Forum
 |  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Metacrock
Reply with quote  #1 
when I put this up before I did not get a single person who even mentioned presumption. I got a bunch of know nothings mocking me because I 'm a Christian, and they had nothing of substance to say.

Now please respond to the issues. If you hate Christians and want to kill us all and despize us so, please do so on another thread. I understand, you hate us, we are stupid, we can't think, nothing we sutdy is worth anything,you are a priori so much smarter. yada yada yada,  You are soOOOOO cleavvvvvvver and so supirior! ok now can we discuss this issue please?

humor me in my inferior christian mind and pretend this is a real topic and to really talk about it ok?

Presumptions means we assume the side with presumption is right until it is proven  wrong. atheism doesn't have presumption, and here's why:

 God arguments make prmia facie cases. Mine do at any rate. Thus atheists must now show that the case is not prmia facie. For all practical purposes atheits have the burden of proof.

Atheism has no presumption. No reason why it should. Belief is normative for human beahvior.

(1) Vast majority of humans that ever lived beileve in some form of God.

(2) Belief is much better for us than non belief

(a) Physical health
(b) mental health
(c) happiness
(d) sucess in life.

vast body of emprical data proves this.

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html

(3) it appears that the brain is hard wired to respond to God talk, indicating that we have an innate concept of God.

all of this indicates that we are fit to be religious. It's normative for humanity. Belief is the human condition. Atheist must demonstrate the validity of their doubt.


alexd
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

(1) Vast majority of humans that ever lived beileve in some form of God.


And you say this based on what? Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution ). The history of religion starts about 5000 year ago. (http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html). Do you really think the last 5000 years are representatives for the other 245 000 ? Then can I use the last 40 years to make judgemnts on the last 2000 years?

Anyway, vast majority of humans believed at one point the Earth was flat. That doesn't made the Earth flat. Maybe you shoud try to study logic before making this ilogical arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


(2) Belief is much better for us than non belief

(a) Physical health
(b) mental health
(c) happiness
(d) sucess in life.

vast body of emprical data proves this.

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html



I think the source you mentioned here is not reliable. Here is only one motive why:

Quote:

(4) Greater happiness
.......
In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness


First of all, "satisfied with life" doesn't mean happy. Then they compared "churchgoers" with "those who never went to church". There are religious people that don't go to church. It's expected they aren't satisfied with life if they think they have to go to church but they never go (no matter the reason).
And last, you can't say about "those who never went to church" that they are all atheists.

What do you say about this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7487143.stm ?
According to a 2005 study by Zuckerman, Denmark has the third highest proportion of atheists and agnostics in the world, estimated to be between 43% and 80%.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark#Religion).

So the country with the third highest proportion of atheists and agnostics in the world is the happiest country in the world.

You have to find other sources of information about this.

And even if religion will have this effect on people (which it doesn't) that wouldn't prove your god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


(3) it appears that the brain is hard wired to respond to God talk, indicating that we have an innate concept of God.



This is a stupid argument. If you tell a child from the moment he/she can understand words that he/she must fear/love a imaginary friend, you will get a reaction from him/her when ever you will mention that imaginary friend. It's the best form of control ever invented. I'm sure you will get the same or similar reaction (maybe even a better one) if you mention Santa Clause. The only difference is that at one point the child understands that Santa Clause is an imaginary figure, while religion keeps this illusion alive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


God arguments make prima facie cases. Mine do at any rate.



prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie)

Your arguments are everything but selfsufficient.
loko5
Reply with quote  #3 

I will go ahead and reply here before Metacrock does, because I'm afraid Metacrock will go ballistic again and that will be the end of the discussion.  But I have to say that Metacrock has a good point, and it's worth discussing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

(1) Vast majority of humans that ever lived beileve in some form of God.


And you say this based on what? Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution ). The history of religion starts about 5000 year ago. (http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html). Do you really think the last 5000 years are representatives for the other 245 000 ? Then can I use the last 40 years to make judgemnts on the last 2000 years?


We don't know exactly what beliefs people had in prehistoric times because, without writing, we have no clear record of what people did or did not believe.  But according to wikipedia, "The Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age span the period 300,000-50,000 years ago. It is during this period that some of the earliest significant evidence of religious practices are found."  At any rate, the majority of human beings that have ever lived have lived in modern times, as this population figure shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Anyway, vast majority of humans believed at one point the Earth was flat. That doesn't made the Earth flat. Maybe you shoud try to study logic before making this ilogical arguments.


You are missing the point of the OP.  The point is not to present a convincing argument for the truth of God's existence.  The point is to present a prima facie argument so as to establish the burden of proof.  Prima facie arguments certainly can sometimes be wrong.  But because prima facie arguments give the appearance of being correct, the BOP is on those who would oppose the argument.  In other words, in the absence of convincing evidence otherwise, we are justified in believing the prima facie argument.  Take for example the argument that the sun revolves around the earth.  This is a prima facie argument that happens to be wrong.  But in ancient times, I would argue, people were justified in believing (incorrectly) that the sun revolves around the earth because the most obvious and visible evidence suggests this, and they had no evidence to the contrary.  When Copernicus came along, the burden of proof was on him to show that the prima facie argument was incorrect.  Do you think if Copernicus had said, "I believe the earth revolves around the sun, and my belief is just as good as your belief", without providing any evidence in his support, that he would have been justified in his belief?  The answer is no.  He would have had a correct belief, but not a justified belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
(3) it appears that the brain is hard wired to respond to God talk, indicating that we have an innate concept of God.


This is a stupid argument. If you tell a child from the moment he/she can understand words that he/she must fear/love a imaginary friend, you will get a reaction from him/her when ever you will mention that imaginary friend. It's the best form of control ever invented. I'm sure you will get the same or similar reaction (maybe even a better one) if you mention Santa Clause. The only difference is that at one point the child understands that Santa Clause is an imaginary figure, while religion keeps this illusion alive.


You seem to be missing the point again.  The point, as I understand, is that there is a distinct section of the human brain that is connected with religious experience and religious thought.  Prima facie, it would appear that it is there because the religious experiences are real.  Why would we have evolved to have a section of our brain devoted to delusions?

In addition to Metacrock's points, I would add the rather obvious one that the existence of an apparently contingent universe needs explaining, and the prima facie explanation is that some eternally existing entity must have caused it.
Metacrock
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

(1) Vast majority of humans that ever lived beileve in some form of God.


And you say this based on what? Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution ). The history of religion starts about 5000 year ago.


how do you figure that? You are just using an arbitrary defnition. Most anthropoloists see evidence of Neandethal using religion or religous ideas such as afer life abotu 45,000 60 65,000 years ago. You are just going my modern concepts of organized religion.




 
Quote:
(http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html). Do you really think the last 5000 years are representatives for the other 245 000 ? Then can I use the last 40 years to make judgemnts on the last 2000 years?



what are you talking about? You arrived at that by some arbitrary twisting of the evidence.

Quote:
Anyway, vast majority of humans believed at one point the Earth was flat. That doesn't made the Earth flat. Maybe you shoud try to study logic before making this ilogical arguments.



that doesn't answer the argument. The argument is not the major have to be right, ti's taht the nature of human experince is to believe in God because we sense the divine. most people do, that's the evidence. most people have a sense of the divine. you don't something is wrong with you but that doesn't prove others don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


(2) Belief is much better for us than non belief

(a) Physical health
(b) mental health
(c) happiness
(d) sucess in life.

vast body of emprical data proves this.

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html



Quote:
I think the source you mentioned here is not reliable. Here is only one motive why:


Fist of all, on the page I link to there are many sources. you have no concept of it being reliable because they are really good scientific studies, the best.

But the page is itself is mone. I wrote I researched. what's wrong with it?  what do you mean "no reliable?"


Quote:

(4) Greater happiness
.......
In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness


Quote:
First of all, "satisfied with life" doesn't mean happy.



yes it does litlte swweeite read teh study. stop being such a little know al and use your mind. its operationally within the study can't you figure anything out?



 
Quote:
Then they compared "churchgoers" with "those who never went to church". There are religious people that don't go to church. It's expected they aren't satisfied with life if they think they have to go to church but they never go (no matter the reason).
And last, you can't say about "those who never went to church" that they are all atheists.



that doesn't change the findings. so there may be believers who don't go to chruch who are happier than those who do, so what? that doesn't disprove my point. IN fact I don't go to church.

Quote:
What do you say about this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7487143.stm ?
According to a 2005 study by Zuckerman, Denmark has the third highest proportion of atheists and agnostics in the world, estimated to be between 43% and 80%.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark#Religion).



O come on! if ever ther was a whopping great lie, that's it! the biggest joke since Mad magazine. its not a real study, adherenence.com says you can't use his findings.

here read what's wrong with it.



Quote:
So the country with the third highest proportion of atheists and agnostics in the world is the happiest country in the world.


bull. he doesn't have a measurement of happiness. he uses a socail index of income and education he doesn't' give any way to translate that into happiness.



Quote:
You have to find other sources of information about this.


NooooOOOO  you have to face the fact that i have 300 studies that back me. You have none. you have 0. Suckerman doesn't apply to the areas I'm talking about anyway and it's not a valid study.

The studies are use are valid social science studies from real social journals. Suckerman is not.



Quote:
And even if religion will have this effect on people (which it doesn't) that wouldn't prove your god.



wrong! ON both counts.
(1) It does prove God

(2) it's well documented and you have nothing near that. You do not have 300 studies you do not have one study! You cannot match my studies wtih even one.

No  sorry, this is totally proven. its' just a matter of the ignorant know it all Dawkinsians who are so proud not knowing anything about theology they just forget there might be something studies out there they don't' know about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


(3) it appears that the brain is hard wired to respond to God talk, indicating that we have an innate concept of God.



Quote:
This is a stupid argument. If you tell a child from the moment he/she can understand words that he/she must fear/love a imaginary friend, you will get a reaction from him/her when ever you will mention that imaginary friend. It's the best form of control ever invented. I'm sure you will get the same or similar reaction (maybe even a better one) if you mention Santa Clause. The only difference is that at one point the child understands that Santa Clause is an imaginary figure, while religion keeps this illusion alive.



ITs' proven scientifically. get the book Why God wont Go way. by Adnrew Newberg. He's provne it with scientific data. it not a matter of just theorize about what children do when you teach them, it's empirically proven through study of the brain.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


God arguments make prima facie cases. Mine do at any rate.



Quote:
prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie)

Your arguments are everything but selfsufficient.



O any thing but! why? why anything but? if you had any sense yoou would understand that I said emprical scientific evidence shows the brain is hardwired to give us the idea of God. now if that is true, and its' your job to show it isn't you can't do that with just casting suspicion on it. If that is ture why would that not be proof?

you are competley ignoring he arguemnt about the default based upon those studies. religion has long term positive effects like nothing else does. brain research shows smething real happens in religious experince, why is that not enough to make a pf case if you don't have any evidence to refute it?

atheists get their asses kicked every single time they actually try to aruge. that's why Dawkins has infleunced people to use little gimmicks  like the couriter's reply and not think or try to put up a debate because you can't win a debate about God.


alexd
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

how do you figure that? You are just using an arbitrary defnition. Most anthropoloists see evidence of Neandethal using religion or religous ideas such as afer life abotu 45,000 60 65,000 years ago. You are just going my modern concepts of organized religion.


I was using the link I sent. Maybe it was not well enough interpreted ( I can admit when I'm wrong ) but there weren't any arbitrary definitions.
Anyway loko5's link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imageopulation_curve.svg ) cleared that for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

that doesn't answer the argument. The argument is not the major have to be right, ti's taht the nature of human experince is to believe in God because we sense the divine. most people do, that's the evidence. most people have a sense of the divine. you don't something is wrong with you but that doesn't prove others don't.


Maybe I just evolved. No God necessary for me.
The nature of human experience is to look for patterns. Can't find one? God did it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

Fist of all, on the page I link to there are many sources. you have no concept of it being reliable because they are really good scientific studies, the best.


This is a very logical argument. I think your source is not reliable because they are the best. Nice one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

Quote:
First of all, "satisfied with life" doesn't mean happy.

yes it does litlte swweeite read teh study. stop being such a little know al and use your mind. its operationally within the study can't you figure anything out?

No it doesn't. Go back to the dictionary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

that doesn't change the findings. so there may be believers who don't go to chruch who are happier than those who do, so what? that doesn't disprove my point. IN fact I don't go to church.


The research was mentioning "satisfied with life". Nothing about happiness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

here read what's wrong with it.


Quote:

I've seen over half a dozen attempts to do sociological studies that supposedly prove that religion is bad for society.


I've stopped there. The link I mentioned is not about religion. Read the article before trying to argue about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

NooooOOOO  you have to face the fact that i have 300 studies that back me. You have none. you have 0. Suckerman doesn't apply to the areas I'm talking about anyway and it's not a valid study.


Asking religious people if they like to go to church has no scientific value. This studies only showed that religious people use the church in different activities.
I would be surprised to find out that a little organization will not be beneficial.
You can't extrapolate this studies to all humans.


Quote:


If you don't like Zuckerman maybe you accept wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

wrong! ON both counts.
(1) It does prove God

(2) it's well documented and you have nothing near that. You do not have 300 studies you do not have one study! You cannot match my studies wtih even one.

No  sorry, this is totally proven. its' just a matter of the ignorant know it all Dawkinsians who are so proud not knowing anything about theology they just forget there might be something studies out there they don't' know about.



I will no get down to your level and attack all theists, but I can tell that you have know idea what a logical argument is. You only use one source of information and ignore everything else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


ITs' proven scientifically. get the book Why God wont Go way. by Adnrew Newberg. He's provne it with scientific data. it not a matter of just theorize about what children do when you teach them, it's empirically proven through study of the brain.




Quote:
Newberg’s research has been criticized from two main perspectives. From the religious perspective, concerns have been raised that the study of practices such as meditation does not necessary extrapolate to the broader array of religious and spiritual phenomena.[1] However, Newberg tends to agree with this concern and has argued that future studies are needed to elucidate the more complex elements of religious and spiritual phenomena. From the non-religious perspective, Newberg has been criticized for not ultimately reducing religion to brain function. [7] Newberg has maintained that science and brain imaging studies are only tools to evaluate the brain during such experiences but do not necessarily negate such experiences. However, this has also raised the concern as to whether or not such information will eventually lead to a better understanding of the true nature of religious experiences. Newberg has argued that the integration of science and religion is critical for a better understanding of how human beings think and behave in a global context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Newberg

There are no recognized scientific conclusions yet. If you chose to believe something you like, it's your problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Quote:

Your arguments are everything but selfsufficient.
O any thing but! why? why anything but?

Because prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Your's doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

if you had any sense yoou would understand that I said emprical scientific evidence shows the brain is hardwired to give us the idea of God. now if that is true, and its' your job to show it isn't you can't do that with just casting suspicion on it. If that is ture why would that not be proof?

If you had any sense you would understand that your empirical scientific evidence has no value. The idea that the brain is hardwired to give us the idea of God is not generally accepted by scientific community.
Religion had some good influences on people, but it had a lot of bad influences too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

you are competley ignoring he arguemnt about the default based upon those studies. religion has long term positive effects like nothing else does. brain research shows smething real happens in religious experince, why is that not enough to make a pf case if you don't have any evidence to refute it?


It is science who increased the life span of humans. And this is only one example.
Brain reacts to any external stimuli. It is it's purpose. Nothing magic there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists get their asses kicked every single time they actually try to aruge. that's why Dawkins has infleunced people to use little gimmicks  like the couriter's reply and not think or try to put up a debate because you can't win a debate about God.


I liked how you introduced Dawkins here. I bet you think he is the god of atheists and we should all feel offended by your words.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Some illogical words can't have any effect on atheists. Try logic some time.



alexd
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5
We don't know exactly what beliefs people had in prehistoric times because, without writing, we have no clear record of what people did or did not believe.  But according to wikipedia, "The Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age span the period 300,000-50,000 years ago. It is during this period that some of the earliest significant evidence of religious practices are found."  At any rate, the majority of human beings that have ever lived have lived in modern times, as this population figure shows.


I think you right about the majority of human beings that have ever lived have lived in modern times, but I'm still not convinced about the significant evidence of religious practices. Can you give me some links?

Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5
The point is to present a prima facie argument so as to establish the burden of proof.

I understand that, but I think we interpret the definition of "prima facie" in a different way. I don't think you can have this kind of arguments about God because in order to have them both parties have to agree what are those "prima facie" arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

You seem to be missing the point again.  The point, as I understand, is that there is a distinct section of the human brain that is connected with religious experience and religious thought.


You right. I was missing the point about the distinct section of the human brain that is connected with religious experience. I've searched for it (for documentation on it) and find that the author of this theory is criticized by both sides, so the theory is not yet accepted. No prima facie there either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

In addition to Metacrock's points, I would add the rather obvious one that the existence of an apparently contingent universe needs explaining, and the prima facie explanation is that some eternally existing entity must have caused it.


I'm sure you heard this argument before, but if you explain something complicated with something more complicated you are left with more questions then answers.
Based on Occam's razor I think it's better to say we don't know how universe was created and not create an even more complex being to try to explain it.

Metacrock
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

how do you figure that? You are just using an arbitrary defnition. Most anthropoloists see evidence of Neandethal using religion or religous ideas such as afer life abotu 45,000 60 65,000 years ago. You are just going my modern concepts of organized religion.


Quote:
I was using the link I sent. Maybe it was not well enough interpreted ( I can admit when I'm wrong ) but there weren't any arbitrary definitions.
Anyway loko5's link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imageopulation_curve.svg ) cleared that for me.


I can quote Leaky and several other sources that put religious ideas back in the Neanderthal era.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

that doesn't answer the argument. The argument is not the major have to be right, ti's taht the nature of human experince is to believe in God because we sense the divine. most people do, that's the evidence. most people have a sense of the divine. you don't something is wrong with you but that doesn't prove others don't.


Quote:
Maybe I just evolved. No God necessary for me.
The nature of human experience is to look for patterns.


generalizing from a sample of 1. just because you don't' get it doesn't mean other don't. about 3% of the population agree with you, 90% do find a pattern so apparently a pattern is there..that should be enough in itself to make it normative.



 
Quote:
Can't find one? God did it.



that is not a valid argument. It doesn't' apply here and it's a misunderstanding of theist arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

Fist of all, on the page I link to there are many sources. you have no concept of it being reliable because they are really good scientific studies, the best.


Quote:
This is a very logical argument. I think your source is not reliable because they are the best. Nice one.



what? I asked you why you said it wasn't a good source. Apparently you don't' really have a reason for saying it. Then I said it's a list of good studies. That should be clear enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

Quote:
First of all, "satisfied with life" doesn't mean happy.

yes it does little swweeite read teh study. stop being such a little know al and use your mind. its operationally within the study can't you figure anything out?

Quote:
No it doesn't. Go back to the dictionary.



learn some social research please? dictionary is irrelevant. the people doing the study define what they are studying. they call it "happy." they define what they mean by that and fit their study design to measure their definition. Can't you figure that out? don't you know what "operational" means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

that doesn't change the findings. so there may be believers who don't go to chruch who are happier than those who do, so what? that doesn't disprove my point. IN fact I don't go to church.


the studies I'm quoting pertain to major dramatic changes, what psychiatrists call "self actualization." I's not must a matter of being happy or feeling good for the moment. its' a dramatic sense of life meaning. get it?

research shows that atheists can't understand the concept of meaning in life. so perhaps you don't get it. It's dramatic major change that saves people's lives. Not jus being a little bit happy for the moment like going to six flags, its happy like changing. your whole life for a life time, like getting off drugs, getting well form alcohol abuse, being cured of wife beating, and so forth.

Ophera stuff. "life changing!" you are cynical about that because you have no hope.





Quote:
The research was mentioning "satisfied with life". Nothing about happiness.


I am quoting hundreds of studies. I'm genraliing about a huge body of data. do you not get that? so obviously there are different phrases. The studies speicically happy yea it did.

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD


Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness



Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

here read what's wrong with it.


Quote:

I've seen over half a dozen attempts to do sociological studies that supposedly prove that religion is bad for society.


Quote:
I've stopped there. The link I mentioned is not about religion. Read the article before trying to argue about it.



No. Zuckerman is about religion of course it is. Its' about atheism and supposedly atheists counties doing better than religious countries, that makes it about religion. the apges i linked to are about Zuckerman specifically. you didn't read them because you are afraid of the truth!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

NooooOOOO you have to face the fact that i have 300 studies that back me. You have none. you have 0. Suckerman doesn't apply to the areas I'm talking about anyway and it's not a valid study.


Quote:
Asking religious people if they like to go to church has no scientific value. This studies only showed that religious people use the church in different activities.
I would be surprised to find out that a little organization will not be beneficial.
You can't extrapolate this studies to all humans.


that is so stupid. you can't get away with that kind bull. Why do you think you characterize these good scientific studies by this crap? do  you not realize that I have read them! I know they aer not just a bunch of preacher men. what do you think you make atheism look like by doing that? hu?


you are merely proving to me that it's a religion for ignorant fools who can't face facts and not smart enough o understand social sciences. you have just proven to me that atheism is nto worthwhile, that's its based upon being ignorant, that atheists afraid of facts and afraid of truth.

you want to believe that atheism is so scientific right? yet you are afraid to study the science involved wiht it. this is proven. IT shows religion is not what you think  it is. you are afraid to even examine it.


Quote:


Quote:
If you don't like Zuckerman maybe you accept wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark



that's not a study. Wikipeida has not authority. anyone can edit it and change it you know that. that means it's worthless as a documentary source. That is not a study anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

wrong! ON both counts.
(1) It does prove God

(2) it's well documented and you have nothing near that. You do not have 300 studies you do not have one study! You cannot match my studies wtih even one.

No sorry, this is totally proven. its' just a matter of the ignorant know it all Dawkinsians who are so proud not knowing anything about theology they just forget there might be something studies out there they don't' know about.



Quote:
I will no get down to your level and attack all theists, but I can tell that you have know idea what a logical argument is. You only use one source of information and ignore everything else.



what do you mean one source? are you blind. do you not know how to read? that page, which I wrote, so I know what it says clearly says these are studies. several of them. I have also linked to 300 studies which are listed and no numerous other quotes form a man  studies. why can't you figure that out?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock


ITs' proven scientifically. get the book Why God wont Go way. by Adnrew Newberg. He's provne it with scientific data. it not a matter of just theorize about what children do when you teach them, it's empirically proven through study of the brain.




Quote:
Newberg’s research has been criticized from two main perspectives. From the religious perspective, concerns have been raised that the study of practices such as meditation does not necessary extrapolate to the broader array of religious and spiritual phenomena.[1] However, Newberg tends to agree with this concern and has argued that future studies are needed to elucidate the more complex elements of religious and spiritual phenomena.


that will not help your position. Becasue  it doesn't' change the fact that parts of the brain are associated with certain religious practices. But as it so happens he did studis on Nuns praying as well. So criticism is stupid.



Quote:
From the non-religious perspective, Newberg has been criticized for not ultimately reducing religion to brain function. [7] Newberg has maintained that science and brain imaging studies are only tools to evaluate the brain during such experiences but do not necessarily negate such experiences. However, this has also raised the concern as to whether or not such information will eventually lead to a better understanding of the true nature of religious experiences. Newberg has argued that the integration of science and religion is critical for a better understanding of how human beings think and behave in a global context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Newberg


The very quote you use answered the criticism. It's a stupid criticism anyway because it doesn't disprove the research and its' just ;plain wrong because if you read the book you see he clearly dose not reduce religion to brain function. that's so utterly stupid because elivantes brain function to spirit.

Quote:
There are no recognized scientific conclusions yet. If you chose to believe something you like, it's your problem.



The book  Where God Meets Science edited by McNameria lists about twelves articles by scientists who agree with him. Also look at the atheists who agree with him. Numerous atheists agree with him including Daniel Dennet. That's the whole premise of Breaking the Spell that religion is genetic.

Newberg understand better wha that means. Dennet is trying to reduce it. But he agrees that its genetic. I bet you do too. I bet I can find you arguing that morality is genetic right? So why not religion?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Quote:

Your arguments are everything but selfsufficient.
O any thing but! why? why anything but?

Because prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Your's doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

if you had any sense you would understand that I said empirical scientific evidence shows the brain is hardwired to give us the idea of God. now if that is true, and its' your job to show it isn't you can't do that with just casting suspicion on it. If that is ture why would that not be proof?

Quote:
If you had any sense you would understand that your empirical scientific evidence has no value.


tell me why it has no value? I have 300 plus studies that are about religious experince,not the bran. They are demosntrated by typology of self actuzliation and measutrement for RE called "the M scale. Now give me a reason why that'snot valid? You don't know do you? You do not have cogent attack on any of this research. you don't nkow waht it is. you haven't read a single a study. then on other board you will go running foff at the mouth telling everyone who wonderful scinec eis. here's some science hitting over the head and you cant' take it.

atheists are afraid of truth!

your little castle of hatred just got knocked down by real scientific proof of God!





 
Quote:
The idea that the brain is hardwired to give us the idea of God is not generally accepted by scientific community.


Yes it is! you don't have an argument to contradict the data. Tons of scientists agree wit Newberg. Just because there is still debate is not a reason to deny it.



Quote:
Religion had some good influences on people, but it had a lot of bad influences too.



No it doesn't. not one single bad thing has come form any Religious experience. what causes the bad stuff is social structure. by RE I do not mean just any old experince of any kind of religion. I mean the consciousness alternating experiences known as "mystical" or "peak" experince. not one single shred of evidence of anything bad in that.

It's the social structures that screw people up not the experince of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

you are competley ignoring he arguemnt about the default based upon those studies. religion has long term positive effects like nothing else does. brain research shows smething real happens in religious experince, why is that not enough to make a pf case if you don't have any evidence to refute it?


Quote:
It is science who increased the life span of humans. And this is only one example.
Brain reacts to any external stimuli. It is it's purpose. Nothing magic there.



no you are missing the point. Its' not just that brains react to stimuli. it's that religious activity such as prayer causes all the blood to go to one part of the brain, that indicates that there is a part of the brain associated with god talk. Its far more than just a stimulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists get their asses kicked every single time they actually try to aruge. that's why Dawkins has infleunced people to use little gimmicks like the couriter's reply and not think or try to put up a debate because you can't win a debate about God.


Quote:
I liked how you introduced Dawkins here. I bet you think he is the god of atheists and we should all feel offended by your words.


I really hate what atheists have done to close down discussion. When I first started this stuf about ten years ago I made a lot of freinds with athesits. some of them are still my freinds. but all the I talk to now are hateful little creeps (no offense, you aer not hateful I don't mean "all of them"). But in general all they want to do is ridicule and make Christians feel bad about being who they are. It used to be interesting an dnice exchaing views with people. Now they are filled with hate.

I see Dawkins as largely responsible because he has given them a sense of identity in venting their hate.



Quote:
Sorry to burst your bubble. Some illogical words can't have any effect on atheists. Try logic some time.


I don't think you are capable of understanding logic. every argument you've mad eis totally illogical, form the groundless assertion that the studies are no good--and you don't have a single cogent point about the methodologies, in fact you don't know the name of one single study. you dare speak sanctemoneously about lgoic when your arguments are pathetically riddled with illogic.


You are afraid of truth. you are afraid of the evidence.

alexd
Reply with quote  #8 
Your post is to long and full of illogical attacks on atheism to take every phrase and post a response.
Here are my arguments. If you have something logical to say, I'll replay otherwise you can stop claiming prima facie arguments.

If the people making the study are defining the meaning of the words they study in a different way then the dictionary, they will never get a relevant result. If you ask people "are you satisfied with your life?" and you interpret their answers as "yes, I'm happy" the results will be everything but valid. If the terms in the study are ambiguous the results will not be relevant.
Also those studies aren't relevant to this discussion because they meant to investigate something else and not the conclusion you are trying to take from them.
You can't prove God using religious people in this way. It's a circular argument.

You should read my posts more carefully. There is no mention of Zuckerman in the article I sent you about happiness. I've quoted a Zuckerman study when I mentioned the number of atheists in Denmark.
You just showed that you didn't read the article I sent, but you like to argue about it.

Wikipeida has no authority ? You made my day with this argument.
Wikipeida IS a reliable source of informations even if you don't like it.
In the link I sent you the results of a 1999 EVS poll were presented.
Again, you should try to read the links before trying to argue about them.

I have to admit I liked something you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists are afraid of truth!

your little castle of hatred just got knocked down by real scientific proof of God!


And my answer is :

LOL. Scientific proof of God. Why don't you write a book about this? Maybe you will get a Nobel price. The greatest scientific discovery. God is in our brain.

loko5
Reply with quote  #9 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5
We don't know exactly what beliefs people had in prehistoric times because, without writing, we have no clear record of what people did or did not believe.  But according to wikipedia, "The Middle Paleolithic and the Middle Stone Age span the period 300,000-50,000 years ago. It is during this period that some of the earliest significant evidence of religious practices are found."  At any rate, the majority of human beings that have ever lived have lived in modern times, as this population figure shows.


I think you right about the majority of human beings that have ever lived have lived in modern times, but I'm still not convinced about the significant evidence of religious practices. Can you give me some links?

Here are a few links:

http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/prehistoric_religion.htm

http://www.bookrags.com/research/paleolithic-religion-eorl-10/

http://originsnet.org/mindmp.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

You seem to be missing the point again.  The point, as I understand, is that there is a distinct section of the human brain that is connected with religious experience and religious thought.


You right. I was missing the point about the distinct section of the human brain that is connected with religious experience. I've searched for it (for documentation on it) and find that the author of this theory is criticized by both sides, so the theory is not yet accepted. No prima facie there either.



You may be right about this.  I think the jury is still out on this one.  The latest research I could find contends that there is not a single "god spot" in the brain, but rather a network of sites that are involved in religious experience.  However, according to the authors, "The main limitation of this study was the fact that the subjects were asked to remember and relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one."   So, I'm not sure the authors have really proved the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

In addition to Metacrock's points, I would add the rather obvious one that the existence of an apparently contingent universe needs explaining, and the prima facie explanation is that some eternally existing entity must have caused it.


I'm sure you heard this argument before, but if you explain something complicated with something more complicated you are left with more questions then answers.
Based on Occam's razor I think it's better to say we don't know how universe was created and not create an even more complex being to try to explain it.


I disagree that we have to consider God to be complicated in order to be the cause of the universe.  Complex things can have simple causes.  And, as I'm sure you've heard it argued, God, being spirit rather than material, does not consist of parts and is therefore simple in comparison with the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5
The point is to present a prima facie argument so as to establish the burden of proof.

I understand that, but I think we interpret the definition of "prima facie" in a different way. I don't think you can have this kind of arguments about God because in order to have them both parties have to agree what are those "prima facie" arguments.

That's the whole point of discussion here.  Is there a prima facie argument to be made?

First, let me state that I think the burden of proof should always be determined by prima facie arguments.  Many people will mistakenly contend that the burden of proof ought to be on the person making the claim for the existence of something rather than the person denying the existence, because of the impossibility (or at least the great difficulty) of proving a negative.  I think this is clearly nonsense.  For example, what if I make the claim, "There exists at least one rock on the surface of Mercury that is between 4 and 5 cm in length".  I can't prove this, because no one has ever landed on Mercury and measured the rocks.  But the prima facie evidence, base on what we do know about Mercury, is that this claim ought to be true.  The burden of proof here should be on the person denying the claim, because the prima facie evidence supports the claim.

Second, I will agree that there are some claims for which there is no clear, prima facie evidence in favor or against.  For example, consider the various theories to explain the origin of gamma ray bursts.  When scientists first discovered these, no one really had any idea what they were.  Since there was no prima facie evidence for or against any of the theories, the burden of proof was equally shared among the various theories.

Now, the question is, what constitutes prima facie evidence?  I would define prima facie evidence as evidence that is readily apparent to most people at first glance, without digging deeper into the facts or having to use much reasoning.  Again, it doesn't necessarily make the argument true, it only establishes the burden of proof.  Does the question of God's existence have prima facie evidence in its favor?  I think the answer depends on how the question is phrased.  If the claim is that the God of the Christian bible exists, then I would agree that the argument is not prima facie evident.  However, if we make the more modest claim that the universe was designed by a supreme, eternally existing intelligence, then I think the prima facie evidence would be in favor of this claim, and the burden of proof on those who oppose it.  After all, even Richard Dawkins agrees that life on Earth "has the appearance of design."  By definition, this is prima facie evidence.  Again, it doesn't prove the claim, but it does establish the burden of proof.

alexd
Reply with quote  #10 

Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

The latest research I could find contends that there is not a single "god spot" in the brain, but rather a network of sites that are involved in religious experience.  However, according to the authors, "The main limitation of this study was the fact that the subjects were asked to remember and relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one."   So, I'm not sure the authors have really proved the point.

Thank you for this one too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

I disagree that we have to consider God to be complicated in order to be the cause of the universe.  Complex things can have simple causes.  And, as I'm sure you've heard it argued, God, being spirit rather than material, does not consist of parts and is therefore simple in comparison with the universe.

Sorry, I think you are misinterpret the word "complicated" here. It's more complicated in the sense that it's harder to explain. We can apply Occam's razor to this argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loko5

That's the whole point of discussion here.  Is there a prima facie argument to be made?



I think you can't apply "prima facie" to a debate about god because first both sides have to decide what are "prima facie" arguments about the existence of god.
Basically what I'm saying is
that you can't have "prima facie" on all debates. Before starting to use them, both sides have to agree what will accept as "prima facie" arguments. This arguments can't be decidet by only one side.

Metacrock
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexd
Your post is to long and full of illogical attacks on atheism to take every phrase and post a response.
Here are my arguments. If you have something logical to say, I'll replay otherwise you can stop claiming prima facie arguments.

If the people making the study are defining the meaning of the words they study in a different way then the dictionary, they will never get a relevant result. If you ask people "are you satisfied with your life?" and you interpret their answers as "yes, I'm happy" the results will be everything but valid. If the terms in the study are ambiguous the results will not be relevant.
Also those studies aren't relevant to this discussion because they meant to investigate something else and not the conclusion you are trying to take from them.
You can't prove God using religious people in this way. It's a circular argument.

You should read my posts more carefully. There is no mention of Zuckerman in the article I sent you about happiness. I've quoted a Zuckerman study when I mentioned the number of atheists in Denmark.
You just showed that you didn't read the article I sent, but you like to argue about it.

Wikipeida has no authority ? You made my day with this argument.
Wikipeida IS a reliable source of informations even if you don't like it.
In the link I sent you the results of a 1999 EVS poll were presented.
Again, you should try to read the links before trying to argue about them.

I have to admit I liked something you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock

atheists are afraid of truth!

your little castle of hatred just got knocked down by real scientific proof of God!


And my answer is :

LOL. Scientific proof of God. Why don't you write a book about this? Maybe you will get a Nobel price. The greatest scientific discovery. God is in our brain.




you don't know anything about logic and you are not very bright. you are not wroth debating with because you don't know the difference in a real argument and arrogant  ridicule. you are not a worthy oppent. you don't know anything anyway.

btw I am writting a book and you will eat crow when its' a best seller.
Metacrock
Reply with quote  #12 
the little Dawkamentalists don't know anything. They can't tell the difference in making an argument and ridicule; all the know how to do is be arrogant and stupid.

You are a Dawkie.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.