Religious Beliefs are Caused by Brain Defects

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Regarding the OP, I think that everything about an individual's character has a "physical, biological, even neuroanatomical and genetic basis" (or something like that). But as to which of our traits are "defects," well, that seems largely subjective.

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There fixed it for you.

Thanks, but I've fixed your typo.

And yet you believe in global warming, which does not meet the criteria you posted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There are about a half dozen people in this forum attempting to provide you with evidential testimony to meet your criteria.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[millertimeunc 0]

Quote

Quote

seems like a good place for the 'why beer is better than jesus' list...

but honestly it seems rather obvious... a great number of religious experiences can and have been 'induced' and replicated and infact the extreme religious seekers create conditions that encourage such experiences.

psychotropic substance use
hypothermia
hypoxia
dehydration
starvation
isolation
sleep deprivation etc...

have all been part and parcel in one way or another of nearly every 'devout' religious order's 'extreme ' devotees for centuries. The fact that these same experiences can be induced does nothing to lessen the devotion of those who believe ...

pretty much evidence that man would rather believe the 'pretty lie' than the 'ugly truth' if it makes him FEEL better about his place in the world.

Wow you just described the Church of the Holy SERE School

Oh crap...

I'm headed out there soon.

The best things in life are dangerous.

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There are about a half dozen people in this forum attempting to provide you with evidential testimony to meet your criteria.

and if I met a guy in the park who claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon would that be evidential testimony?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Regarding the OP, I think that everything about an individual's character has a "physical, biological, even neuroanatomical and genetic basis" (or something like that). But as to which of our traits are "defects," well, that seems largely subjective.

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There fixed it for you.

Thanks, but I've fixed your typo.

And yet you believe in global warming, which does not meet the criteria you posted.

Does too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There are about a half dozen people in this forum attempting to provide you with evidential testimony to meet your criteria.

and if I met a guy in the park who claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon would that be evidential testimony?

Nope.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[DannHuff 0]

No typo.

One man's evidence is another man's lies - case in point is the man-made climate change debate.

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There are about a half dozen people in this forum attempting to provide you with evidential testimony to meet your criteria.

and if I met a guy in the park who claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon would that be evidential testimony?

Nope.

and why not?

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anything that makes a person believe in invisible omnipotent omniscient omnipresent beings for which there is no objective, reproducible and measurable evidence of existence should be considered a defect, IMHO.

There are about a half dozen people in this forum attempting to provide you with evidential testimony to meet your criteria.

and if I met a guy in the park who claimed to be the reincarnation of Napoleon would that be evidential testimony?

Nope.

and why not?

The subject is Christianity not Eastern Mysticism.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[philh 0]

and why is the principle any different? If we are going to accept Christian's "evidential testimony" that jesus has been in their lives why should we not also accept other peoples "evidential testimony" that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon?
Whats the difference?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

and why is the principle any different? If we are going to accept Christian's "evidential testimony" that jesus has been in their lives why should we not also accept other peoples "evidential testimony" that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon?
Whats the difference?

No-one's hallucinations are evidential testimony. Measured hallucinatory neural activity by, say, fNMR would be evidence that hallucinations are occurring.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

No typo.

One man's evidence is another man's lies - case in point is the man-made climate change debate.

NOAA: Global Average Surface Temperatures in January are 4th Warmest on Record
Fri, 02/12/2010 - 19:14

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released today (12 February 2010) data indicating that January 2010 was the fourth warmest on record. Land surface temperatures were the highest on record in the Southern Hemisphere; and global ocean surface temperatures were the second warmest on record.

Global Highlights

Among the highlights:

* "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
* The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F)."

And

www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

"NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center also reports today: The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DannHuff 0]

Thanks for the material pointing to the earth getting warmer.

From my perspective I have no trouble believing the earth is warming. This may be part of natural cycles. The question remains whether, for example, man made CO2 is contributing to the warming. One is able to find scientists that believe in both camps - for and against. It seems what is evidence for some is lies for others. In the end we filter evidence through our own worldview.

[pirana 0]

I've changed my mind on this one. I now believe religious beliefs are due to lack of alcohol.

Every person I know that has successfully went thru treatment to stop drinking belives strongly in God.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,400]

>The question remains whether, for example, man made CO2 is contributing to the warming.

There is no question on these points:

1) We have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to our carbon emissions over the past 150 years or so.

2) All other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface of the planet warmer.

3) There has been a warming trend over the past 150 years.

There are still a lot of questions to answer, of course. Will secondary positive-feedback effects kick in, like methane releases from melting tundra? If so, the warming will be greater than the CO2 alone can account for. Will secondary negative-feedback effects kick in, like warmer oceans = more evaporation=more daytime clouds=more light reflected? If so, then the warming will be less than the contribution from the new CO2.

So there's no question that man made CO2 is contributing to the warming. How much it will do so, and what will exacerbate/ameliorate that contribution, is still being studied quite intensively.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I now believe religious beliefs are due to lack of alcohol.

Mmm, I don't know about that. Most of the (non-sober) drunks that I know (and I know a lot of them) believe in God.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>The question remains whether, for example, man made CO2 is contributing to the warming.

There is no question on these points:

1) We have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to our carbon emissions over the past 150 years or so.

2) All other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface of the planet warmer.

3) There has been a warming trend over the past 150 years.

There are still a lot of questions to answer, of course. Will secondary positive-feedback effects kick in, like methane releases from melting tundra? If so, the warming will be greater than the CO2 alone can account for. Will secondary negative-feedback effects kick in, like warmer oceans = more evaporation=more daytime clouds=more light reflected? If so, then the warming will be less than the contribution from the new CO2.

So there's no question that man made CO2 is contributing to the warming. How much it will do so, and what will exacerbate/ameliorate that contribution, is still being studied quite intensively.

The extra evaporation will also lead to extra precipitation. Snowier winters...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>The question remains whether, for example, man made CO2 is contributing to the warming.

There is no question on these points:

1) We have increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to our carbon emissions over the past 150 years or so.

2) All other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere makes the surface of the planet warmer.

3) There has been a warming trend over the past 150 years.

There are still a lot of questions to answer, of course. Will secondary positive-feedback effects kick in, like methane releases from melting tundra? If so, the warming will be greater than the CO2 alone can account for. Will secondary negative-feedback effects kick in, like warmer oceans = more evaporation=more daytime clouds=more light reflected? If so, then the warming will be less than the contribution from the new CO2.

So there's no question that man made CO2 is contributing to the warming. How much it will do so, and what will exacerbate/ameliorate that contribution, is still being studied quite intensively.

Wow.

Who knew there was so much man-made CO2 between 800-1000AD!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DannHuff 0]

Actually my point was more on how we perceive evidence. What is deemed true for one is a lie for another.

On the man made globally warming debate here are scientists who have put their name to one side of the argument http://www.petitionproject.org/

[maadmax 0]

Every person I know that has successfully went thru treatment to stop drinking belives strongly in God.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Every person I know that has successfully went thru treatment to stop drinking belives strongly in God.

Not surprising, when you have looked your inner demons in the eye, it is not so hard to reach out and accept the help God is waiting to give.

[philh 0]

What a ridiculous petition.
Why do they think the opinion of vets, medical doctors and those with simply undergrad degrees in any science subject (pyschology, economics etc?) is relevant to climate science?
science isn't done by petition, anyone that knew anything about science would know that. Hell, you could find petitions of scientists that back ID.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Actually my point was more on how we perceive evidence. What is deemed true for one is a lie for another.

On the man made globally warming debate here are scientists who have put their name to one side of the argument http://www.petitionproject.org/

You need to pay more attention. That so-called "petition" was debunked years ago.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Who knew there was so much man-made CO2 between 800-1000AD!

That's not a CO2 graph, Mike.

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

What a ridiculous petition.
Why do they think the opinion of vets, medical doctors and those with simply undergrad degrees in any science subject (pyschology, economics etc?) is relevant to climate science?
science isn't done by petition, anyone that knew anything about science would know that. Hell, you could find petitions of scientists that back ID.

Beautifully put - we find evidence to believe what we want to believe. This includes everyone one on this forum.