774 replies to this topic

[hooter]

Truly half of your posts don't even make lexical sense, I feel like I am reading a lorem ipsum generator. Anyhow, thank you shadowhawk for supplying the world with further public evidence that religion is a mental disorder and makes people aggressive and resort to personal attacks.

Not all subjects are for everyone. I noticed you haven't said anything very substantual. Its ok, do your best. Did I call you a name? Where? Have I made you aggressive and prone to personal attacks on religous people? Isn't this an overeaction? Sorry, this is not my intention.

It's ok, do your best.

[shadowhawk]

@shadowhawk
What is your goal in this thread? If it is to become more enlightened you are failing, if it is to convince others of the validity of your own opinions then you are failing. So what is your goal?

It's neurological. You can hook someones head up to a magnetic field generator and they'll be preaching about the beauty of god without regard for evidence. I don't think getting into a discussion or argument has any sense. It's like talking to a schizophrenic, they progressively degrade into more irrational language patterns and hostility the more you push them. The point of the debate is not to convince you of the existence of god, but rather to solidify his own belief because his conscious mind has problems reconciling it with evidence. The more they can argue, the more their faith grows. It's a common way in which the brain tries to preserve cognitive dissonance. This is why people with claims of divine knowledge have such a strong drive to 'preach'.

I've never seen a truly religious person convinced by any form of evidence whatsoever. They would rather assume Jesus rode around on a dinosaur than face the facts. I think it is an escapist displacement mechanism into a fantasy reality where things are subjectively more pleasant and agree with one's personal opinion. A mystical father always protecting and watching, taking care of you. It gives people a sense of stability at the cost of sacrificing sanity and reason. I've never understood it personally, true belief might be some structural abnormality like low serotonin receptor density. There's some studies to suggest that, but I think the actual processes are much more complex.

Now here is an example of name calling if I ever seen one. One Logical Fallacy after another. And I must have made you do it! Bigotry too, against all the religious. Such bigoted attacks are off topic and not worth answering..

[shadowhawk]

Truly half of your posts don't even make lexical sense, I feel like I am reading a lorem ipsum generator. Anyhow, thank you shadowhawk for supplying the world with further public evidence that religion is a mental disorder and makes people aggressive and resort to personal attacks.

Not all subjects are for everyone. I noticed you haven't said anything very substantual. Its ok, do your best. Did I call you a name? Where? Have I made you aggressive and prone to personal attacks on religous people? Isn't this an overeaction? Sorry, this is not my intention.

It's ok, do your best.

Ok, i will try my best, not make you agressive and prone to personall attacks against religous people. Any ideas how to stop your bigotry?

I own several different lexicons and use them all the time. What is "lexical sense?" Give me an example.

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 February 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[hooter]

Ok, i will try not make you agressive and prone to personall attacks against religous people. Any ideas how to stop your bigotry?

It's a legitimate hypothesis, not a personal attack. Please don't feel 'persecuted'.

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.^[2] These criteria are:

• certainty (held with absolute conviction)

I simply know that god is real. It's my faith.

• incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)

Science can't disprove god! I know he's real. Darwin is wrong. The scientific community is wrong. The geneticists and the geologists know nothing! I believe these fringe fanatics from a school that assumes religious belief in the first place instead.

• impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)^[3]

• Supernatural cosmic entity with infinite power and abilities that watches everybody.
• Is loving and caring but if you disobey you will never be able to rest and forever suffer in the worst imaginable pit of despair.
• The universe had to be created, but the creator didn't.
• A human sacrifice 2000 years ago absolves modern man of his ill deeds.
• Our planet is special and our species is the cleanest and purest form. We are the most perfect species.

---

Faith or delusion? At the crossroads of religion and psychosis.

In clinical practice, no clear guidelines exist to distinguish between "normal" religious beliefs and "pathological" religious delusions. Historically, psychiatrists such as Freud have suggested that all religious beliefs are delusional, while the current DSM-IV definition of delusion exempts religious doctrine from pathology altogether. From an individual standpoint, a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasizing conviction, preoccupation, and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is and is not pathological. When beliefs are shared by others, the idiosyncratic can become normalized. Therefore, recognition of social dynamics and the possibility of entire delusional subcultures is necessary in the assessment of group beliefs. Religious beliefs and delusions alike can arise from neurologic lesions and anomalous experiences, suggesting that at least some religious beliefs can be pathological. Religious beliefs exist outside of the scientific domain; therefore they can be easily labeled delusional from a rational perspective. However, a religious belief's dimensional characteristics, its cultural influences, and its impact on functioning may be more important considerations in clinical practice.

Religion and psychosis: a common evolutionary trajectory?

In this article we propose that schizophrenia and religious cognition engage cognate mental modules in the over-attribution of agency and the overextension of theory of mind. We argue similarities and differences between assumptions of ultrahuman agents with omniscient minds and certain ''pathological'' forms of thinking in schizophrenia: thought insertion, withdrawal and broadcasting, and delusions of reference. In everyday religious cognition agency detection and theory of mind modules function ''normally,'' whereas in schizophrenia both modules are impaired. It is suggested that religion and schizophrenia have perhaps had a related evolutionary trajectory.

You will find additional studies supporting the neurological basis of religion: here and here and here and here and here and here. I'm sure you'll be able to find fMRI data as well. This was just a simple search in 5 minutes.

Your move, cowboy.

Edited by hooter, 02 February 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Wow, what a massive off topic post. I guess nothing is going to stop your bigotry. Not interested.

[hooter]

Wow, what a massive off topic post. I guess nothing is going to stop your bigotry. Not interested.

incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)

The topic of the thread is "god is theoretically possible". I argue that god is a delusion. This is perfectly within realms of the thread. Indeed, a socratic dialog cannot function without a contrarian viewpoint! I don't know where you get your laws of reasoning from, but it ain't no place good mister!

Edited by hooter, 02 February 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[churchill]

Stop trolling shadowhawk your god will not be proud of you.
God is clearly theoretically possible as are dragons and pixies the more pertinent question is whether he/she/it is likely and I would say no.
Anyhow here is some great proof that I am sure you will love...

[hooter]

Yo, let's be plain here. Ya dig? Hate to break it to ya but yo god is a hopeless attempt of distant ancestors at explaining a neurophysiological reaction from the psilocybin in native fungi. The whole thing dates back to a sumerian fertility cult. This also explains why god is traditionally seen as male. The rain is the ejaculate of god which brings life to the earth. From this mist and fog, a little god is born (the phallic mushroom symbol). Through the ingestion of the son of god (the small phallic fungus on earth) one can experience the spirit. This explains the trinity as well. Imagine how a bronze age goat herder would describe a mystical (spiritual) experience. Bare in mind people back then absolutely no idea about pharmacology or metabolisms. Sleep tight.

Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later.

Checkmate.

Edited by hooter, 02 February 2012 - 10:49 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Wow, what a massive off topic post. I guess nothing is going to stop your bigotry. Not interested.

incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)

The topic of the thread is "god is theoretically possible". I argue that god is a delusion. This is perfectly within realms of the thread. Indeed, a socratic dialog cannot function without a contrarian viewpoint! I don't know where you get your laws of reasoning from, but it ain't no place good mister!

You are attacking religious people with one ad hominem after another. You are ridiculing people of belief with a bunch of amateur psychology, name calling, which is not applicable to anything that has gone on here. These are nothing but straw men. I am not interested in engaging in such a stream of logical fallacies. I know what you are doing and not interested.

[hooter]

You are attacking religious people with one ad hominem after another. You are ridiculing people of belief with a bunch of amateur psychology, name calling, which is not applicable to anything that has gone on here. These are nothing but straw men. I am not interested in engaging in such a stream of logical fallacies. I know what you are doing and not interested.

I am not attacking religious people, I am attacking religious belief. Since I am attacking a concept and not an actual living breathing human being, this cannot conceivable be an ad hominem attack. Thank you sir.

[hooter]

Religion is crazay, my homie. We're all special snowflakes in the eyes of god! Oh yea, this naked ape sure is significant in a cosmic sense.

Edited by hooter, 02 February 2012 - 10:55 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Stop trolling shadowhawk your god will not be proud of you.
God is clearly theoretically possible as are dragons and pixies the more pertinent question is whether he/she/it is likely and I would say no.
Anyhow here is some great proof that I am sure you will love...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM

I have this video. Why is there fruit? So animals will eat it. It was made for something beside itself. Was god involved? The video was designed by intelligence to put down intelligence. How sucessful is it?

[hooter]

lol you don't understand basic evolutionary biology thats precious

Edited by hooter, 02 February 2012 - 11:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

lol you don't understand basic evolutionary biology thats precious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo

You didn't understand my comment at all.

[hooter]

lol you don't understand basic evolutionary biology thats precious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo

You didn't understand my comment at all.

And you didn't watch the video or you would stop posting such rubbish.




vvvvvv I know right? The best argument for atheism is reading the bible cover to cover.

Edited by hooter, 03 February 2012 - 06:32 AM.

[churchill]

@shadowhawk
By posting so poorly you are turning people away from God, your effectively ensuring people go to hell according to your ideology, how do you live with that? Do you think that will get you into heaven?

[Link]

Shadowhawk, there is a very good reason why credible scientists don't take scientific theories based around supernatural beings or supernatural events seriously, and that is because not a single piece of reliable evidence has ever been shown of a supernatural being ever having existed or a supernatural event ever having occurred. ever.

Science is not interested in fairy tales, it is interested in what is observable and testable. If science doesn't have an answer for something then the only truly scientific position is either "We don't know" or "We don't know but, based on previous observations and our existing knowledge, this is our best guess".

Religious people feel that they can fill holes in scientific theory with the hand of their God simply because it can't be dis-proven, but in science the fact that something can't be dis-proven is not anywhere near good enough for it to be taken seriously, especially when that something has never once actually been observed.

You can say that you believe a Christian God created the universe and all living things, that is your right, but that viewpoint is as legitimate as someone who believes a giant taco salesmen named Esteban created the universe, in the eyes of science.

[churchill]

This is quite appropriate to this discussion (SFW)
http://imgur.com/V04LE

Edited by churchill, 03 February 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Up dated now 50 Peer review papers of Intelligent Design (ID)
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Wintery Knight says:
“My favorite area of ID research is the area of protein formation. I like to read about the research done by Doug Axe and Ann Gauger in that area. Research performed by Doug Axe at Cambridge University, and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Molecular Biology, has shown that the number of functional amino acid sequences (ones that can form functioning proteins) is tiny:

Doug Axe’s research likewise studies genes that it turns out show great evidence of design. Axe studied the sensitivities of protein function to mutations. In these “mutational sensitivity” tests, Dr. Axe mutated certain amino acids in various proteins, or studied the differences between similar proteins, to see how mutations or changes affected their ability to function properly. He found that protein function was highly sensitive to mutation, and that proteins are not very tolerant to changes in their amino acid sequences. In other words, when you mutate, tweak, or change these proteins slightly, they stopped working. In one of his papers, he thus concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences,” and that functional protein folds “may be as low as 1 in 10^77.”

The problem of forming DNA by sequencing nucleotides faces similar difficulties. And remember, mutation and selection cannot explain the origin of the first sequence, because mutation and selection require replication, which does not exist until that first living cell is already in place. I think that this very valuable research, indeed.”

[shadowhawk]

This is quite appropriate to this discussion (SFW)
http://imgur.com/V04LE

This topic is not about Atheisms view of Christianity so I won't bother to comment.

[hooter]

This is quite appropriate to this discussion (SFW)
http://imgur.com/V04LE

This topic is not about Atheisms view of Christianity so I won't bother to comment.

And who exactly crowned you king shit of this thread? Look at the first post.His post is perfectly within realms of this thread, and in fact necessary in a debate. You absolutely need contrarian viewpoints to be able to argue anything successfully. Please read the starting post of this thread. I just hope reading comprehension isn't something Christians also disagree on...

Edited by hooter, 03 February 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, there is a very good reason why credible scientists don't take scientific theories based around supernatural beings or supernatural events seriously, and that is because not a single piece of reliable evidence has ever been shown of a supernatural being ever having existed or a supernatural event ever having occurred. ever.

Science is not interested in fairy tales, it is interested in what is observable and testable. If science doesn't have an answer for something then the only truly scientific position is either "We don't know" or "We don't know but, based on previous observations and our existing knowledge, this is our best guess".

Religious people feel that they can fill holes in scientific theory with the hand of their God simply because it can't be dis-proven, but in science the fact that something can't be dis-proven is not anywhere near good enough for it to be taken seriously, especially when that something has never once actually been observed.

You can say that you believe a Christian God created the universe and all living things, that is your right, but that viewpoint is as legitimate as someone who believes a giant taco salesmen named Esteban created the universe, in the eyes of science.

Credible scientists also believe there is evidence for intelligent design. It is a logical Fallacy to think the way to prove truth in Science is by taking a vote among scientists. Truth has been the minority position much of the time. I can think of many examples where this would not produce truth. Science is not designed to study the non material. It can can’t, it is a method for the material world. Science has its limits, don’t you agree? So your conclusions are not based on science.

Science has a hard time with events, such as the big bang, which occur only once. It is somewhat observable and testable. Between the material and Spiritual exist things such as Laws. They are not material and there is much debate going on how they relate to the material and spiritual world. Scientists such as Nancy Cartwright are writing on this non material realm

http://www.pdfdownlo..._Laws_draft.pdf

http://webcache.goog..._Laws_draft.pdf

See also the “Theist Atheist debates in the UK,” topic where top atheists have argued these issues.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983
Show me where Religious people feel they can fill holes in scientific theory with God. Nonsense. We just don’t think the material world is all there is. Where is youe evidence? You are creating straw men. Are you saying everything that is real has been observed? As for your ‘taco man,” you accuse us as being interested in fairy tales. Straw Man, logical fallacy.

Edited by shadowhawk, 03 February 2012 - 10:11 PM.

[hooter]

Show me where Religious people feel they can fill holes in scientific theory with God. Nonsense. We just don’t think the material world is all there is. Where is youe evidence? You are creating straw men. Are you saying everything that is real has been observed? As for your ‘taco man,” you accuse us as being interested in fairy tales. Straw Man, logical fallacy.

You are creating a guy that lives in the sky and controls stuff.

The existence of God has been philosophically deconstructed in goddamn 300 BC! There is nothing to debate! There is the same amount of proof for unicorns as there is for 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

Edited by hooter, 03 February 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[shadowhawk]

This is quite appropriate to this discussion (SFW)
http://imgur.com/V04LE

This topic is not about Atheisms view of Christianity so I won't bother to comment.

And who exactly crowned you king shit of this thread? Look at the first post.His post is perfectly within realms of this thread, and in fact necessary in a debate. You absolutely need contrarian viewpoints to be able to argue anything successfully. Please read the starting post of this thread. I just hope reading comprehension isn't something Christians also disagree on...

It is about Atheisms view of Christianity? Sorry, don't mean to be contranian...but...OK

Edited by shadowhawk, 03 February 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[hooter]

Thank you for this wonderful finale to your own personal downfall. I couldn't have summarized the blatant disregard for evidence any better. Bravo, and appplause. My job here is done. You've talked yourself into a corner and finished it by closing your eyes and going 'la la la'. Thank you.

[shadowhawk]

Thank you for this wonderful finale to your own personal downfall. I couldn't have summarized the blatant disregard for evidence any better. Bravo, and appplause. My job here is done. You've talked yourself into a corner and finished it by closing your eyes and going 'la la la'. Thank you.

What evidence?

[Googoltarian]

I`m almost sure that all people arguing in this thread are intelligent, but then this quote comes to mind:

"Stupid is as stupid does."
Forrest Gump

I remember there was somewhere an option to filter chosen forums

[shadowhawk]

Show me where Religious people feel they can fill holes in scientific theory with God. Nonsense. We just don’t think the material world is all there is. Where is youe evidence? You are creating straw men. Are you saying everything that is real has been observed? As for your ‘taco man,” you accuse us as being interested in fairy tales. Straw Man, logical fallacy.

You are creating a guy that lives in the sky and controls stuff.

The existence of God has been philosophically deconstructed in goddamn 300 BC! There is nothing to debate! There is the same amount of proof for unicorns as there is for 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

As is typical, your response has nothing to do with the questions asked which were not even addressed to you. Not intersted in the rest of this childish, name calling stupidity. Never ending atheist rage, just read your past posts.. Hohummmm

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 February 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[Link]

Credible scientists also believe there is evidence for intelligent design. It is a logical Fallacy to think the way to prove truth in Science is by taking a vote among scientists. Truth has been the minority position much of the time. I can think of many examples where this would not produce truth.

I didn't say anything about a vote among scientists. Being a credible scientist has nothing to do with believing the majority or minority viewpoint, it has to do with looking at the evidence and making conclusions that are without bias or emotion.

Believing in intelligent design or a Christian God requires belief in the supernatural, something which has never been shown to exist either through observation or experiment, therefore it is unscientific by definition.

sci·ence
noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Science is not designed to study the non material. It can can’t, it is a method for the material world. Science has its limits, don’t you agree? So your conclusions are not based on science.

There is no evidence that there is any such thing as the "non material" so my conclusions are absolutely based in science.

Science has a hard time with events, such as the big bang, which occur only once. It is somewhat observable and testable. Between the material and Spiritual exist things such as Laws. They are not material and there is much debate going on how they relate to the material and spiritual world. Scientists such as Nancy Cartwright are writing on this non material realm

http://www.pdfdownlo..._Laws_draft.pdf

http://webcache.goog..._Laws_draft.pdf

See also the “Theist Atheist debates in the UK,” topic where top atheists have argued these issues.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Nancy Cartwright is a philosopher, not a scientist. I'm not going to read her entire book if you can't even be bothered to respond to some posts of mine because they are too long and "not worth writing a book over"

Show me where Religious people feel they can fill holes in scientific theory with God. Nonsense.

Aren't all your arguments for a scientific existence of a Christian God based on the few small areas which can't yet be explained by science? The big bang, the origin of the first cell etc.

We just don’t think the material world is all there is. Where is youe evidence?

The complete lack of evidence of something, especially when observable and testable evidence contradicts the religious scriptures that accompany it, is evidence enough for me. Why should i believe the Bible is anything more than a fairy tale?

You are creating straw men. Are you saying everything that is real has been observed?

If something is not observable i cannot be sure that it does not exist, but it would be un-scientific of me to assert that it does exist.

As for your ‘taco man,” you accuse us as being interested in fairy tales. Straw Man, logical fallacy.

I'm seriously starting to think that you don't even know what a logical fallacy is, you just like saying it in every post because you think it makes you sound smart.

Show me then logically how there is more evidence of Yahweh than there is of Esteban.

[Link]

I`m almost sure that all people arguing in this thread are intelligent, but then this quote comes to mind:

"Stupid is as stupid does."
Forrest Gump

I remember there was somewhere an option to filter chosen forums

Obviously i know that it is a waste of time to debate Christians in an attempt to change their minds, i just think it's fun to hear them try to justify their faith from a scientific viewpoint.