Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

Rationalizations are what we don't see anywhere else.

Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.

We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
Give me the example of that in nature.

I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.

Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.

Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf

Now please present for us any credible biologist stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute? If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.

 

[Montrovant]

Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.

Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.

Ah! So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.

Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language. Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?

I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before. 'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that. First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait. Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god? Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.

Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.

Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.

Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.

Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.

If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.

Can you point to the scientific law, principle, theory or hypothesis which states that if a trait is exclusively human it cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

What is or isn't beneficial can be subjective. Certainly human religious and spiritual beliefs might be beneficial, but that in no way means they are based on the existence of an actual god. This is especially true considering how many different beliefs mankind has held.

Also, I don't believe that a trait must remain beneficial to continue within a species. Certainly there's been plenty of argument on this board about whether homosexuality is beneficial or detrimental to a species. There are certainly plenty of physical traits which are not beneficial yet continue within humanity. Just using myself as an example, I have bad eyesight and suffer from acid reflux and psoriasis. None of these are beneficial to my survival or the propagation of my genes, yet they have been passed on through multiple generations. Is there any reason behaviors cannot be the same?

Natural selection in no way negates the possibility that the spiritual connection you believe in is imagined. Such beliefs can be beneficial or neutral, evolutionarily speaking, to the species without being based on something real. Drawing such a conclusion does not 'completely contradict science' nor does it completely contradict evolutionary theory. I wonder if you even believe these statements trying to tie your spiritual nature beliefs to evolution or if you are just trolling.

Spiritual nature and spiritual being(s) may be real, but I don't believe there is any particular aspect of science or scientific research which claims it to be so.

 

[daws101]

Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.

We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
Give me the example of that in nature.

I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.

Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.

Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf

Now please present for us any credible biologist stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute? If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.

the above is a false argument....cognitive abilities in other animals is no evidence of god..

 

[thebrucebeat]

Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.

We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
Give me the example of that in nature.

I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.

Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.

Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf

Now please present for us any credible biologist stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute? If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.

Do I really have to humiliate you AGAIN?
Showing clearly you have no exposure to psychology?
You are a total waste of bandwidth, you really are.
We are not talking about the ability to be rational.
We are talking about the psychological process of rationalization.
You know this, or you are far too stupid to cross the street alone.

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry but that is not any more true now than the last time you said it.

We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
Give me the example of that in nature.

I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.

Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.

Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf

Now please present for us any credible biologist stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute? If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.

Cognitive dissonance is not the same as rationalization. Cognitive dissonance is when someone has conflicting or contradictory beliefs. Rationalization is one way people might deal with cognitive dissonance. Your own link says this about cognitive dissonance at the beginning of the paper : "Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a discrepancy
between one’s beliefs and one’s behavior. According to cogni-
tive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), such a perceived dis-
crepancy may result in an emotionally uncomfortable state, or
dissonance, that one will work to reduce. One way to reduce
such dissonance is to modify one’s beliefs to account for or
justify one’s behavior.".

Clearly, any excuses for behavior are made after cognitive dissonance occurs.

It's amazing how often you complain about other people twisting meaning and taking things out of context when you do it over and over yourself.

 

[daws101]

We are talking about rationalizations, which by now you should know what the word means. False arguments intended to self-deceive.
Give me the example of that in nature.

I presented videos the last time, you simply rejected the evidence, even with the scientist telling you that the crows rationalized.

Here's an article about a Yale study on capuchin monkeys....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/science/06tier.html

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

This is called cognitive dissonance, not rationalization.
The example above, as well as the previous video of the crows, demonstrate cognitive dissonance in other animals.

Here's a study on cognitive dissonance in pigeons:
http://www.uky.edu/~zentall/pdfs/justificationofeffort.pdf

Now please present for us any credible biologist stating that rationalization or cognitive dissonance is a uniquely human attribute? If you can't provide this evidence, it proves that you are once again LYING to us, as you have become very comfortable doing.

Cognitive dissonance is not the same as rationalization. Cognitive dissonance is when someone has conflicting or contradictory beliefs. Rationalization is one way people might deal with cognitive dissonance. Your own link says this about cognitive dissonance at the beginning of the paper : "Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a discrepancy
between one’s beliefs and one’s behavior. According to cogni-
tive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), such a perceived dis-
crepancy may result in an emotionally uncomfortable state, or
dissonance, that one will work to reduce. One way to reduce
such dissonance is to modify one’s beliefs to account for or
justify one’s behavior.".

Clearly, any excuses for behavior are made after cognitive dissonance occurs.

It's amazing how often you complain about other people twisting meaning and taking things out of context when you do it over and over yourself.

cognitive bias..


Cognitive bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.[1] Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input.[2] An individual’s construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the social world.[3] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[4][5][6]

Some cognitive biases are presumably adaptive. Cognitive biases may lead to more effective actions in a given context.[7] Furthermore, cognitive biases enable faster decisions when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy, as illustrated in heuristics.[8] Other cognitive biases are a “by-product” of human processing limitations,[9] resulting from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from a limited capacity for information processing.[10]
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....

Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?

This is just nonsense. I guess you can continue to believe a fairytale if you want. At least you don't seem like the kind of person who would stop stem cell research because of your religion. Like I said, I agreed with your beliefs up until about a month or two ago. I was to the point I knew 100% all the organized religions were BS but I still believed in a God. Then my athiest friends made me think it through and the only reason I thought that was because I wanted to, not for any solid hard concrete scientific reasons. And no you guys did not use science to explain anything that matters and your belief that trees and frogs are spiritual is silly. Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

Our ancestors being afraid of the unknown is why they invented God.

I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.

Wait, what? You used science to demonstrate it isn't true? I think I must have missed that....

No it just never happened.

 

[sealybobo]

I already used science to demonstrate this is not true.

Wait, what? You used science to demonstrate it isn't true? I think I must have missed that....

Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.

Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.

The same fear gene that makes the squirrels and birds that I feed everyday flee every time I come to the door and feed them is the same fear gene that made us come up with God. It was a good thing to be afraid back then. Back then being careful and afraid kept you alive.

 

[sealybobo]

Doesn't surprise me Moonbat, you miss a lot.

Yep. Science. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species inventing a false fundamental behavioral attribute out of fear of the unknown, or for any other reason, for that matter. Therefore, this is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science.

Ah! So you actually did nothing of the sort, got it.

Sorry, saying that a trait is unique to humanity does not make it untrue, or unnatural for that matter. There is no indication found anywhere else in nature of any living species using written language. Does that mean it is not a natural phenomenon and not supported by science?

I imagine you'll now revert to the kind of excuses you've used before. 'Language isn't a behavioral trait, so it doesn't count' or something like that. First of all, belief in god is not a universal human trait. Beyond that, how can you know that no other animal has a belief in god? Unless the human mind is the only one capable of understanding such a concept......in which case, of course, it would make perfect sense that humans would be the only animals to believe in gods as we'd be the only ones capable of it.

Thank you for not actually using science at all to do nothing but provide your counter opinion on the subject of why humans believe.

Either way you want to take it, this destroys the argument that man invented a superfluous attribute to explain the unknown. If it's not an exclusively human trait, then it's not the creation of man's imagination. If it's not found anywhere else in nature then it's not something created to explain the unknown.

Language is a beneficial and fundamental attribute. It isn't something fake, created or invented out of fear of the unknown. There are billions of examples of unique attributes across a wide range of species, all of which have a fundamental and beneficial element, or they wouldn't exist. There is no behavior of any living thing that is without reason and purpose to the species, nor is there any behavior the species falsely believes is beneficial and with purpose but actually isn't.

Let's go through this again slowly... Humans did not invent spirituality, they are intrinsically connected spiritually. It is through that spiritual connection they were inspired to create written language, science and religion. Science was created by man to explain the unknown, religions were created to attempt comprehension of the intrinsic spiritual connection. Fear of mortality comes from the understanding of immortality through the comprehending of spiritual nature.

If humans invented spirituality, we'd be able to see that in archeological discovery. We'd find civilizations which existed for so many years without any trace of human spirituality, then see where humans began to practice this "invention" they came up with. Instead, we find that every civilization dating back to the very first ones discovered, show that humans were practicing some form of spiritual belief. The attribute has been part of the species since our inception. To this day, with all the modern science explaining the great mysteries, 90% of the species retains this attribute. Darwinian theories of natural selection negate any possibility this is a superficial attribute. It completely contradicts science to draw such a conclusion.

So if human's are the only animals that believe in God, that proves god exists and if other animals believe then that proves god exists too? Can't have it both ways. And neither proves anything. If there were a god, he would have left a footprint. And where's mom? What did he do with mom?

 

[koshergrl]

Fear gene?

Pffft...and you want people to recognize you as the voice of reason?

 

[Boss]

a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.

is exactly the same thing as...

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.

 

[Boss]

there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....

Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?

This is just nonsense. I guess you can continue to believe a fairytale if you want. At least you don't seem like the kind of person who would stop stem cell research because of your religion. Like I said, I agreed with your beliefs up until about a month or two ago. I was to the point I knew 100% all the organized religions were BS but I still believed in a God. Then my athiest friends made me think it through and the only reason I thought that was because I wanted to, not for any solid hard concrete scientific reasons. And no you guys did not use science to explain anything that matters and your belief that trees and frogs are spiritual is silly. Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would suggest maybe you take another month or so to evaluate the question further. Perhaps you will realize how faulty the arguments are that have been presented by the Atheists. I've given you hard core scientific reasons to at least question your atheistic theories of spiritualism being some invented meme to explain the unknown and console fear of mortality. I don't have any idea what you mean by trees and frogs being spiritual, I have not made that argument.

 

[Boss]

The same fear gene that makes the squirrels and birds that I feed everyday flee every time I come to the door and feed them is the same fear gene that made us come up with God. It was a good thing to be afraid back then. Back then being careful and afraid kept you alive.

And yet today, as many humans are spiritual as they were back then, and still... no squirrels and birds at church services on Sunday. What you keep saying doesn't make logical sense. We see no natural evidence that any other creature has ever invented a meaningless behavior to cope with fear. We also see that humans have largely retained this supposedly "meaningless behavior" for all of their existence, in spite of science and knowledge explaining away all their fears of the unknown. So not only is your argument not based in any kind of actual biological science or knowledge, it doesn't even make logical or rational sense. It is thoughtless gobbledy-gook cobbled together by activists on a mission and nothing more. You have been duped. Brainwashed. Fooled into believing a falsehood.

 

[daws101]

Fear gene?

Pffft...and you want people to recognize you as the voice of reason?

'Fear Gene' Shown To Cause PTSD; Prevention Technique Could Be On The Horizon
love it when you get caught talking out your ass!

 

[Boss]

If there were a god, he would have left a footprint. And where's mom? What did he do with mom?

Footprint? How does something spiritual in nature leave a physical footprint?

Mom? Well where is gravity's mom? Where are logic and reason's mom? Maybe they are on a Mom's Night Out with God's mom???

 

[daws101]

Fear gene?

Pffft...and you want people to recognize you as the voice of reason?

The New American also publishes articles about economics (from a free-enterprise perspective of course!), culture, and history. It is published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society.


kosher hag doesn't let a little thing like zero credibility get in the way of her delusions ...

 

[daws101]

If there were a god, he would have left a footprint. And where's mom? What did he do with mom?

Footprint? How does something spiritual in nature leave a physical footprint?

Mom? Well where is gravity's mom? Where are logic and reason's mom? Maybe they are on a Mom's Night Out with God's mom???

the same way it's incapable of communicating with creatures who can only sense through physical means. That's us...

 

[thebrucebeat]

a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.

is exactly the same thing as...

False arguments intended to self-deceive.

You are talking about "cognitive dissonance" and not rationalization. Nevertheless, you have presented absolutely no scientific resource to support your claim that only humans rationalize or have cognitive dissonance. This is proof that you are lying and/or are misinformed.

"Rationalization is a defense mechanism that involves explaining an unacceptable behavior or feeling in a rational or logical manner, avoiding the true reasons for the behavior. For example, a person who is turned down for a date might rationalize the situation by saying they were not attracted to the other person anyway, or a student might blame a poor exam score on the instructor rather than his or her lack of preparation.

Rationalization not only prevents anxiety, it may also protect self-esteem and self-concept. When confronted by success or failure, people tend to attribute achievement to their own qualities and skills while failures are blamed on other people or outside forces."
From About.com/Psychology


"What is RATIONALIZATION?
An explanation in which apparently logical reasons are given to justify unacceptable behavior. In psychoanalytical theory, such an outlook is regarded as a defense mechanism against feelings of guilt.
Psychology Dictionary: What is RATIONALIZATION? definition of RATIONALIZATION (Psychology Dictionary) "

Now give us a long dissertation about how different these concepts are from the "cognitive dissonance" you are trying to parse an argument over.
Such a twit you are.
Everyone is a liar. Everyone is misinformed.
Everyone, that is, except you, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

there is nothing living that does not have Spirituality ....

Breezy's interesting theory that all life is spiritual. I can't argue with this, but doesn't it kind of shoot in the foot the idea that God doesn't exist? That it's all in our heads? That man invented God? I mean, if cherry blossoms are aware of God, what is their excuse? Are they afraid of the dark too?

This is just nonsense. I guess you can continue to believe a fairytale if you want. At least you don't seem like the kind of person who would stop stem cell research because of your religion. Like I said, I agreed with your beliefs up until about a month or two ago. I was to the point I knew 100% all the organized religions were BS but I still believed in a God. Then my athiest friends made me think it through and the only reason I thought that was because I wanted to, not for any solid hard concrete scientific reasons. And no you guys did not use science to explain anything that matters and your belief that trees and frogs are spiritual is silly. Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The triune brain is a model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain and behavior proposed by the American physician and neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean. MacLean originally formulated his model in the 1960s and propounded it at length in his 1990 book The Triune Brain in Evolution.[1] The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex, the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex), viewed as structures sequentially added to the forebrain in the course of evolution. However, this hypothesis is not espoused by many comparative neuroscientists.

... model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain


the point of including Flora is they do not have a physiological "Brain" yet retain spirituality and all the emotives of Fauna, obviously concluding spirituality is not an elctro-chemical response - therefore the Spirit is not a physiological component of the living organism Fauna or Flora and may be detachable while retaining its fluency.


* if you do not get it, the Spirit may continue to exist after the physiology expires.

.