Why all god claims fail.

[Brian37]

EVOLUTION, neurological pathways, we can prove they exist. And when we gap fill we create those pathways even with false beliefs. We know both by measuring the brain LITERALLY in it's electro activity and chemistry the parts of the brain that light up when we think about what we think are positive things, and we know just like a phantom pain an amputee might feel, that "feeling" can be a totally false experience and yet still feel very real.

God belief is no different than convincing a kid Santa is real. If you want to believe it badly enough, no matter how false, you will.

Now it is still NOT up to me to prove shit, so get your god claim in a lab or shut up, either way it is still not up to me to do your homework for you.

All he asked for was a citation for a scientific paper/scientific text/scientific anything which he could use to educate himself about the things you mention here. He's trying to do his homework. Care to help him out by pointing in the direction of the scientific evidence? If not, are you expecting him to just take you on authority?

I gave him the sources, and still even with those sources, both Dawkins and the Late Stenger would also say what any sane person should say. You make a claim, it is up to you to prove it, it is still not up to them, or me to take their pet god claim into a lab, it is their job. Nobody ever wants to take a god claim into a lab because they all know they wont get anywhere with it.

EVOLUTION is already telling us that our god claims are merely primitive gap filling and are done out of ignorance. Like Dawkins said, the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight. I cannot dumb it down any further for them. It literally is a false perception.

[RozKek]

Why should we care if the Bible makes claims about a transdemensional  being?

The Bible is not evidence for any supernatural claims, it is the CLAIM!

Says a douche who has never read it.

No, the Bible tells us how to validate it's claim by telling us where and how to find God. It's 'proof' is found in following it's turn by turn directions to end at the destination it claims to take you. Before God.

Following it's turn by turn directions leads to deceiving yourself.

[RozKek]

It might surprise you to know that I am familiar with those works. You are parroting the opinions of people you respect. There is not a single scientific study that conclusively demonstrates that belief in god is wishful thinking. I'm open to being wrong so please dig up some actual research for me to consider.

This study tells that religious people are less rational, so there is wishful thinking: [http://www.iflscience.com/brain/conflict-between-religion-and-science-down-warring-brain-networks-study-says]

[Ignorant]

All he asked for was a citation for a scientific paper/scientific text/scientific anything which he could use to educate himself about the things you mention here. He's trying to do his homework. Care to help him out by pointing in the direction of the scientific evidence? If not, are you expecting him to just take you on authority?

I gave him the sources, and still even with those sources, both Dawkins and the Late Stenger would also say what any sane person should say. You make a claim, it is up to you to prove it, it is still not up to them, or me to take their pet god claim into a lab, it is their job. Nobody ever wants to take a god claim into a lab because they all know they wont get anywhere with it.

EVOLUTION is already telling us that our god claims are merely primitive gap filling and are done out of ignorance. Like Dawkins said, the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight. I cannot dumb it down any further for them. It literally is a false perception.

But those are not scientific texts. They speak about scientific ideas, concepts and experiments, but they are not the citations of the evolutionary studies for which he was asking. Sure, you may be right about evolution's speaking to the God of the gaps claims, and Dawkins or Stenger might have said as much in their books, but that is not the same as providing the scientific studies which permit Dawkins and Stenger to say it. I think that is what he wanted.

[abaris]

Evolution isn't scientific enough for you?

The mere fact that humanity has only clocked off about 4 percent of the time dinosaurs roamed the land, not enough for you?

I agree on one count. Atheist philosophers aren't sources. Science and earth's history on the other hand, are stone cold evidence. Well, unless you go lalala, I can't hear you.

[Brian37]

Evolution isn't scientific enough for you?

The mere fact that humanity has only clocked off about 4 percent of the time dinosaurs roamed the land, not enough for you?

I agree on one count. Atheist philosophers aren't sources. Science and earth's history on the other hand, are stone cold evidence. Well, unless you go lalala, I can't hear you.

Abris, Dawkins isn't a philosopher nor was Stenger, they are scientists and they are basing their books on science, not philosophy.

Again we do have modern neurology and when we form new thoughts it is literally like laying blacktop on a highway, the problem with our thoughts is that when we take input we can be building those highways on very false information and false perceptions. It is much morso with kids because most of the time they get taught the social norms of their parents. Kids brains are empty blackboards and the adults literally write those stories into their neurological pathways as they develop by passing down those god stories as they grow up.

[abaris]

Abris, Dawkins isn't a philosopher nor was Stenger, they are scientists and they are basing their books on science, not philosophy.

I know as much, thank you very much. But the writings you referred to weren't written as being scientists but as a philosophical expression. Drawing from their scientific experience, for sure. But not science in themselves.

[Brian37]

Abris, Dawkins isn't a philosopher nor was Stenger, they are scientists and they are basing their books on science, not philosophy.

I know as much, thank you very much. But the writings you referred to weren't written as being scientists but as a philosophical expression. Drawing from their scientific experience, for sure. But not science in themselves.

No, they were basing that on science. "Drawing from their scientific experience", EXACTLY, so not merely a philosophy.

It is not conjecture that Dawkins calls it "The God Delusion", our evolutionary psychology DID, and still does today for far too many lead us to gap fill, just like a moth gap fills seeing the light bulb thinking it is the moon, that is literally what humans are doing gap filling, they are projecting themselves just like some cats and dogs see their reflections in the mirror and react to them.

It literally is a neurological misperception a delusion, a false perception.

[abaris]

It literally is a neurological misperception a delusion, a false perception.

But he's neither a MD, let alone a neurologist. So it's not his field. Hence, opinion. Educated opinion, maybe, but still only opinion. It's not a book of science.

I go with facts and earth's or life's history do you just fine on that account. Quoting Dawkins or any other atheist posterhead on matters other than their field of expertise is on the same lines as theists quoting apologists. I know you don't want to hear that, but it's the truth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are you saying philosophy is more logical than science? It's the other way around, science starts out with logic and reason.

I guess you never heard of Aristotle's "Prior Analytics". Where do you think science got logic in the first place, Bozo?