quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

*Links to theories deleted

after all this, we are left with the things

1... we cannot prove the existence of god
2... we cannot prove the absence of god
3... until one or the other is proven.. there is always hope and faith

and that is what binds both to their beliefs.

quote:

While i know it wont keep you up at night... your attempts at belittlement are as pathetic as you. i will no longer respond to you in any fashion.

quote:

(This is really only a 2 minute read.  It is an insightful, articulate and a meaningful beat down of the words above.  It seems daunting because of the links & spacing - check it 'yo!)

Complete and total BS, PrincessTT.  I do not think it is your fault though.  The modern understanding of belief is not something commonly discussed outside the scientific community.

Neuroscience has found specific areas of the brain which activate when discussing religious belief.  This region is responsible for the euphoric or 'godly' feelings we experience when we think about or share belief, the cause is internal not external..  We active specific areas of our brain to create conceptual art(art only existing in our mind) to give it life on paper.  We also access specific areas of our brain when we discuss our belief in the unknowable(gods) to give them "life".

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000104711

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589-paranormal-beliefs-linked-to-brain-chemistry.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jun/30/psychology.neuroscience
("Belief has been a most powerful component of human nature that has somewhat been neglected," says Peter Halligan, a psychologist at Cardiff University. "But it has been capitalised on by marketing agents, politics and religion for the best part of two millennia.. . . That is changing")

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515212112.htm

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a714013137 - this is not relevant to the discussion but relevant regardless.

http://www.amazon.com/Neuropsychological-Bases-Beliefs-Michael-Persinger/dp/0275926486#reader

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a713690607~fulltext=713240930

This is from Time:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html

As far as psychology. . .

Even Freud was outspoken about the dangers of religion: 

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-58119451.html - about articles on false belief.  I have not personally looked at these. (You can search for the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on your own.  I would suggest you keep this study focused within the last 10 years)

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=K2xS27xyT0vG1rGBSywQhN60LR3Wp55ngzhK7hn4THHQBgyr3N14!-1042068674!299803806?docId=77025160 - this is a hum-dinger!

As I mentioned earlier in this thread their is an entire field dedicated to dealing with incorrect, illogical, irrational or damaging personal core beliefs - Cognitive Behavior Therapy.  A premise and 'law' of psychology as demonstrated by this field is beliefs lead to action and are the cause of emotion - years past we did not have the science to back it up now we do.

Psychology also has a book known as the diagnostic statistic manual(Commonly called the bible of mental illness)  it is dedicated to examining, understanding and treating mentally ill people.  Many of these illnesses or unstable emotions are directly linked to beliefs.

Logic leaves no room for flawed or broken beliefs either.  Any belief no matter how strong the personal commitment to it, if it violates the three laws of logic it is meaningless.

As for as courts disliking to rule on it.  I have not heard that one.  Possibly you can provide us with material where judges acknowledge the fact they hate to rule on it.

Anthropologists have some to say about the evolution of belief as well.

Evolutionary biology will also have it's say.

I get it is not fully understood. However, it is no longer a mysterious, taboo or an off limit's topic.  There is not a shred of evidence to suggest we will not completely comprehend how and why some people's brains desire, create, cling to or need belief.  As a child we relied on imaginary friends. 

As adults gods/supernatural things become these ultimate protectors.

We as humans rely on logic every waking moment of our life.  Oddly enough we do not apply this logic to our beliefs, this is where some trouble comes in.  When beliefs are looked at logically they typically fall apart or can be recognized as harmful and 'delt' with.  However, beliefs are core to our personal nature, controlling our actions and emotions as demonstrated by CBT.  Psychologically speaking it is a trying and painful process to challenge our beliefs especially when it is one deeply rooted by family or culture

It has been a taboo for thousands of years to question, wish to examine, or constructively criticize the beliefs of ourselves or others.  The trump card, "this is my belief not yours and I believe what I want - nay nay boo boo" has always been played; it is for this reason science has not been presented the opportunity to examine.  The danger of false belief it's impact on personal emotions, action and psychological states along with the area of the brain responsible for this are now known.

Because of this modern day understanding which we did not have 100 years ago , beliefs are up for extremely critical examination.

You mentioned the word 'faith'.  I do not understand this term either.  I was involved in a good discussion with another CM member but the thread became too cluttered, I will try again.

quote:

Belief and faith cannot be changed based merely upon a discussion/debate.

Firstly I do not desire to change anyone's beliefs.  There are 15 million non theists living in this country - we need no more converts.  However, I will make every attempt to discuss logically why I might be wrong - the truth does not hinge on conversion..

I was tempted to say the only method we have for transfer of knowledge is discussion.  However, that is false.  Discussion(interaction) with other humans does take the lions share though.  As this is the case it is logical to extrapolate discussion is the top 5 methods deployed.  The question is are people willing to logically examine their belief. 
90% of the non-theist I have met in this country were a theists.  Statistically speaking this is very likely and it was through discussion and strength they changed.  Unlike their counterparts they frequently have pictures or old religious dogma stuffed away in a drawer as memories.  I have pictures of many years of my life where I was actively forced to pursue beliefs I was too young to comprehend.

I bet the vast majority of objections nit-pick the final paragraph and ignore the rest - this is how the mechanism of belief protects itself.  I did present a lot of information but it was out of necessity.  I will be less verbose in my next responses but would like to if possible discuss the material as a whole.


While i know it wont keep you up at night... your attempts at belittlement are as pathetic as you. i will no longer respond to you in any fashion.

_____________________________

Hindu proverb: "True nobility lies not in being superior to another man, but in being superior to ones previous self."

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Buddhism, Christianity, Deism, Falun Gong, Hinduism, Islam and Wicca all have claims to be the fastest growing religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

My point wasn't that Christianity is the fastest growing religion today , but that it was essentially an overnight sensation in the 1st century, due to the ressurrection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Buddhism, Christianity, Deism, Falun Gong, Hinduism, Islam and Wicca all have claims to be the fastest growing religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest_growing_religion

My point wasn't that Christianity is the fastest growing religion today , but that it was essentially an overnight sensation in the 1st century, due to the ressurrection.

quote:


Burton Mack, a staunch theist, one of the world's most respected New Testament scholars disagrees.

As would and good Muslim.

Asa lama lakum

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

Um I can pretty much replace the word "religion" with "origin of life theories" in your post and it would be just as correct. You don't need extraordinary evidence for anything, you just need data that logically would be expected to exist if a hypothesis is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

Um I can pretty much replace the word "religion" with "origin of life theories" in your post and it would be just as correct. You don't need extraordinary evidence for anything, you just need data that logically would be expected to exist if a hypothesis is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

I would seriously question anyone's respectability if they deny Christianitys explosion in the 1st century. I've never even met an atheist that denies it, well except for on this forum...

quote:

ORIGINAL: dundreggen

Assuming there is a god.. who are we mere mortals to define Him?  If there isn't it does not matter...

http://xkcd.com/154/

quote:


Ya, ya data that would be expected to demonstrate the hypothesis, yes we know - I know, I know.  Sometimes more is needed sometimes less is needed.  The more extraordinary the claim it is to logically be assumed the more data will be necessary. That was my point which you choose to over look. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

This thing (corrected by me) gave us the ability to love, cherish, grovel, praise, cheer, question, criticize and worship it.  This thing gave us the ability to think and to examine.  This thing gave us the ability to define, understand and comprehend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

Talk about popularity explosions being substantiation for the quality of something...how 'bout that Britney Spears, eh?! [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Ya, ya data that would be expected to demonstrate the hypothesis, yes we know - I know, I know.  Sometimes more is needed sometimes less is needed.  The more extraordinary the claim it is to logically be assumed the more data will be necessary. That was my point which you choose to over look. 

That really only looks like you're stacking the cards. But really all it is is an assertion. There is no physical law or rule that says "extraordinary events requires extraordinary evidence". First, the word itself is subjective. I regard the origin of life through chance events an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately that will never happen even if it's true that it occured by chance. Darwin's theory of evolution was in fact viewed as an extraordinary claim, the majority of people even made fun of it.

The simple fact of the matter is this: An extraordinary claim is simply a claim about an extraodinary event and the occurance of an extraordinary event does not necessarily entail that it would come with extraodinary evidence. The fingerprints of an extraordinary event may produce only mundane or subtle clues.

quote:


Some things espcially those which are extraordinary(rising from the dead, evolution, gravity, talking asses or snakes, global floods) require more evidence by a logical person - rightly so.