from the "number-of-the-beast"-is-natural,-whole,-rational,-real,-AND-imaginary dept.
Religious beliefs are not linked to intuition or rational thinking, according to new research by the universities of Coventry and Oxford. Previous studies have suggested people who hold strong religious beliefs are more intuitive and less analytical, and when they think more analytically their religious beliefs decrease.
But new research, by academics from Coventry University's Centre for Advances in Behavioural Science and neuroscientists and philosophers at Oxford University, suggests that is not the case, and that people are not 'born believers'. The study -- which included tests on pilgrims taking part in the famous Camino de Santiago and a brain stimulation experiment -- found no link between intuitive/analytical thinking, or cognitive inhibition (an ability to suppress unwanted thoughts and actions), and supernatural beliefs.
Instead, the academics conclude that other factors, such as upbringing and socio-cultural processes, are more likely to play a greater role in religious beliefs.
[Abstract]: Supernatural Belief Is Not Modulated by Intuitive Thinking Style or Cognitive Inhibition
Would you agree with this conclusion or do you believe that there is something else that influences people's religious beliefs ?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:35PM (26 children)
Such belief is just a way of tying conviction to identity, so that it's easier to motivate oneself to act in a certain way.
That's why it's religious people who tend to blow themselves up, or to cut up the sexual organs of completely healthy boys and girls.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:20PM (16 children)
I believe that the reason religious people fight wars or blow themselves up is that they believe in an afterlife. If dying is not the end, then why fear death?
That is, IMHO, the most dangerous aspect of most religions.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:27PM (15 children)
"What is life after death? The same as life before birth. Nothing." —Atheists.
If anything, only the religious fear death; they fear hell. Buddhists fear having to live again, don't they? Nirvana is the escape of the virtually endless cycle of reincarnation, especially reincarnation as a lower form of life.
If the religious are motivated by the "afterlife", then it's probably out of fear of what is to come, not longing. Indeed, that's why it's so important to cut up the sexual organs of completely healthy boys and girls; you have to signal your virtue and conviction to the creator of the entire universe, amirite?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:43PM (9 children)
You ignore that most people have genetic programming to avoid death (there are some people who are without fear).
Religion weakens this programming.
Almost everyone believes they personally are righteous, and religion teaches that the righteous have nothing to fear from death. It's the other people who are going to hell, not them.
You ignore the "72 virgins" concept that is used to motivate suicide bombers and others.
No, religion makes it easier for people to risk their lives, not harder. Religion allows and motivates people to risk their lives in far off places where there is no other reason to fight there. For example: the Crusades.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:36PM
Can't stop to note that all your examples are drawn from Abrahamic religions.
It may or may not be the same for all religions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:58PM (1 child)
Correction. Most people believe in some kind of *spirituality*. In other words, they feel a sense of connection with the environment around them, people, the universe, what have you.
IMO Religion is a method of brainwashing people into doing whatever the controllers of that particular religion want. Sometimes religion abuses that sense of spirituality to give itself additional legitimacy, but not necessarily.
(Score: 1) by pdfernhout on Friday November 10 2017, @03:13AM
For a more nuanced view of cost/benefit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions [wikipedia.org]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Friday November 10 2017, @09:50AM (5 children)
Why Call Him God?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
- Epicurus
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @10:09AM (4 children)
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
this is when an average intellect guy should have put Epicurus in chains
"it is right, epi, there is no way you can commit crimes if the chain prevents you to move, freedom is not important compared to fighting evil, you implied it, remember?"
but of course let's not ruin non sequiturs on simple stuff like the existence of god.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 10 2017, @11:47AM (3 children)
Except that god is generally held to be the creator of good and evil, happiness and suffering. If god is indeed all-powerful and all-good, why did god create suffering?
(Score: 1) by MindEscapes on Friday November 10 2017, @03:57PM (2 children)
Would you know good was good without suffering to compare it to? It would just be what is and no longer good.
Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @04:34PM
Sure, you can have gradations of goodness without having evil to compare it against. For example, allowing people to starve is evil, not sharing when they would otherwise be fine is neutral, sharing delicious food is good. You can know that sharing is better when compared against not sharing, you don't need to have the people starving to death to know that.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 10 2017, @05:05PM
The proposed god is all powerful. That has to include the ability to create a universe in which pleasure can exist without pain.
Whether us humans can know pleasure without pain, is hardly the point. The whole system can be blamed on god.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:43PM (4 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager [wikipedia.org]
--
From what I remember of the article on female genital mutilation, it's more of a cultural thing than religious (the creepiest part is that it's actually the *women* who are doing it to their daughters). Presumably you're also referring to circumcision.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:00PM
the creepiest part is that it's actually the *women* who are doing it to their daughters
That just reinforces my personal theory that "every group of people is its own worst enemy".
(Score: 3, Informative) by mrpg on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:53PM (2 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation [wikipedia.org]
The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and beauty. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @06:11AM
If gender inequality is the source of this, why is it that these cultures also mutilate males? If anything, I have to say there is MORE equality when both are getting mutilated. I think you're just seeing a random accidental correlation that isn't meaningful, but that happens to suit your anti-traditional agenda.
The idea of control is a bit better, fitting nicely with the fact that women mutilate women and men mutilate men. The younger people of the same sex are a threat to the grey and shriveled old people. This method is horrible, but control isn't bad: spreading STDs and fracturing families is harmful to the continuation of society.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 10 2017, @11:50AM
Ok, but these are orthogonal to tangomargarine's point. Some people wrongly think FGM is particular to Islam. In fact it's particular to Africa (in both non-Islamic regions, and Islamic regions like Egypt).
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:56PM (4 children)
Such a stupid statement it is baffling. First of all it's not religious people, it's one PARTICULAR religion. After that the next ideology that comes NOT EVEN CLOSE, but stands out, is COMMUNISM.
Then you talk about cutting up sexual organs and I am aghast at the projections, where it be the anti-religious ultra-liberal LEFT that pushes SEX CHANGE TO CHILDREN. Motherfucker.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:21PM
Communism != religion
Every major religion has sponsored extreme violence.
There are cases where gender reassignment would be a good thing.
Given that your rabid ranting is so easily undermined with some pretty basic knowledge I'm just gonna file you away as "wacko with an axe to grind" along with "I hope the FBI keeps tabs on THAT AC". One small step from angry rhetoric to shooting up some evil ultra-liberal LEFTISTS! You, you are the type of person that actually scares average people, not mooooslims or dude's with titties.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:22PM (1 child)
1/10. Obvious troll is obvious. Nobody is THAT stupid, even the alt-right conservatards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:21PM
SN is becoming a treasure trove for Poe's Law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:36PM
Yeah, those fucking Luterans!!! Especially the Missouri Synod. And is is the ultra-reactionary right that is afraid of paying for sex, and getting something other than what they expected, so they try to force people to stay their birth-gender, against their wills, so they can just check id cards before things get funky!! And Even with CHILDREN! Will no one think of the Children? Besides Roy Moore, will no one think of the Children?? I ask.
(And I only ask because just recently, it struck me. Conservative, Southerner, Religious, claiming law is based on some Hebrew text. . . . What are the odds that Roy Moore's [washingtonpost.com] online persona is MikeeUSA? )
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:04PM (3 children)
At first glance, you might suppose that people would pick non-demanding religion, but this isn't the case.
The more you are doing, the more you have committed yourself. Spending time and money, or proclaiming a nonsensical belief, are forms of commitment. Public display, and a punishment for leaving, help to keep people in.
So, things found in a winning religion:
Multiple times per day, you must interrupt what you are doing. You might have to stop a factory production line. You must perform a strange ritual in a relatively public way. For example, you have to wash your feet and then get down on the floor.
You are required to ostracize or even kill the nonbelievers, particularly those who were formerly believers. You of course believe that your own family would do this to you if you were to leave, so you have to at least pretend to believe. Of course, if you pretend to believe, this encourages other people to believe and it also commits you via your time investment.
There is a command to produce children. There is a command to spread into other lands, and to convert or kill the non-believers. Polygamy can help by creating an excess of unsatisfied young males who can be sent off to fight. Additional motivation can be had by letting those young males take wives or sex slaves from the non-believers, or at least rape the non-believers. To defend against this tactic from other religions, it is essential to maintain tight control over women.
The religion must affect all aspects of life. There can be nothing untouched by it, because that would allow a temporary escape that might lead to greater escape. There can be no legal framework superior to the religion, and no government can be acknowledged as supreme. No education or discovery may be permitted to contradict the religion.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 10 2017, @01:18AM
Agreed, this is why I try to avoid Utah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @06:47AM
They are the world's most successful chain letters. Bob broke the chain and suffered eternal punishment but Julie stayed faithful and lived happily ever after.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday November 10 2017, @12:18PM
An interesting post. Of course it starts from the implicit premise that all religion is about social control, to conclude that all religion is about social control, through a post-facto analysis of a selected sample of popular religion based power structures, but there is something to be said nonetheless.
A big problem I see is "The religion must affect all aspects of life" spoken as if it were not a natural and inescapable result of being religious with no hypocrisy. Even if your religion is no-religion, your no-religion is about the meaning of your existence (random existence with no meaning, or adhering by choice to a system of values chosen according to your preferences), so everything you do should takes that into account.
It is funny you speak about no temporary escape because the atheist consumerist society with its 24/7 culture is the one which implements just that, while the most religion accepting culture, which has been pre christian Rome, had more holidays than work days.
Another big problem "No education or discovery may be permitted to contradict the religion" because if your religion is indeed about the supernatural creator, there is no way educations or discoveries can contradict it, given that no discovery can prove anything outside the domain where it has been defined and no education can discriminate between beliefs none of which is provable.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:38PM (14 children)
do you believe that there is something else that influences people's religious beliefs ?
My theory is that magical thinking (of which religion is a strand) is the human brain's innate ability to detect patterns gone into overdrive.
A very long time ago, humanity needed the ability to detect patterns from precious few clues to survive. As in "these strange noises repeating more than once may be a lion, I'd better get out of here". Trouble is, our brain is so good at detecting patterns that it also tends to make shit up very easily from zero actual facts, giving rise to cognitive biases and religious thinking.
I posit that religion is a natural disease of the human brain. Educated people have the tools to recognize the symptoms and are better able to fight the urge. But essentially, every human is prone to falling into the religious thinking trap - including educated humans who were exposed to irrational shit as children by their parents or their community, before being taught rational ways of thinking straight.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:10PM (4 children)
One thing that religion does provide better than Science is the "spiritual" experience.
It's much harder to achieve awe through intellectual investigation than it is through manipulation of the senses (incense, meditation, choral music, large imposing cathedrals, rituals, mantras, social engagement, etc.). It's become even harder since the War on Drugs: materialist society has decided to do its best to eradicate utterly any deviation in consciousness from the supposedly "good and proper" rational problem-solving state.
There is a good argument that Human civilization sprung forth from the consumption of psychedelic substances over the course of tens of thousands of years (if not hundreds of thousands of years), and yet now you can be thrown into a cage for even thinking about that facet of being alive!
There will arise a new religion: The Church of Conciousness.
The sole purpose of this new religion will be to give people a sense of meaning, and it will place psychedelic rituals at its foundation. The first attempt to do this was made by the Hippies, but their lifestyle was too unproductive to be sustainable; however, now, society's productive people have rediscovered psychedelics; the people of Silicon Valley and the tastemakers of social discourse have begun experimenting with LSD "microdosing" and with "breakthrough" DMT trips and with sensory deprivation chambers. They are having profound experiences and innovating the materialist world that keeps our civilization ticking. They are the beginning of the Second Coming; it is their combination of practicality and spiritual experience that will be our salvation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
It's become even harder since the War on Drugs: materialist society has decided to do its best to eradicate utterly any deviation in consciousness from the supposedly "good and proper" rational problem-solving state.
Notice it's the religious leaders and people who are most strongly against drug use (including alcohol), and want laws passed to prohibit it. It isn't the rational materialists who want to ban this stuff. They don't always like it, but they're rational, and they saw what happened in the US under Prohibition, so they know that punishing laws don't work.
So why do the religious leaders really want this stuff prohibited? They don't want competition. They want to be the only ones to give you that "spiritual" experience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:19PM
That's how you indicate that you're quoting someone else.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:17PM
There was an interesting piece on NPR last weekend which talked about this.
It talked about achieving "Flow", which involves a loss of reflective self-consciousness, perhaps due to overwhelming the brain's processing capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) [wikipedia.org]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @04:23AM
Timothy Leary wrote a book called "Start Your Own Religion" back in 1966. The book is not long and some (all?) of it is reproduced here, http://www.luminist.org/archives/start_your_own.htm [luminist.org]
When I first found the book (randomly, in the stacks of a large library) I started paging through and was hooked, sat there on the floor and read it straight through. Many years later a friend invited me to lunch with Leary, one of the sharpest people I've ever been privileged to meet. I still cherish the memories of that afternoon.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Bot on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:03PM (6 children)
> My theory is that magical thinking
I pick your comment at random out of all the stuff here.
The fact that supernatural, by definition, cannot be reached any more than a character in a videogame can reach the computer running the game itself even if it completely depends on it, does not imply anything about the correctness of the thinking process itself. The catch is that somebody, long ago started using the term belief.
The following can happen.
Human rationally believes in [no] afterlife.
Human irrationally believes in [no] afterlife.
Personally, and rationally BTW, I consider ANY proposition on the supernatural as undefined in its truth value, like working with a variable in an environment that might or might not have that variable defined. So I have easy game discarding the mental masturbations of all atheists and of most theists/agnostics.
As it was already pointed out here in SN. If you knew all the features of every particle since the beginning of time, and you had a model which predicts all future interactions, and that model logically proved no god is necessary for all of it to happen, and that there is no other conceivable model that can result in the universe, you still have not "proven god as 'not existing'". Because, among other reasons, as a counterexample if I create an abstract system whose features do not contemplate my intervention, from the POV of the abstraction the abstraction is reality and in that reality and its most fundamental features I am absent.
As for the topic, it has some value neurobiologically or computationally speaking. Theologically speaking it's cringeworthy.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:27PM (1 child)
The vast majority of atheists simply lack a belief in a god or gods rather than claim that they know there are no gods. What are you even talking about? Why is it "all" for atheists but simply "most" for theists/agnostics?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:33PM
"The vast majority of atheists simply lack a belief in a god or gods rather than claim that they know there are no gods."
People who wear the "atheists" label seem to have redefined it to be more inclusive lately. An alternative definition is that an atheist is one who believes that no gods exist. I was always under the impression that that the word implies disbelief, rather than merely lack of belief. I prefer the title 'agnostic' for myself. For while I'm firmly in the camp that the god of the Abrahamic faiths is a man-made fiction, I have neither belief nor disbelief in the Deists' conception of a creator god.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:39PM (3 children)
As an atheist I don't feel the need to prove anything, as I am making no claims.
As far as I am concerned it's the religious who should be offering proof, and as some of their claims are pretty extraordinary, so should their proof be.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:06PM
There are different levels and kind of claims:
1. God(s) exists and has properties X, Y, and Z
2. God(s) exists
3. God(s) doesn't exist
4. Unknown
#1 is a much stronger claim than the others and the one most common. #2 and #3 still both require evidence and so far don't have it . I don't think #2 is a huge leap because we humans may someday create universes, rear or virtual, and thus be God(s) from the perspective of the inhabitants of such universes. It probably doesn't require new physics, just better control of matter/nature than we have now. But the default is #4, "unknown", and we don't have enough evidence to shift that. It's still the standing status.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday November 10 2017, @12:01AM
As an atheist (or apparently I pedantically become anti-theist the moment I open my mouth) I'm going to go out on a limb:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD!
"Oh, but you can't prove absolutely, whaaa, bitch, bitch, whine whine!". Screw them, I'll stop saying that there absolutely is not one the moment all of these religious idiots stop saying there absolutely *is* one.
For a split second, almost laughed my ass off imagining them actually trying to do that.
Of course their "proof" always boils down to "my mommy said so", "it says so in that 2000 year old book of gibberish", "I'm crazy and hear voices", or "it has electrolytes, it's what plants crave".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @12:38PM
No proof can be verified from the inside. I turn the sun green, by interfering with your brain patterns in a novel way, am I god?
Entire sacerdotal orders have been based on the ability to predict astronomical events, which is the exact same thing you demand.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:44PM
Maybe a decade ago, but the schools now teach that these are tools of white supremacy and their users are white supremacists.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @04:08AM
Parents never took us to any church or other organized religion. Mom quit being a Catholic as a teen, when she saw the hypocrisy in the clergy and Dad's parents were New England Unitarian, didn't make any demands on him to attend if he wasn't interested.
I never understood when peers (grade school) asked if I was atheist or agnostic, I just had no interest in the topic. Many years later, an elderly relative turned me on to "post theological". If your background is like mine, this might be the term you are looking for.
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2008/features/the-post-theological-umbrella [thehumanist.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:41PM (4 children)
When an analytical critical thinker starts from the conclusion that Yahweh exists solely to make him rich, he's likely to conclude early on that Lucifer is the reason why he is not rich. Perhaps he did or didn't do something that made Yahweh angry with him, which is why he is not rich. From there he may determine that the best way to win back Yahweh's favor is to declare jihad against some other religious or ethnic group, usually another group of Yahweh worshipers. The reasoning is that this other group of Yahweh worshipers are doing it wrong and actually worshiping Lucifer, which is making Yahweh angry, and that's why he's not rich.
And why one of his kids has a birth defect, and why his wife is getting older and fatter and less attractive, and of course the gays are in league with that group of people who claim to worship Yahweh but actually worship Lucifer, and why can't anybody see how obvious it is! Why can't anybody understand his pristine analysis and logical reasoning based on an obscure etymology of the 5th word in the 22nd verse of the 14th chapter of some part of the Bible that proves all of it?! Clearly, it must be a powerful conspiracy, and the only way to answer such a powerful conspiracy, that surely will cause the anti-Christ to be born, is with violence, just the way man Jesus did it when he overturned the money-changers' tables and preached about capitalism in the Parable of the Talents and how Yahweh rewards the faithful with material wealth and how the poor are only poor because they are sinful and reject Yahweh and man Jesus, and they'll all be thrown into a lake of fire for all eternity, and all he needs to do is get out his rifle and dispatch a few of them to Yahweh's terrible judgement himself, and then Yahweh will make him rich and make his wife more attractive and heal his child's birth defect!
And if that doesn't work, there's always the final solution. The seas will run red with infidel blood when they finally rise up and implement the final solution, allowing at last
a Silver MillenniumNew Jerusalem to be founded on the Earth!I don't know if Muslim thinking is exactly the same, but I have to imagine it's similar.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:38PM (3 children)
Indeed, the Parable of the Talents is more about making sure you don't squander life out of fear.
Anyway, Capitalism is supported by the desire to create a society with 2 characteristics:
Interaction between individuals should be voluntary; there must be agreement in advance about the rules of such interaction; there must be agreement about how resources should be allocated.
Society's form should constructed so as to tap into the Universe's great creative process, evolution by variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice); this was first identified as the "Invisible Hand"; the process of evolution allows society to adjust its form to better fit the dynamic conditions of its environment, and this process can occur without anyone even realizing it—it requires no Intelligent Design from a Dear Leader.
That is to say, Capitalism is the exact opposite of a patriarchal, father-in-the-clouds, children-of-god philosophy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:45PM
http://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx [beliefnet.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 10 2017, @01:24AM (1 child)
Bold proclamations of fact offered without any proof.
Sounds like this other thing we were talking about recently....
(Score: 1) by pdfernhout on Friday November 10 2017, @03:07AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/03/the-market-as-god/306397/ [theatlantic.com]
"A few years ago a friend advised me that if I wanted to know what was going on in the real world, I should read the business pages. Although my lifelong interest has been in the study of religion, I am always willing to expand my horizons; so I took the advice, vaguely fearful that I would have to cope with a new and baffling vocabulary. Instead I was surprised to discover that most of the concepts I ran across were quite familiar.
Expecting a terra incognita, I found myself instead in the land of déjà vu. The lexicon of The Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption. But here they were again, and in only thin disguise: chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and, ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic belt tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies. ..."
Book length version: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674659681 [harvard.edu]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:46PM
It's a tool for central control and group unity. States and empires could not have risen without it. Ones that used it more effectively conquered those less adept.
Jared Diamond made a good argument in his popular book.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:53PM (3 children)
Anybody approaching the subject from a rational perspective will realize that gods are a man-made load of hooey. Religious "belief" is entirely a result of indoctrination. Some of the underlying teaching may be rational ("treat others the way you'd like to be treated") but everything else is either window dressing or the result of some idiot's agenda ("kill anyone who doesn't believe what I've told you to be the truth", "give my church all your money", "kneel before Zod").
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:09PM (1 child)
or the result of some idiot's agenda ("kill anyone who doesn't believe what I've told you to be the truth", "give my church all your money", "kneel before Zod").
This is entirely wrong. When someone tells you "give my church all your money", and you comply, it's not the asker who's the idiot. Charlatans like Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, etc. likely aren't stupid, they've just figured out a good con and found a bunch of idiot suckers willing to hand over their money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:13PM
Creflo Dollar still needs that jet, people. Keep those donations coming in.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/13/living/creflo-dollar-jet-feat/index.html [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:52PM
Some guy with the same powers as Superman (hypothetically speaking) would be close enough to godlike for me I think. Fortunately Zod is just as fictional as God.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:58PM (1 child)
For some, it's because God has revealed himself to that person in some way and He becomes very real to that person.
Romans 10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
and
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
If you look at it from a "worldly" scientific view, you'll never understand. You can't pin down what can't be explained by numbers - He made those numbers and everything else you see can can't see. Like it or not God is real, and denying Him just to try and alleviate any of your ownership of your sins will not work.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 10 2017, @01:40AM
I don't like the fact that this comment has been modded to -1 Troll, even though it is poorly argued. -1 Disagree might be better.
That's how we explain everything, since the enlightenment. Putting worldly in quote marks doesn't change anything here.
That leaves God (any god) as a "god of the gaps" [wikipedia.org] and the problem there is that as the gaps get smaller, so does the god.
Also, quoting the Bible to make your point about god is circular.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:04PM
Humans think they are so special that they are "the chosen ones". This is why those who are religious believe they were created by a god, and are in their god's image. Add that to their fear that "death is the end" and you have fairy tales of gods creating humans and the humans living in an afterlife.
I find these beliefs irrational and dangerous. Many, many wars have been fought in the name of religion, and the most radial of each religious faction still feel the other religions should be wiped out so their religion - the only right religion - can prosper as their god intended.
Give me a clear night, a good fire and a cold beer and I'll be in my heaven.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MrGuy on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
I question the methodology used. The researchers investigated some specific posited mechanisms for what gives rise to supernatural beliefs - being generally more intuitive, being generally less rational. Their research rejected those specific mechanisms (i.e. "people who are more intuitive are more likely to be religious") for a specific population. Because those specific mechanisms are rejected, they posit (without proof or study) that it's "probably upbringing."
The rejection of the hypothesis you sought to confirm is not proof that whatever alternative approach you might posit is likely true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:20PM (1 child)
The conclusion they make doesn't really make any sense. Considering that we use rational thinking to disprove god or gods as a reasonable possibility, I fail to see how there can be no link between rational thinking and a belief in invisible sky fairies. It's difficult to believe that somebody can be as rational that believes in such nonsense as somebody that's actually examined the issue and realized that the claim can't be proven and as a result one religious system can't be empirically better than another or even none.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday November 10 2017, @12:55PM
I use rational thinking to assert that "disproving god" is a logical impossibility built upon an undefinable object, just like "proving god". So, stop being irrational. You can freely believe, not believe, or be agnostics. No problem. Just don't dress it up with empty pseudoscientific crap.
Logical impossibility because you act like the logic framework we are using is valid universally and outside the universe.
Proof that is not universally valid is left as an exercise to the reader. If it is not universally valid, the idea that it holds outside the universe is even more laughable than it is already.
Undefinable object because the hypothetical "creator of all that is" is meta wrt "all that is", by definition.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday November 10 2017, @01:36AM
I thought it was pretty clear they were merely suggesting an alternative hypothesis that would require further study.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:48PM
Religion is a way of making sense of the world. Instead of everything in life being a random chaotic clusterfuck, it's nice to be able to think there's a grander purpose, justice, compassion, etc., etc. "The world would be better if we were just in charge; it's nonbelievers mucking it up and ruining everything."
And for most reasonable people, it should be easy to accept that other people may know more than you. The problem is who you listen to, and what they're saying.
But then from there, obviously organized religion doesn't really encourage you to think for yourself, because then they have a harder time maintaining their flock.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:52PM (2 children)
Wander into Las Vegas (my favorite lab for irrational thinking in a fundamentally rational world) and you'll see otherwise-reasonably-rational people convinced that a particular table is "hot" or "cold." People convinced that breaking out a fresh deck of cards will somehow stop a losing streak. People who believe rules like a certain team is "due for a win," giving them a greater-than-normal chance of winning.
If you want to argue that the casino is the one "pushing" these beliefs (which I find pretty questionable), as a sports fan about a rally cap, or a lucky jersey. Or, heck, on Wall Street, talk to a "technical trader" about price patterns.
There are plenty of places where people develop a non-rational belief that something external to them is somehow affected by something not obviously related. These don't have to be taught. People are pretty good at coming up with these superstitions on their own.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:29PM (1 child)
Patterns. We're surrounded by patterns. Easily perceived ordered ones like crystals, and now with more insight, molecules and atoms and fields. Moderately ordered / disordered ones like clouds, and weather, and even climate.
Our minds like patterns. Observe your own feelings when you observe order; if you're like most people, you'll be pleased on one level or another.
Religion almost always asserts that there are very large patterns in play above our level of control, and that those patterns have direct meaning for us. Meanings about things we take as significant: life, death, fortune, folly, good, and evil. Etc.
IMHO, that's the heart of the general affection a very large people have for theism. It takes significant effort to discern the patterns we can justifiably claim to be real, and isolate and discard the ones that have as evidence no more than wishful thinking. That work is hard for a pattern-inclined person, and socially, it's often a matter of moderate to extreme friction. That in turn leads to the assertion and subsequent acceptance of patterns over and over again, generation after generation.
Also, with specific reference to the issue of the difficulty of it all, and somewhat tired of people calling the theists "dumb" and the like, at one point, I wrote this [fyngyrz.com] in a fit of mild annoyance.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday November 10 2017, @03:48AM
Indeed, experiments show that our mind tends to make up patterns where there are none (the experiment involved buttons top press to get a lamp light up; in truth the lamp was lit or not randomly, independent of which button you pressed). All people in the experiment "found" rules on which buttons to press; when told there were no rules, many were convinced they discovered a regularity even the experimenters didn't know about. Truth was, the buttons were not even connected.
Sorry, can't give a link as it is something I've read a long time ago in some book, and I can't find a link on web search (maybe it's just my search fu is lacking).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by idiot_king on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:59PM
What more needs to be said? If you want to take advantage of someone, tell them the shadowy invisible creatures will punish them for stealing money from the temple or the Pharoah.
That's the real reason it's illegal to go after the 1%. They're the priests that hold up the corrupt establishment and oppress the rest of us. They hide behind the mast of """"god""" and religion.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
I think there are various reasons why someone would believe:
1) As part of education. Religion provides a set of generally accepted rules that describe how one should live properly and provides guidance when problems arise.
2) For (philosophical) scientists it is the answer to the end question. We will most likely never be able to have all the answers in the universe, religion provides nice place holders for these gaps.
3) People are social animals, it gives a way in to belong to a group and an ear to listen to when an individual is alone (God will listen).
4) Psychological, it give the mind a place of peace and solitude when the environment is very stressful to an individual.
I think there are more reasons, but these are some that I would come up with (or apply even to me).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:26PM
None of those are particularly valid though, they work on people that aren't fully rational.
1. Secular ethics is a thing and while there's a certain amount of disagreement about where the exact lines are, they provide more than enough guidance for typical social interactions and choices.
2. We won't ever hit the limit, at least not in any sort of reasonable time frame, so, wallpapering over it with delusion makes very little sense. I can live my life perfectly well knowing that there's more to know.
3. How is that any different from somebody with schizophrenia talking to the voices in their head? That hardly seems like something to be desired.
4. It gives peace of mind, but that's hardly a reason to keep religion around. There are plenty of scientifically verified ways of gaining peace of mind and place that don't require delusions.
TL:DR; people are going to invent reasons why religion is a good thing, but at the end of the day, religion causes far more harm than it resolves and there's a huge conflict of interest as actually providing people with something that did give them peace and security in a reasonable time period would just mean that the donations would stop rolling in.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:06PM (17 children)
No no, you're right. You're all free-thinkers who start with absolutely zero assumptions--except the ones given to you by people who say there is no god. You came to your own, absolutely correct conclusions about religion through your own genius. You have transcended the ape-brain that everyone else is enslaved by. You're better than those sky-fairy believers, because you're smart and they're not.
You, in your wisdom, know the Absolute Truth that no one else can seem to understand. If only everyone could be as smart and rational as you, or if they would at least...Y'know...believe you.
See the hypocrisy? Of course you don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:32PM (16 children)
Nice try. I will agree that belief in Science (capital S) causes problems since people don't do the hard work of understanding. However, if you're not on board with scientific facts then prepare to be mocked and ignored.
There is no scientific proof about the existence of God and plenty of scientists hold spiritual beliefs. Richard Dawkins is a massive douche with a superiority complex who draws rather tenuous conclusions, but unfortunately many do treat him as a priest speaking the gospel truth.
PS: " found no link between intuitive/analytical thinking, or cognitive inhibition (an ability to suppress unwanted thoughts and actions), and supernatural beliefs." It is pretty amusing that the study is basically saying the opposite of what you are so angry about.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:35PM (15 children)
How many atheists actually assert that they know for a fact that god does not exist? Even Richard Dawkins does not do that. GP's entire post seems like one huge straw man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:43PM (11 children)
That is *literally* what atheism is. Otherwise it's agnosticism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:45PM
You know that those two things aren't mutually exclusive, right? You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:01PM
As "Rummy" Rumsfeld said about the WMDs in the Holely Land: "Absence of God is not a God of Absence". Careful what you worship, puny human! Oh, and avoid Republican Presidencies, they never turn out well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:24PM
No, actually, that is not even close enough for the special olympics, sorry.
"Otherwise it's agnosticism."
Nope, wrong again.
You don't have the slightest clue what you're even talking about.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:41PM (7 children)
Time for a little bit of etymology:
A - a root that means "without."
Theism - a word that means "belief in a god or gods."
Atheism - "without belief in a god or gods": a+theism
Gnostic - a word that means "knowledge."
Agnostic: "without knowledge: a+gnostic
They're two completely different balls of wax.
An atheist does not hold a belief in a god or gods. They may, or may not, assert that they know there are no gods. If you want to know which way they roll, ask them. But please stop assuming everyone is of the same stripe. It's just not so.
Knowledge is not belief, because belief is a matter of faith, and knowledge is a matter of objective reality as best one can achieve it.
Apples and Oranges. Or if you prefer, figs. Jesus of the bible was kind of a little bitch to a fig tree [biblegateway.com], though.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by maxwell demon on Friday November 10 2017, @03:56AM (6 children)
Wrong.
Knowledge is justified belief. Faith is unjustified belief. Both justified and unjustified belief are belief.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:45PM (5 children)
You can believe that the earth is flat; but it isn't, and it doesn't matter in the least how firmly held your belief that it is flat might be.
You can know the earth is not flat. And you will be correct. But your belief in this is utterly irrelevant. This is objective reality. Knowledge is that collection of careful observations of objective reality; belief is that collection of baseless opinion on anything and everything except objective reality. Belief is a matter of faith. Faith is a matter of intentional self-deception.
Knowledge is subject to alteration as, or if, the facts change. Because knowledge is derived from objective reality.
Belief is not based on facts, only upon imagination, and so remains immune to facts, and argument based upon facts.
The Heaven's Gate people believed that the UFO was coming to pick them up. They had enormous faith in this; so much so that they terminated their lives on that basis. But they didn't know that was the case, and of course, it wasn't.
Belief and knowledge are not similar, nor are they two sides of the same coin. The former is not based upon objective reality; the latter, is.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 26 2017, @07:24AM (4 children)
You can believe that the earth is not flat without knowing it. If someone says the Earth is round, and you believe it because you believe (possibly quite wrongly) that the person who said it always says the truth, then your believe of the Earth not being flat is not knowledge, despite agreeing with the facts.
And no, how firmly you believe something doesn't matter; I didn't claim that. What matters is how justified your belief is. And yes, careful observation is a very good source of justification.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday November 26 2017, @12:48PM (3 children)
Certainly you can. This is not knowledge. It is belief; faith. And it's irrelevant to the facts, because they weren't used to establish the POV.
Belief doesn't have to be wrong – it's just in no way assured to be right. It's mental dice-throwing.
Knowledge only comes from careful observation of, and interrelating of, objective facts. It is critical to understand what facts you have, and what suppositions are being thrust upon you. For instance, "I read it in a book" is a fact. What it said in the book, outside of most math, requires more support than characters and/or pictures on a page.
Belief arises consequent to exercise of imagination. Sans objective proof(s), It's a pathological means to establish a worldview. The basis for theistic religion is uniformly of this nature. Junkthought.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 26 2017, @07:03PM (2 children)
Your problem is that you always mean "faith" when you write "belief".
I think we don't disagree on the facts, we disagree on the proper meaning of the word "belief".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday November 26 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
The usual problem is that someone doesn't understand that faith and imagination comprise the ultimate platform upon which all self-deception is built.
Doubt and retrenchment comprise the ultimate platform upon which all knowledge is built.
This is why faith leads to religion and theism, and skeptical fact seeking leads to science and technology.
Faith is bad. Belief is at best, lazy, and at worst, outright wrong. If a person can't answer the question "where's your data", they really have nothing worthy of the term "answers"... just vague handwaving. The big hammer for building a solid word view is doubt.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday November 27 2017, @06:36AM
I agree to everything but one sentence in this comment:
Which reinforces my diagnosis that out disagreement is really only about the meaning of the word "believe". Belief just means that you are of the opinion that something is true, independent on how you have come to that opinion. You may have come to that opinion by analysing the available data, then it is knowledge. You may have come to that opinion by blindly accepting something an authority told you is true, then it is faith. But in both cases, it is belief.
Note also that both knowledge and faith are prone to be wrong, and both may be right. Your knowledge may be based on false data. And your faith may come from blindly believing someone who actually has knowledge. The difference is that knowledge has a much better chance to be right than faith.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:59PM
Come now, that is impossible and beyond belief! How could you make a man out of just one huge straw?
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday November 10 2017, @06:21PM (1 child)
Richard Dawkins is relatively intelligent about his arguments, and couches his argument in terms of scientific knowledge because he is a biologist. He gets pretty close to speaking in absolutes, though; by his implications, 'not only is religion archaic and stupid, but you should consider yourself stupid for even considering it, you horrible drain on society and progress.'
There are, in fact, many outspoken atheists that "know" that there is no god out there, with just as little justification as those who wave their hands and say "I don't need proof, God's spirit reached out and touched me!" Rationality is not required to hold an opinion, even one contrary to another which is known to be often held irrationally. Some of them even advertise the fact, although they are downers and I suspect few people like to be their friends because there is no upside.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday November 11 2017, @05:26PM
I've been an atheist since the age of 9 when I had that "Aha!" moment. Over the years I've considered carefully many of the arguments, including God-in-the-gaps but the older I get the less agnostic I get and the more Strong Atheist I become. This is due to experience and because I am capable of understanding more nuanced argument. I'm afraid that the older I get the more that the pro-God arguments are obviously sophistry to me. Dawkins is great. He really nails things down. The Greatest Show on Earth is a magnificent popular science book.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by leftover on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:37PM (3 children)
My position is there are two broad groups of factors that have an intersection but are substantially different. One is "spirituality" and the other is "religion". Spirituality is a feeling that arises from wanting to know beyond the currently known combined with a childish belief in self-importance.
Religion, on the other hand, is a vicious confidence game that has been practiced and polished for millennia. It uses "spirituality" for leverage then adds superstition and other mental weaknesses to control the suckers. One of its most odiously successful practices is drilling fear into children before they have the capability to question it and defend themselves. Another is usurping the good will and actions of intrinsically kind people, claiming credit for the church that belongs solely to the kind people.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:50PM (2 children)
Religion, proper religion, is the pursuit of what you call spirituality, and the attempt to preserve and understand the records of those that went before in that pursuit. It's how we at least approach understanding things that we cannot properly understand.
Yes, it's attracted a great deal of fraud and con artists over the years, to the point that it can be very tempting to write the entire thing off to them, but then again the same is true of spirituality, and for that matter even of science. Con artists and fraud, I'm afraid, are embedded in our race itself, not just one area of endeavor.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by leftover on Friday November 10 2017, @01:28AM (1 child)
If there ever exists a "proper religion" in those terms, it would still be guilty of supporting delusions. In actual religions, the fraud and con games are the very core of the organizations, not some outlying stragglers.
IMHO, the only good person leading a religion (of sorts) is the current Dalai Lama. He has defined his religion with two facts: the only place it exists is inside your head, and the only thing you need to remember is to be kind.
He invited the current Pope to adopt the same view but his offer was summarily declined.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 10 2017, @04:19AM
I also am rather a fan of his.
He's also repeatedly said that Christians, Muslims, and Jews should generally NOT convert, as the same universal truths he teaches are also to be found in their own religion, where it's more accessible.
One example: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/educate-but-dont-convert-dalai-lama/article5542187.ece
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:34PM (4 children)
Yet another reprise in a timeless debate that hasn't grown any less futile. You either believe in God, or you don't. "Believe" is the operative word in that statement. You can't scientifically proved there is a God, but you also can't scientifically prove there isn't.
Plenty of atheists and anti-theists have chimed in on this thread, but not really any people have faith have, so I will. I am a person of faith. I know God is real.
I did not start that way. I despised religion. I mocked blind faith. My cynicism saw through everything. I am intelligent and highly educated and knew better.
Then too much happened to in my life in such a way to get me through the long dark stretches when I was destitute and broken to chalk it all up to random chance. Since then I have received every blessing, save one, that I ever hoped for. Every boon I ever prayed for, save one, I have been granted. And none of it was through my own efforts, great though they were; I know that because every stratagem I tried, failed. Success always came from unexpected quarters, from people I didn't know, through serendipity I hadn't earned or didn't deserve. That's the scale of what it took to bring me to faith, to have learned so much and thought so hard and strived so endlessly only to be leveled by utter failure, and then to nevertheless receive what I had hoped for as a complete gift.
The thing of it is, that is my path and mine alone. It won't work for anyone else in the same way. Anyone who hasn't walked a path like it won't understand, or may even recoil. I'm sure that there are legions ready to spring forward and prove how wrong or deluded I am. That's fine. They're welcome to their perspectives, all of which are as thoroughly examined and thoughtfully laid out as my own.
At most I feel sorry for how bitterly alone those folks will feel when their friends have deserted them, when family turns away, when their own strength has failed, and when they're at their wits' end. I know that's how I felt, bitterly alone. I wasn't.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:49PM (2 children)
I know that you don't know, but that you do believe.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday November 10 2017, @03:57AM
But he believes he knows.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday November 10 2017, @06:33PM
Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:57PM
A minor reprise:
See how that sounds when it's filled in by a different imaginary friend? To the point: How would one go about "proving" there is no Easter Bunny? It's 100% handwaving. Now, if there was an Easter Bunny, one would just bring the little hopper to the table, have him crap out some chocolate eggs, jelly beans, and filaments of green plastic basket lining, and chant "nyah nyah" while enjoying the (Cadbury) egg on the doubter's faces.
The foregoing demonstrates a perfect truth: You can never prove something does not exist; you can only prove it does.
There's no case to be made for anyone having to disprove something there has been no evidence presented in support of. If you wish to make the case that whatever it is that you believe in is a real thing, the obligation is 100% on you to prove your case by bringing actual evidence (repeatable, consensually experiential, testable) to the table: not on others to disprove it. If you're not up for that, fine, but don't go expecting expect critical thinkers to take you seriously, because that way, I absolutely assure you, lies only disappointment.
These things do not balance. Presenting them as you did is not valid, and creates no worthy argument to ride forth brandishing on your charger of faith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jimbrooking on Thursday November 09 2017, @10:42PM (2 children)
I didn't see anyone mention marketing. There's a lot of money to be made in convincing people that you have an "In" with an all-seeing, all-powerful deity and you need their "support" to a) get the word out about the deity an b) move them ahead in the line of supplicants wanting a special favor. And marketing, as we've seen, works to make gazillions from hopes, aspirations and beliefs, however outlandish. Religion is as much a product as professional sports and sit-coms and the biggest sellers are swimming in money.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @12:40AM (1 child)
You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. -- L. Ron Hubbard (scifi author, scientology founder)
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday November 26 2017, @12:57PM
L. Ron Hubbard's problem was that he didn't write very good science fiction. It is, in fact, possible to get rich writing science fiction (and/or fantasy.) You just have to be really good at it. Agents that can get you movie deals don't hurt either.
Hubbard was, however, great at scamming. Hence Scientology.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:25PM (1 child)
"The mind is what the brain does" - Nat Geo Mar. 2005
The "God Spot" [independent.co.uk]?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @01:17PM
So, what was the physical cause for the universe's beginning?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @01:15AM
This is why people believe in imaginary deities.
They are too weak to accept the fact they are an insignificant speck in the universe, and when the die, they are gone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by inertnet on Friday November 10 2017, @02:22AM
Humans have a very strong desire to explain their world. We dislike the unknown and will come up with an explanation for anything, even if it's wrong. I think religion started as attempts to explain things like earthquakes, storms and volcano's. In the eyes of early humans those things must have been caused by powerful beings, for lack of a better explanation. But also more ordinary things like stillbirths, someone would be held responsible for those. In most cultures witches are still held responsible for those kinds of mischief.
Ultimately we just hate being unable to explain things. Which is a good thing because next to religion, science is also a byproduct of that trait.