Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Why We Believe In GodsFollow

#1 May 07 2009 at 4:40 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
I was intrigued to view this presentation by Andy Thomas, an American athiest on the reasons why human beings believe in Gods.

Essentially, he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings. The most amusing part being his 'Big Mac' moment Smiley: lol

I know most of you will not watch but it is amusing to see both sides of the story Smiley: nod
#2 May 07 2009 at 4:57 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
but it is amusing to see both sides of the story Smiley: nod


When do we get to hear gods side of it?
#3 May 07 2009 at 5:06 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Archfiend Goggy wrote:
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
but it is amusing to see both sides of the story Smiley: nod


When do we get to hear gods side of it?


I do not know about you, but I heard about that side of the story from pre-school onwards. I'm not about to educate in assumed theories and knowledge.

I should state, I am agnostic. I'm all confuzzled and cannot make up my mind Smiley: nod

Edited, May 7th 2009 1:07pm by GwynapNud
#4 May 07 2009 at 5:11 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
I don't have the net capacity to watch something so long at the moment, but I believe I've seen a similar documentary before. Yeah, another example of how our brains are electro-bio-chemical machines. If you know much about science, I don't think you can take many church teachings and many parts of religious texts very seriously.

I think there's still lots of room for spirituality and metaphysics, but not for a big old man counting up dirty thoughts, or throwing thunderbolts around. God simply as a name of The Beginning, however it happened, and as the name of the energy the universe is comprised of, and we are temporarily self-aware coherant patterns in that energy. An athiest could call that simply semantics, and there is no need to call any of that God at all. A theist could take great delight in seeing the physical universe as all the same energy in the end, going through amazing patterns, and isn't it marvelous to be part of the whole?
#5 May 07 2009 at 5:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings.
'Cause God made us that way. Duh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 May 07 2009 at 5:22 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings.
'Cause God Evolved us that way. Duh.

Fix'd. Smiley: nod
#7 May 07 2009 at 5:22 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings.
'Cause God made us that way. Duh.


He answers that one with the Q&A at the end Smiley: lol

Update your signature or something will you. You are making the forum look shabby, its bad enough that you are old and everything.
#8 May 07 2009 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
I was intrigued to view this presentation by Andy Thomas, an American athiest on the reasons why human beings believe in Gods.

Essentially, he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings. The most amusing part being his 'Big Mac' moment Smiley: lol

I know most of you will not watch but it is amusing to see both sides of the story Smiley: nod
It's an hour long video! I don't suppose you'd care to accurately summarize?

Quote:
I should state, I am agnostic. I'm all confuzzled and cannot make up my mind
I figure if there is some sentient being(s) responsible for the growth and evolution of our natural world in general and our species in particular, and that being wanted me worshiping it or carrying out my life in some particular way, then that Being will be able to let me know in a fairly clear and concise manner. If there is a god(s), but has chosen not to direct or guide us in our societal growth, then that god apparently doesn't care one way or another how I conduct my life - so, I can freely conduct it however I fell compelled to.

Historical, generational, societal, personal belies are powerful and crazy stuff.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 May 07 2009 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings.
'Cause God Intelligently Evolved us that way. Duh.
Fix'd. Smiley: nod
Touché
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 May 07 2009 at 5:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
I can honestly say that I don't care that much about God and I wish that more of the world would follow my example.
#11 May 07 2009 at 6:01 AM Rating: Good
**
375 posts
Quote:
I should state, I am agnostic. I'm all confuzzled and cannot make up my mind.


I feel compelled to ask. What line of thought leads you to your position? I find the agnostic stance interesting, but I have to admit I don't understand how anyone could hold it personally.
#12 May 07 2009 at 6:25 AM Rating: Excellent
**
665 posts
Sarren wrote:
Quote:
I should state, I am agnostic. I'm all confuzzled and cannot make up my mind.


I feel compelled to ask. What line of thought leads you to your position? I find the agnostic stance interesting, but I have to admit I don't understand how anyone could hold it personally.
I'd say I believe in a higher something though I couldn't quantify what it is. I mean, religion as it is today is nothing more than a conglomeration of past religions who have evolved over the years, destroying old views and replacing them with their interpretation of what they deem acceptable by their then world views. The "God" of today that Christianity, or Muslims', or anyone else who so fervently fight to uphold their views didn't exist 100-5000-10,000-20,000 years ago as it does today. Back in ancient times there was the belief in gods of water, wind or love etc.

BUT, but there has always been the idea of a "higher" power.

To me that indicates that there has always been a feeling that there is something "more" has always been there in the very depths of the human condition. Religion, as it is, is the attempt of people to describe that feeling and put to ritual a way to express it. I believe in evolution, I believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth and I believe than man evolved from a lesser life form. However, I also have the strong feeling that there is a force that ushered that possibility into existence.

It's just to many variables to consider, of all the planets in all the galaxies in all the universe, of all the enzymes that could combine, of all the things that HAD to happen, they did, to combine to create life. Maybe I'm just not a analytical enough thinker, or to much of a dreamer but it just seems like to much of a lottery for that many things to line up to be where we are today.

I don't go to church, I don't subscribe to an organized religion, I have my own views.
#13 May 07 2009 at 6:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Sarren wrote:
What line of thought leads you to your position?

I don't know what beliefs Gwyn specifically holds, but I usually see agnosticism take one of two forms.

The first is a reduction of the issue down to "you can't prove it either way." "If some omnipotent deity did exist he could make it seem exactly like he didn't, therefore it can never be proved."

The second is a rational rejection of nearly all existing religions, but a need a feel that there is "some higher power." These people typically see the flaws and inconsistencies in many existing beliefs, but because they've been raised in an environment where the idea of the mystical is so ever present it is hard to fully let go of the concept. If everyone tells you there is a unicorn standing behind you, no matter how rationally you know unicorns don't exist it is difficult not to look back and check.
#14 May 07 2009 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
**
665 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sarren wrote:
What line of thought leads you to your position?

The second is a rational rejection of nearly all existing religions, but a need a feel that there is "some higher power." These people typically see the flaws and inconsistencies in many existing beliefs, but because they've been raised in an environment where the idea of the mystical is so ever present it is hard to fully let go of the concept. If everyone tells you there is a unicorn standing behind you, no matter how rationally you know unicorns don't exist it is difficult not to look back and check.
This
#15 May 07 2009 at 6:44 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I'll try to watch the video, but watching the first five minutes has given me the idea that Dr. Thomson is going to make entirely overly complex arguments that fail to be effective against the common person and fail to address the core issues.
#16 May 07 2009 at 6:44 AM Rating: Default
***
3,229 posts
Bauran wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Sarren wrote:
What line of thought leads you to your position?

The second is a rational rejection of nearly all existing religions, but a need a feel that there is "some higher power." These people typically see the flaws and inconsistencies in many existing beliefs, but because they've been raised in an environment where the idea of the mystical is so ever present it is hard to fully let go of the concept. If everyone tells you there is a unicorn standing behind you, no matter how rationally you know unicorns don't exist it is difficult not to look back and check.
This


QFT.
#17 May 07 2009 at 6:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Sarren wrote:
I feel compelled to ask. What line of thought leads you to your position? I find the agnostic stance interesting, but I have to admit I don't understand how anyone could hold it personally.


Agnosticism is a commonly confused stance primarily in religious belief/non-belief. Most assume it's more along the lines of being an Athiest these days, but not discounting the idea of a larger/greater/higher being or "God". It's actually based on the simple idea that the truth value behind certain belief systems that can associate to religion (although, it doesn't have to primarily be religion) are rejected. It's come to be recognized as saying "I don't know, one way or the other" in regards to a "God".

It's easier to understand in how it's explained today, because it makes more sense since most peoples outlook is "...either you're religious, or you aren't." I'm agnostic, because I reject the concept of structured belief systems surrounding something with no concrete evidence. Elinda made a good point:

Elinda wrote:
I figure if there is some sentient being(s) responsible for the growth and evolution of our natural world in general and our species in particular, and that being wanted me worshiping it or carrying out my life in some particular way, then that Being will be able to let me know in a fairly clear and concise manner. If there is a god(s), but has chosen not to direct or guide us in our societal growth, then that god apparently doesn't care one way or another how I conduct my life - so, I can freely conduct it however I fell compelled to.


Doesn't matter what that being is. God, Allah, an Alien, the owner of Kentucky Fried Chicken...it doesn't matter. The idea is if there is something greater than us (ie. Mankind) that's responsible for anything regarding our existence as we know it, and required my money every Sunday to keep the church going, it better damn well appear before me and tell me so. Otherwise, it's all bullshit, IMO. Most people come to this conclusion simply by understanding that there cannot be an explanation for anything without evidence, otherwise it's simply belief in a theory or idea.

Edited for clarity

Edited, May 7th 2009 10:47am by Ryneguy
#18 May 07 2009 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Allegory wrote:
Sarren wrote:
What line of thought leads you to your position?

I don't know what beliefs Gwyn specifically holds, but I usually see agnosticism take one of two forms.

The first is a reduction of the issue down to "you can't prove it either way." "If some omnipotent deity did exist he could make it seem exactly like he didn't, therefore it can never be proved."


Guilty as charged. I'd more than happy for an omnipotent being to appear before me in some form, but until then I just cannot look past the sheer lack of convincing evidence.
#19 May 07 2009 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
he deconstructs aspects of human behaviour and brain centre activity to explain religious beliefs as a default behaviour pattern in human beings.
'Cause God Intelligently Evolved us that way from the very first motion of the Universe. Duh.
Fix'd. Smiley: nod
Touché
Oh! A hit! You have me, Sir!
#20REDACTED, Posted: May 07 2009 at 6:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ryne,
#21 May 07 2009 at 6:57 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Can nobody take the bait? Please?
#22 May 07 2009 at 7:00 AM Rating: Good
Varrus wrote:
You mean besides Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to the heavens before the multitudes?

Amazing considering politically you don't require any evidence to blindly support an ideology that has never been proved to be effective.



Just because I argue against your blind support of one side or the other doesn't necessarily mean I believe in the opposite. It simply means I don't think you know what you're talking about better than any other person.

And technically, there were no "multitides". In most versions, Mary Magdalene saw an Angel (or two) in an empty tomb. One spoke her name and she didn't recognize it as Jesus until it spoke. So yea, see what I mean?
#23 May 07 2009 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
It's just to many variables to consider, of all the planets in all the galaxies in all the universe, of all the enzymes that could combine, of all the things that HAD to happen, they did, to combine to create life. Maybe I'm just not a analytical enough thinker, or to much of a dreamer but it just seems like to much of a lottery for that many things to line up to be where we are today.


It is amazing indeed how well the water fits the jug.
#24 May 07 2009 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
hangtennow wrote:
You mean besides Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to the heavens before the multitudes?
Acts states that he ascended before the apostles (of which eleven remained, Matthias not yet having been chosen to replace Judas). Mark makes it even clearer that he ascended before the "eleven".

I don't think "multitudes" is a great word here.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 May 07 2009 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
hangtennow wrote:
Ryne,

Quote:
I'm agnostic, because I reject the concept of structured belief systems surrounding something with no concrete evidence.


You mean besides Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to the heavens before the multitudes?


And there are HUNDREDS of records of real live witches being burned during medieval times! And of leeching being an effective treatment to ills of the blood. Or letting out blood, that worked too. And exorcisms have been exhaustively documented by the Vatican; heck, people back in the day had demons possessing them all the time!

Obviously our Christian friends of years gone by were so adept at curing these ills upon society that they no longer plague us today. Today we have benign witches (ie, pagans), with no magic. Leeching and blood letting served their purpose at the time and now we use this medicine stuff to cure the weaker diseases left after those techniques got rid of the really bad ones. And thank goodness there's so little demonic possession these days; unfortunately it seems like paranoia and mental disorders have taken up where those left off.
#26 May 07 2009 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Today we have benign witches (ie, pagans), with no magic


That you know of ..

Edited, May 7th 2009 3:29pm by GwynapNud
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 291 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (291)