A Gospel Challenge

[Jinei]

It’s always funny to watch how science is welcomed and embraced. That is, until science starts to point to something that we don’t want to see, then all of a sudden it becomes nonsense.

Something we don't want to see??? Where has any study EVER suggested the reality of a specific god or demon and their relationships to the "wiring" of the human brain? Despite sonoman's dubious claims, s/he has yet to show that the these alleged "receptions" are coming from one particular god or another. This I call nonsense.

You noticed that too..

It's like Christian fundies poopooing science as they post on the Internet with their computers and enjoy longer lives with medical advances sciences has brought.

To maintain an atheist mindset now that we know human brains are hardwired for spiritual reception, at least most brains are, the atheist position of "there's nothing there" for spiritual phenomena becomes an intellectual joke. Why would brains be hardwired to receive spiritual phenomena if there wasn't any to receive?

On another thread, Jack now claims he's an "agnostic" as if "lack of knowledge of God" were any different from being "without God". Semantic quibbling is all atheists have left in their arsenal to defend an intellectually indefensible position.

Unbelievable. You're still ranting your pseudoscientific claims despite constant defeats. (And learn to quote properly, please.)

[Jack]

Jack, here is the thing: If there is first no evidence of an object, peer pressure, desire, and encouragement will lead nowhere Now, Can someone pressure you to accept { }. You can’t be peer pressured to accept something where there isn’t even any evidence of that thing. Can you desire { } You can’t even desire something without there being any evidence of the object that you should desire. Can you be encouraged to believe that { .}You can’t be encouraged to believe something without any evidence of that thing.

Of course you can. We do every day. We believe our dog loves us, but there's no proof of it beyond what we imagine or perceive as love in return. We want gadgets we see online even though they're only just concepts. Humans have a great capacity for belief in the unproven and unreal.

Please, that’s the old game that Atheists love to play. They want to place themselves above religion so that they can look down and condemn it.

Atheists are outside religious belief. I don't believe anyone has said we're "above" it. Other religions may believe they're better than Christianity, but that's just more religious infighting that doesn't involve us. Condescension isn't too effective against someone who has spent over 30 years looking at religions and reaching his conclusions through logic and common sense.

But the reality of the matter is this: in accordance with what constitutes a religion, Atheism and all the other religions are foundationally the same: all are built upon a personal set of beliefs and attitudes. And because all are built upon the foundation of beliefs and attitudes, the primary difference between the Atheist and the Theist is found in what each believes in. While the attitude and belief of the Theists is such that they have chosen to believe in a God or gods, the attitude and belief of the Atheists is such that they have chosen to disbelieve in a God or gods.

This opinion is a result of the very common misunderstanding as to what atheism is. Since it's been posted repeatedly I'm not going to rehash it once again. Suffice to say that the above is off base and since you didn't explain what "constitutes a religion" I can't fairly rebut your opinion.

So, in reality, the best that an Atheist can do is to say that their Atheism is the rejection of a personal set of beliefs/ attitudes or religion. The fact that they have chosen not to believe in a God, does not destroy the fact that their choice is still a personal belief/attitude.

Now you seem to understand what atheism is. How baffling. Yes of course it comes down to personal conviction, just like the belief in gods. Atheism rejects belief by faith in unsupported god notions.

[Jack]

To maintain an atheist mindset now that we know human brains are hardwired for spiritual reception, at least most brains are

But we don't know that. Your links don't establish that as fact.

On another thread, Jack now claims he's an "agnostic" as if "lack of knowledge of God" were any different from being "without God".

Agnosticism is a way to examine evidence. Atheism is the conclusion I've reached employing agnosticism. Semantics must be relevant to religious debate or theists wouldn't argue them as often as they do.

[bulldogsfiend]

Now, who says that the wind is not the result of emotional highs and lows?

EMOTION: noun: 1 a obsolete : DISTURBANCE b : EXCITEMENT
2 a : the affective aspect of consciousness : FEELING b : a state of feeling c : a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body
synonyms see FEELING

because the definition your using to support this little stretch is obsolete.

Question: Is observation evidence? Can observation be used as evidence?

yes observation is evidence, but evidence of what? i observed their actions which gave me evidence of their beliefs, so we now how conclusive evidence that theist believe in god.

this in no way answers the question or even provide evidence of the question of whether god exits. it only shows that they believe he does.

since {proof} is subjective

substitute evidence for proof and i agree.

And the Christian has what appears to him to be a {logical} argument that there is a God. So again, the notion that either one is not {logical,} comes from the simple fact that neither one has been able to convince the other of the {logic} of their arguments.

Here again we agree. However, Christians have what they see as logic, but everytime it has been submitted it has been refuted. look up the cosmological argument, ontological argument, evidence from design ect. these were all provided for logical reasoning for the existence of god and each one has been refuted, and shown to be illogical.

Now, here is where the separation occurs: In regards to the existence of gods or a God, only one of them is actually right.

again i agree, we just differ on which one is right.

This is because, the universe is built on the foundation of gods. And since this is the case,

this is the case? how so?

you and everyone else on this forum would not be here if God did not exist.

you have to prove your premise before this conclusion can be addressed

First, in this universe it is possible for everything to exist. But the one thing that can never exist is the nonexistence of God or a god.

this is assuming that existence is a predicate. since it is not, existence itself cannot be described as 'existing' or 'non-existent'

Now, this is not to say that the appearance of what looks as if there is not a God cannot exist. It can. But the point of the matter is that, that appearance does not negate or destroy the existence of the underlying Realty.

well if something appears not to exist, and you choose to believe in it anyway that is called faith. and as such cannot be defended logically, empiraclly, or any other way. you can still believe it, but to say that it is true or to address it intelligently is not possible. And as such that i think is the difference between a theist and an atheist: a theist has faith because he belives in something that appears to be non-existent, an atheist: lacks faith and as such views the world empiracly only studying and accepting as truth those things that can be proven. look up De'Cartes hyperbolic doubt. apply that to god and it fails the test.

Secondly, in this universe it is possible for {right} to appear {wrong,} and {wrong} to appear {right.}

right and wrong are subjective themselves so yes depending on your viewpoint something can be right in one scenario and wrong in the other.

But the one thing that can never be {right} is the nonexistence of God or a god.

agian this is unsupported perpetraited as fact. we need evidence of this.

In other words, when placed in another Position of Reality, your {right} can be viewed as {wrong} and vice versa. Now, again, this is not to say that what looks as if there is not a God cannot appear to be {right} or {wrong.} It can.

your argument here supports the possiblity of a god, not the existence of one. i agree its possible, but i have no evidence to lead toward that belief.

But the simple fact of the matter is that those appearances are only made possibly by the existence of gods and a God.

again if this is fact please provide evidence.

Except for when {many} supposed {accredited scientist} believe it, huh? Or does that rule also apply to them?

possibly, it depends on who is quoted. if i quote a M.D. on matters of physics then that appeal to authority would be invalid. But if i quote a Physcist or the general physics community then no quoting them is not a logical fallacy.

Actually, since there are no {innocent} men in jail, then you would have to agree that the jury is not flawed. But that is another topic.

really...lets not go here.

And at the same time, you should not defend your point by saying that hundreds upon hundreds of scientists agree with you? Deal?

ad pop is a logical fallacy. sticking to the scientific method is not so... no deal.

Now, with that supposition in mind, the fact of the matter is that there are billions upon billions of individuals who have come to believe in the existence of God. In other words, somehow or another, we have billions upon billions of people who are running around the planet {convinced} that there is a God.

ad pop again.
Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken.
Logical Fallacies .info - Fallacies of Relevance - Irrelevant Appeals - Appeal to Popularity
i guess you didnt read the link jack posted so there it is.

This cannot be denied

again we have convincing evidence that the majority of people believe in god. that says nothing of the existence of god.

1. The statement that there is no {convincing evidence} can be said to be categorically false. This is because, if there are billions upon billions of people who are convinced that gods or a God exists, then there must be some {convincing evidence} which led them to be convinced.

this is non-sequitur. the fact that people believe something does not provide evidence of evidence...wait are you arguing that there is evidence of evidence? we just asked for evidence of god and you give a fallacious argument for evidence of evidence of god.

2. The fact that you have not been convinced, does not mean that there is no {convincing evidence.}

you are absolutely right. but until someone proposes convincing evidence i cannot remain intelluctually honest and change my views.

The fact that you have not been convinced, does not negate the Reality that we see in the billions upon billions of people who are convinced.

ad pop...long post think i've already dealt with this several times.

Now, if you disagree with those main points, then currently, there is one thing that you have to prove:

A. How is it possible to be convinced of something without any evidence? How were billions upon billions of people convinced of the existence of God without any evidence?

1. if you dont think about something, lets say your really worried about the crop in the field and warmongering neighbors to be able to delve in to philosophical thought then someone in authority says that something is true. you tend to believe them. once a society based on these fautly assuptions have been formed all you have to do is look at the exponential growth of population to understand it.
2. you want a reason why people have more authority, money, power ect than you do. so you buy into a religion that says that god wanted them in power but one day you will all be equals. its a comforting thought.
3. your life has lost all meaning due to some kind of tragidy, you want meaning back into your life and religion provides meaning. that we are here for a reason and we have a purpose.

this list can go on but i think the point is proven.

Again, the point is not about finding evidence to support an established view. Instead, the point was about the evidence which led to the establishment of the view.

people wanted power. they establish a religion that says the government is ordained by god and you must face his wrath if you turn against it. actually a pretty brilliant move on behalf of the government.

And which of you has been able to accomplish this feat? Which of you is not biased?

well if your intelluctually honest you change your views based on the evidence available. i am asking for evidence of the existence of god. i would change my views of god if i was presented with convincing evidence. i'm not saying that evidence of god, or god himself does not exist. but when everytime i am presented with evidence of god it has been shown to be illogical then how could i honestly take the opposing view?

[J. Askiloupos]

I just stumbled across a quote just then, not being completely verse with the Bible, I thought I'd throw it out here and see what the views are (this is not in relation to 'emotional' or 'spiritual' intelligence).

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence" - Bertrand Russell

I'm no Christian, nor a professed theist, however, I have actually read the Biblical book of Proverbs.

Mayhap Mr. Russell (and anyone parroting his party line) would care to do the same?

Wisdom (read: intelligence/doing the intelligent thing) is prized higher than any earthly possession.

Give it a read.

Sincerely,
Julian

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

What does that reply have to do with the misclassification of atheism as a religion? From logical fallacy to non-sequitur.

Probably because it is not a misclassification.

Untrue. As researchers have noted, while the human brain may indeed be wired for non-physical experiences and perceptions (call them spiritual if you like) there's no indication that they have anything to do with a god. Spiritual values can include love, compassion, mercy, empathy, and many other non-physical, mental expressions. None of these require the existence of a supernatural creator being.

But, according to the definition of spiritual, {spiritual values} do require the existence of religion. So, if Atheism is not a religion, then how can it possess those things which arise as a result of religion?


SPIRITUAL: noun: 1 plural : things of a spiritual, ecclesiastical, or religious nature2 : a religious song usually of a deeply emotional character that was developed especially among blacks in the southern United States
3 capitalized : any of a party of 13th and 14th century Franciscans advocating strict observance of a rule of poverty for their order

SPIRITUAL: adjective: 1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL *spiritual needs*
2 a : of or relating to sacred matters *spiritual songs* b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal *spiritual authority* *lords spiritual*
3 : concerned with religious values
4 : related or joined in spirit *our spiritual home* *his spiritual heir*
5 a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC

-->>SPIRITUAL

Atheism is the rejection of the god myths invented by humans throughout history, rejected due to a complete lack of subjective and convincing evidence.

Again, there is plenty of subjective and convincing evidence. The fact that it has not convinced you, does not mean that there is no subjective and convincing evidence. But the fact that billions upon billions of people have been convinced, does suggests that subjective and convincing evidence do exist.

2. Since the foundation of all religions is BELIEF, your rejection of what is supposedly a myth, does not magically turn your Atheism into no religion. Instead, it just means that you do not believe in the same thing that the next religious individual believes in. But the fact of the matter is that you still believe., and that belief is the foundation of your religion.

Atheism says nothing about brain circuitry that may produce "spiritual" experiences.

Maybe Atheists should look into the science.

[Jack]

SPIRITUAL: adjective: 1 : of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL *spiritual needs*

Where's religion in that definition. Context is important to definitions. Also, remember I said it wasn't the best word to encompass what I mean when I use it. Since this is a purely semantic argument I see no reason to pursue it, as it gets us nowhere in relation to the topic.

But the fact that billions upon billions of people have been convinced, does suggests that subjective and convincing evidence do exist.

You're right. I misspoke. I should have said objective.

But the fact of the matter is that you still believe

So what do I believe in that fits the definition of a religion?

[Jinei]

I'm no Christian, nor a professed theist, however, I have actually read the Biblical book of Proverbs.

Mayhap Mr. Russell (and anyone parroting his party line) would care to do the same?

Wisdom (read: intelligence/doing the intelligent thing) is prized higher than any earthly possession.

Give it a read.

Sincerely,
Julian

I made several posts concerning just that. Here's one:

IN THE BIBLE when we hear the words "wisdom" or "intelligence" they are meant to mean that a person is wise or intelligent enough to accept Jesus Christ and believe in God or whatever. NEVER is it implicitly or explicitly mentioned that "wisdom" or "intelligence" are what we understand them to be today: critical thinking, skeptical inquiry, dedicated analysis, clever, literate, quick to calculate or deliberate, or prone to the scientific process of thought and consideration.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Oh what pure unadulterate bullshit! You are describing EMOTIONS for crying out lout which, true, everyone has, except sociopaths. The brain receptors are specifically receiving God info and the people receiving this tell you that. Listen to them for a change instead of continuing this now proven lunacy of a non-functional religion called atheism.

Actually, sociopaths are equipped with emotions.

Here's another take on this idea. Note that in the following snippet as well as the original link provided on page 2 of this thread there's no contention being made that any god is a reality. All that's being investigated is whether or not our brains contain physical properties that explain human's perception of spirituality. In other words, are human brains responsible for the perceptions of gods. I do not know enough about neuroscience to challenge thses investigations, but even a positive outcome does not alter the fact that atheism is an argument against the idea that gods are real, not that humans have perceptions of gods. The perception of something does not automatically mean that what's perceived is real.
Neurotheology: Are We Hardwired for God? - Psychiatric Times

Then how do you perceive it? If the perception of something does not automatically mean that that which is perceived is real, then how were you able to perceive that thing in the first place?

Well actually that's verse 7 not verse 1



Is not a reference to Jesus...even liberal-minded christian scholars do not associate ' fear of the lord ' with jesus...in no instance is ' fear ' associated with jesus.

And if not Jesus, then who is the “Lord” that the {Christian} is supposed to fear?

If I'm not mistaken, verses 1 through 6 are merely part of the introduction. The actual list of advisory proverbs starts with Advice to the Young with verse 7.



Beside the point. As I read, I can find not one use of the words "experience," "intelligence," "clever," "understanding," "resourceful," knowledge," "educate(d)," or "wise" in reference to what we mean by "intelligence" today or at least at the time of B. Russell's writing.
(Verses are cited and put into quotations. Anything outside quotation is my own commentary):

1:7; To have knowledge, you have to have reverence in the LORD.

1:20 –33; To reject or deny knowledge is equated to rejecting or denying the LORD (1:29)

2:6; “It is the LORD who gives wisdom; from him come knowledge and understanding.”

3:5; “Trust in the LORD with all your heart. Never rely on what you think you know.”
Apparently, human knowledge is different and less reliable than “knowledge” associated with the LORD.

And does the fact that human knowledge may be different and {less} reliable than the Lords, mean that human knowledge is without intelligence? Does the fact that your knowledge is different from someone else’s knowledge, mean that your knowledge is without intelligence?

3:19-20; “The LORD created the earth by his wisdom; by his knowledge he set the sky in place. His wisdom caused the rivers to flow and the clouds to give rain to the earth.”

Actually this use of the words “wisdom” and “knowledge” are quite interesting. Replace them with “magic” or “unknown might of the divine” and see what happens.

And? Is it possible to do magic without intelligence? Is the magician able to do his magic without intelligence? Can you create an earth without having intelligence? Can you cause rivers to flow and clouds to give rain without having any intelligence? In fact, is it even possible for one to create anything if they are devoid of all intelligence?

4:1-27; Admittedly, the word “wisdom” used in this context is vague. If read alone, it may resemble Russell’s “intelligence.” But I have no doubt that here too, “wisdom” refers to the acceptance of the LORD.

9:11; “…If you know the Holy One, you have understanding.”

Can you accept the Lord without having any intelligence?

[Jack]

If the perception of something does not automatically mean that that which is perceived is real, then how were you able to perceive that thing in the first place?

Is the subject of a dream or hallucination real?

Can you accept the Lord without having any intelligence?

No doubt.

[Jinei]

And does the fact that human knowledge may be different and {less} reliable than the Lords, mean that human knowledge is without intelligence? Does the fact that your knowledge is different from someone else’s knowledge, mean that your knowledge is without intelligence?



And? Is it possible to do magic without intelligence? Is the magician able to do his magic without intelligence? Can you create an earth without having intelligence? Can you cause rivers to flow and clouds to give rain without having any intelligence? In fact, is it even possible for one to create anything if they are devoid of all intelligence?

There's no such thing as real magic.

Can you accept the Lord without having any intelligence?

Have you been reading my latest posts. My reply to these have already been addressed.

[sonoman]

But we don't know that. Your links don't establish that as fact.


Agnosticism is a way to examine evidence. Atheism is the conclusion I've reached employing agnosticism. Semantics must be relevant to religious debate or theists wouldn't argue them as often as they do.

Theists argue over how many angels and now I see you too backfilling over semantics of "agnosticism" vs. "atheism" without understanding that to those of us who have had religious experiences there's no difference. Only those without God make such distinctions.

And both you and the other atheists have done zip to disprove science studies that more and more show how the human brain is hardwired for spiritual reception in most people. Atheists are mentally disabled people who do not know it and to fight against science now only goes to prove that atheism was a religious conviction from the start--it never could hold a rational position of claiming there's no God--that never was rational as no one yet has complete knowledge of future discoveries of humankind. But keep putting theists down with your ganging up tactics here where atheism still believes it has escaped the museum of dead ideas.

Again, until you can prove the human brain is NOT hardwired for spiritual experiencing, then you have no argument worth listening to.