

what?

I'd like to find out who first coined "transcendence hallucination" for mystical experiences. :D

some lying idiot who doesn't know the data. I have real science on my self, remember science, you little pretend God. Turns out your little tin God is my alley not your ally at all.



Meta:NSA is self selecting, that means the original group of atheists selected atheists and keep selecting more atheists.




Do you have direct evidence of that?

It should be easy to look up.Yes I have evidence of that from printed sources it's common knowledge you can easily learn it. Just look at what you must do be selected.

The studies used by atheists a few years go (Luba) used bad questions and dealt only with fundie idea of God, big man in sky.

Here is James Leuba's exact wording: belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind".


very phrase there says "big man in sky." So anyone with a Hegelian view of God would automatically say "no" even though they believe in God. Same with process thought.

Metacrock, are you claiming that God has no communication with humanity? And that every True Xian and other True Religious Person agrees with you that God has no communication with humanity?


I'm saying there are views of God that are valid ideas about God which do not require that. you are reducing all God belief to Christian fundies. So you want to teh world to boid down to atheist vs fundies like a good little ideolgoue that you are.

I didn't know that you were a deist.


I am not a deist. you are ignorant. you don't know anything about theology.

Metacrock said...

Meta:Studies that use more liberal concept of God show percentage fo believers in NAS goes way up when you deal with liberal ideas.

Like a deist god or "God" as another term for the laws of nature? No wonder Spinoza got called an atheist.

It is totaly idootic to equite that with atheism. Spinoza was not an atheist, he would spit in your face for saying it, he despised atheim he loved God you don't know anything.

this is what I keep trying to get through to you. The ideology of atheism reduces everything to just the little fight between atheists and fundies. so you can't understand or accept any other view of God but the one you hate and want to destroy. you just don't let them register because they are not part of your brain washing. you are brain washed to only see the conflict atheist vs fundie. anything eels you just cant register it.

all other views of God you just close your mind to because they don't count because only fundamentalism is about God. God is the belief of th hated fundies so only their view of God counts as really a view of God.




Meta:The 300 studies that show religion is so good for you are done by mainly psychologists and psychiatrists.

Defining "religion" so broadly that they catch a lot of agnostics and atheists -- that's what you get when you ask about "peak experiences".


No they don't. you reduce all of religion to just fundies becuase that's your brain washing. you can't understand real beleif in God all you do understand is the atheist hatred of fudnies.

(V. Ramachandran...)

meta:He doesn't say it's God but he explained through e evolution but his explanation doesn't explain how it could be an innate idea.

That seems like the "everything must be directly adaptive" misconception of evolution. Side effects do exist.

you are missing the point. I said before you don't listen becuase it's not part of the brain washing. you must wake up and try to grasp real thoughts, I know it's hard it means going agasin tyour brain washing but just try to let this sink in:

evolution cannot give you ideas. it can only give instinct it can't give concepts in words

we react to words about God so we must have an innate idea in our minds. But evolution can't give us innate ideas. see?