Why do the God-haters persist?

[BreezeWood]

I don't have any idea what you mean by trees and frogs being spiritual, I have not made that argument.

that is because you are a Christian ...

.

 

[orogenicman]

 

[orogenicman]

 

[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.

"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?

No long dissertation required, you are simply presenting one of many different kinds of rationalization. You're not incorrect, you are just incomplete. These are examples of rationalization from cognitive dissonance, and while humans aren't the only creatures who do that, they tend to do it much more and to a greater degree than other animals.

If I decide to put money in a savings account instead of spending it on a new car, that is a rationalization. I'm not rationalizing unacceptable behavior, but I am still rationalizing. Still... other animals DO rationalize unacceptable behavior. Your dog may know full well that he is not supposed to get into the trash can, but he rationalizes that you are not watching and he smells something good in there, so he chooses to do the unacceptable behavior because he rationalized it. When you walk into the room and see the trash strewn all over, you don't have to say or do anything, you look at the dog and you can tell that he knows his behavior was unacceptable and he's in trouble.

 

[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?

No long dissertation required, you are simply presenting one of many different kinds of rationalization. You're not incorrect, you are just incomplete. These are examples of rationalization from cognitive dissonance, and while humans aren't the only creatures who do that, they tend to do it much more and to a greater degree than other animals.

If I decide to put money in a savings account instead of spending it on a new car, that is a rationalization. I'm not rationalizing unacceptable behavior, but I am still rationalizing. Still... other animals DO rationalize unacceptable behavior. Your dog may know full well that he is not supposed to get into the trash can, but he rationalizes that you are not watching and he smells something good in there, so he chooses to do the unacceptable behavior because he rationalized it. When you walk into the room and see the trash strewn all over, you don't have to say or do anything, you look at the dog and you can tell that he knows his behavior was unacceptable and he's in trouble.

You actually publicly posted this?
Amazing.

 

[daws101]

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?

No long dissertation required, you are simply presenting one of many different kinds of rationalization. You're not incorrect, you are just incomplete. These are examples of rationalization from cognitive dissonance, and while humans aren't the only creatures who do that, they tend to do it much more and to a greater degree than other animals.

If I decide to put money in a savings account instead of spending it on a new car, that is a rationalization. I'm not rationalizing unacceptable behavior, but I am still rationalizing. Still... other animals DO rationalize unacceptable behavior. Your dog may know full well that he is not supposed to get into the trash can, but he rationalizes that you are not watching and he smells something good in there, so he chooses to do the unacceptable behavior because he rationalized it. When you walk into the room and see the trash strewn all over, you don't have to say or do anything, you look at the dog and you can tell that he knows his behavior was unacceptable and he's in trouble.

 

[Boss]

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?

I don't need to, that's not my argument. We created science to explain the unknown. God and spiritual nature does not explain the unknown, it's still a mystery. What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown, but then, he wouldn't have created science. Nothing about this theory is making rational sense, we don't find evidence of other living things making up fake icons to worship because of fears.

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.

Well I am sorry if you thought my argument was proof of God. If there was any way that I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The notion has been presented that human spirituality is a bunch of made-up nonsense that is meaningless and serves no purpose whatsoever. I argue that man didn't invent it and it's not made-up, but it does in fact have fundamental value to the species. It can't be "meaningless" and also "beneficial" because these contradict each other. Mankind has created a lot of different beliefs regarding their intrinsic spiritual connection, but that only proves they are actually making some kind of connection to something. They don't fully understand or comprehend what that is, but they are aware it's something important.

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?

But you are not talking about an intrinsic behavioral characteristic across the entire species. You're presenting anomalies and abnormalities. Some are due to corrupted genetic code and mutations which we see all throughout nature.

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.

Again, IF there was any way for me to prove God is real, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we are examining this question, we have to remember that. All we are doing is talking about what we know, the evidence that is objectively there to evaluate. If humans gained no benefit from spiritually connecting, they would have abandoned it many years ago. Instead, they created thousands of various religions to try and comprehend it better. If it was all on our heads and imaginary, we wouldn't keep doing it and finding benefit from doing it. To argue that it is of no benefit and all a bunch of made-up nonsense, is a contradiction of science and what we know about nature. Including the very theories of Darwin himself.

Now it's very obvious to me that our species has accomplished things that other species have been completely unable to do. Some people will argue that it's because of our brains or cerebral cortex, language, the ability to rationalize, or cognition... but to one degree or another, all these attributes are found elsewhere in nature. The correlation between our success and our ability to connect to some source of inspiration and power greater than self is unmistakable. If we are connecting to something that isn't real, it sure as hell has paid off for us.

 

[orogenicman]

What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...

Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.

 

[Boss]

What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...

Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.

Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

 

[Hollie]

What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...

Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.

Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

Actually, keeping up with the thread has shown that your "... because I say so" weasel has debunked only your credibility.

All the gods that mankind has created were designed to explain natural phenomenon not understood. That's why all of the previously configured gods have been abandoned.

Your invention of "spiritual nature" is simply yet another variation of appeals to fear and ignorance.

Not so long ago in human history, it was impossible to conceive of a world not managed/controlled by one or more gods, and now, it is apparent that the gods don't control anything we can identify. Not so long ago, It was inconceivable that there were not angels pushing the planets and the gods opened flowers and so on-- but now it is natural to know that these things have non-divine underpinnings. We are evolving! And we are evolving away from the superstition based tenets of religious dogma.

Look at the grandeur of the universe through the Hubble. Watch footage of man first landing on the moon. Watch the images from the Voyagers as they swept past the great gas planets in absolute silence, giving us vastly more sight than any so-called revelation from a superstitious doom-sayer. Yes, theists see "god's handiwork" when they look at these things, but the truth is, they would be blind to it if they relied on their gods -- it is technology and reason which brought that majesty to you.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown...

Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.

Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

I've kept up with the thread and watched you trip all over yourself. You have debunked nothing, except your claims of higher education.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong. Boss's credibility has increased substantially in this thread...despite the parade of anti-Christian, anti-God loons that have by turns ridiculed, attacked, and trolled the thread.

 

[thebrucebeat]

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?

I don't need to, that's not my argument. We created science to explain the unknown. God and spiritual nature does not explain the unknown, it's still a mystery. What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown, but then, he wouldn't have created science. Nothing about this theory is making rational sense, we don't find evidence of other living things making up fake icons to worship because of fears.



Well I am sorry if you thought my argument was proof of God. If there was any way that I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The notion has been presented that human spirituality is a bunch of made-up nonsense that is meaningless and serves no purpose whatsoever. I argue that man didn't invent it and it's not made-up, but it does in fact have fundamental value to the species. It can't be "meaningless" and also "beneficial" because these contradict each other. Mankind has created a lot of different beliefs regarding their intrinsic spiritual connection, but that only proves they are actually making some kind of connection to something. They don't fully understand or comprehend what that is, but they are aware it's something important.

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?

But you are not talking about an intrinsic behavioral characteristic across the entire species. You're presenting anomalies and abnormalities. Some are due to corrupted genetic code and mutations which we see all throughout nature.

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.

Again, IF there was any way for me to prove God is real, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we are examining this question, we have to remember that. All we are doing is talking about what we know, the evidence that is objectively there to evaluate. If humans gained no benefit from spiritually connecting, they would have abandoned it many years ago. Instead, they created thousands of various religions to try and comprehend it better. If it was all on our heads and imaginary, we wouldn't keep doing it and finding benefit from doing it. To argue that it is of no benefit and all a bunch of made-up nonsense, is a contradiction of science and what we know about nature. Including the very theories of Darwin himself.

Now it's very obvious to me that our species has accomplished things that other species have been completely unable to do. Some people will argue that it's because of our brains or cerebral cortex, language, the ability to rationalize, or cognition... but to one degree or another, all these attributes are found elsewhere in nature. The correlation between our success and our ability to connect to some source of inspiration and power greater than self is unmistakable. If we are connecting to something that isn't real, it sure as hell has paid off for us.

The red parts taken in order.
The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction. People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths. The need for one man to have facile, unsupportable answers to mysteries awakens the need in another to de-mystify those answers. Science is a reaction to the willingness of some to substitute imagination for investigation. It is an inevitable pushback against the unsupported claims of the mystic.
Second. Things most certainly can be untrue and useful. We have all known people who have great confidence in their abilities which they factually don't possess but who's confidence alone pushes them far beyond what is reasonable to expect. The Santa myth is useful in exerting certain types of control over children during the season. You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion, yet I am positive you would make the case for its useful purpose in people's lives. The whole discussion of the use of rationalizations in humans is the discussion of the usefulness of self-deception in the maintenance of the ego. These may be absolutely pregnant with "meaning" to the individual while being entirely bereft of truth.
Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, man created god and the religions by which to worship it so he wouldn't feel so small and alone when faced with the unknown, and so he could control the masses. It also is a good excuse to make a lot of money. Ask Pat Robertson.

Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

I've kept up with the thread and watched you trip all over yourself. You have debunked nothing, except your claims of higher education.

Yes, it's obvious by the way you feel compelled to argue by claiming he's not really educated, thus should not be trusted.

Neither of which is true, and is evidence in and of itself that you have failed.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Wrong. Boss's credibility has increased substantially in this thread...despite the parade of anti-Christian, anti-God loons that have by turns ridiculed, attacked, and trolled the thread.

His credibility is not increased by your support.
Quite the contrary.
Your credibility would be hurt by your post here, but you started with none, so there is no net change.
The thread started with an OP that was a trolling attack of unsupported nonsense.
Was he expecting a pass?
Was his credibility increased for you when he made the profound argument that if things occur in the animal kingdom they support his theory but if they don't occur in the animal kingdom this supports his theory, too? Is this the razor sharp intellect you are admiring?
Then you are right to admire him.
It is all you can aspire to.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Actually, if you've kept up with the thread, I've already debunked the myth that man created God or spirituality. Religion is created by man to explain his spiritual connection to God and spiritual nature.

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

I've kept up with the thread and watched you trip all over yourself. You have debunked nothing, except your claims of higher education.

Yes, it's obvious by the way you feel compelled to argue by claiming he's not really educated, thus should not be trusted.

Neither of which is true, and is evidence in and of itself that you have failed.

My arguments go far beyond that, which you avoid.
Just as well.
It is all very much beyond you.

 

[BreezeWood]

The only time in history I can recall anyone attempting to "control the masses" they were executing the religious and discouraging spirituality.

your brazen shamelessness explains the perverse intent for your opening comment directed towards God rather than those who justly deserve the reprimand they as you rightfully deserve.

though koshergrl has a point in Bossy's favor he is otherwise a raving rightwing ideologue.

.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

I don't need to, that's not my argument. We created science to explain the unknown. God and spiritual nature does not explain the unknown, it's still a mystery. What you are actually trying to argue is that man created God so he didn't have to explain the unknown, but then, he wouldn't have created science. Nothing about this theory is making rational sense, we don't find evidence of other living things making up fake icons to worship because of fears.



Well I am sorry if you thought my argument was proof of God. If there was any way that I could do that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? The notion has been presented that human spirituality is a bunch of made-up nonsense that is meaningless and serves no purpose whatsoever. I argue that man didn't invent it and it's not made-up, but it does in fact have fundamental value to the species. It can't be "meaningless" and also "beneficial" because these contradict each other. Mankind has created a lot of different beliefs regarding their intrinsic spiritual connection, but that only proves they are actually making some kind of connection to something. They don't fully understand or comprehend what that is, but they are aware it's something important.

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?

But you are not talking about an intrinsic behavioral characteristic across the entire species. You're presenting anomalies and abnormalities. Some are due to corrupted genetic code and mutations which we see all throughout nature.

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.

Again, IF there was any way for me to prove God is real, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When we are examining this question, we have to remember that. All we are doing is talking about what we know, the evidence that is objectively there to evaluate. If humans gained no benefit from spiritually connecting, they would have abandoned it many years ago. Instead, they created thousands of various religions to try and comprehend it better. If it was all on our heads and imaginary, we wouldn't keep doing it and finding benefit from doing it. To argue that it is of no benefit and all a bunch of made-up nonsense, is a contradiction of science and what we know about nature. Including the very theories of Darwin himself.

Now it's very obvious to me that our species has accomplished things that other species have been completely unable to do. Some people will argue that it's because of our brains or cerebral cortex, language, the ability to rationalize, or cognition... but to one degree or another, all these attributes are found elsewhere in nature. The correlation between our success and our ability to connect to some source of inspiration and power greater than self is unmistakable. If we are connecting to something that isn't real, it sure as hell has paid off for us.

What, exactly, is your argument? Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown. You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument. How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

I'm not trying to find proof of your god here. You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim. At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.

It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc. That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.

 

[Boss]

The fact that man uses spiritual placeholders to create an understanding of his surroundings does not mean it is a universally accepted concoction.

But man doesn't. That's YOUR argument and I have debunked it. The understanding of God doesn't explain anything or how it happens. You and others keep insisting that man invented God to explain the unknown, but belief in God doesn't explain the unknown. It's akin to saying man invented the color red to explain why donuts are so delicious.

People applying their rational brains have made discoveries throughout history that have required the adjustment of the prevailing myths.

True, but this applies to both religion AND science.

Science is a reaction to the willingness of some to substitute imagination for investigation. It is an inevitable pushback against the unsupported claims of the mystic.

Imagination LEADS to investigation. Science is a reaction to inspiration of gaining knowledge. It is not a pushback of anything because, again, spiritual beliefs do not explain the unknown. I posted a comprehensive list of the earliest scientists followed by a comprehensive list of contemporary scientists who believed in spiritual nature. It's frankly a brainless and stupid argument that science was invented to explain away spiritual faith because it has obviously done a piss poor job of that.

Things most certainly can be untrue and useful.

Not my argument... this is a distortion of my words to create an argument I never made. Propaganda is most certainly useful. There is no example of something that is "meaningless" and also "beneficial."

You yourself have said that the salvation doctrine is false in your opinion...

Again, you twist and distort things I say to make points I never made. I've never said the salvation doctrine is false, I said I don't believe in it. I don't know if it's true or false, I just don't believe in it.

Third, whether or not it has "paid off" could be argued, but it is irrelevant, unless you are simply saying that whatever benefits a man defines it as true and good. Not sure you want to be making that argument.

It really can't be argued unless you are a moron who thinks man would be "better off" living in the trees in the jungle, competing with the great apes and other upper primates for survival. Now I can imagine a moron like you making that argument, but I will always disagree with you.

 

[Boss]

What, exactly, is your argument? Because you have said that if something is an exclusively human trait (specifically you said not found elsewhere in nature), it's not something created to explain the unknown. You said you used science to show that spiritual belief/spirituality are not based on imagined gods, and that was part of your argument. How is that not saying there is some scientific principle that states an exclusively human trait cannot be something created to explain the unknown?

I'm not trying to find proof of your god here. You made a claim about showing that spiritual belief can not be based on imagination using science and I am pointing out that is a false claim. At best you've tried to conflate your beliefs with evolutionary theory and done so poorly.

It doesn't matter if you are completely correct in your spiritual beliefs, if the god you believe in exists, etc. That doesn't mean you have accurately used any sort of scientific principles or research to show that the various religious and spiritual beliefs of mankind cannot have been based on imagined beings.

Look, I've presented my argument. You continue to try and parse my thoughts in distorted context to create false arguments you can defeat. It has become consistent with you and I guess some people think you're brilliant for having this ability, but I am not impressed.

Religious beliefs are something totally different from intrinsic spiritual connection. You keep grouping the two together as if they are joined at the hip and inseparable, when we know that human spirituality predates any sort of religion by tens of thousands of years. Then you make this argument it was "invented by man" but that only applies to religious beliefs, it does not and cannot apply to spirituality. We did not invent our intrinsic spiritual connection, no matter how much you wish that were proven to be the case. It is evidenced to exist in man since the very first civilization and remains our most defining attribute as a species.

Now I don't know about "imagined beings" ...what do you mean by "being" here? A physical manifestation of some kind? Is this your brain not being able to comprehend that which is spiritual? When we apply the word "being" it generally denotes a physical state of presence or "being in existence" in a physical sense. Spiritual nature is not physical nature. It is here where I can understand the god-deniers not being able to accept the existence of God, you simply can't rationalize a spiritual concept. Doesn't mean it isn't true, you just can't envision it.

When we study the inherent behaviors of any living thing, we find that all inherent behaviors are present for a reason. We may not know what those reasons are at first, and it may take many years of research to even have an idea of why the behaviors exist, but we know that they do exist for a reason. Why is that salmon working so hard to swim upstream? Is it because it's stupid and ignorant? Has it deluded itself into believing something is upstream that isn't really there? Is it because it's afraid of the unknown downstream? These are all silly excuses we could have come up with in denial of the fact that we know all inherent behavior has fundamental reason.