RE: Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?
January 1, 2010 at 8:18 am
Thanks for that Syn. Well he starts off badly by aligning himself with the clowns of philosophy.
A reasoning byproduct that produces a positive effect sometimes unattainable by any other means - hmm... he's missing something there. Oh yes - a discernible function. How convenient. Or is he missing the actual point of religion and simply substituting the old red herring superstition.. which unbeknown to him we all dismiss. Of course the point of religion is to lay down a simple methodology for attaining human happiness.
Humans respond to human stimuli ... of course. Moot point. Religion is formulated and designed to be understood by people. God is described in a way that humans can understand. There is no need for it to be described for any other species/ entity etc.
Cognition of basic scientific principles is nothing to do with religious belief. That's the common misunderstanding. I can understand natural selection yet also understand what point God has to human life - how can that be... of course I have to be ignorant and or not understand the scientific. How sad to think that you have to have proof to believe in anything. How lacking in confidence in your own cognitive abilities to limit your thinking so badly. How can you reduce human experience so savagely and suggest that we are so one dimensional. Life must be so black and white - what is the point to all those other colours after all... why do we need them? Light and dark is all that matters isn't it?
Brains cogitate religious understanding in areas of the brain evolved by adaptive mechanisms. Well blow me over. Was anyone expecting a special are of the brain pre created LOL. What bollocks.
He makes a tenuous link between soul and our desire to maintain the missing life. We don't make plans for our funerals because we think we're going to be there - we're considering the event from the perspective of other people who will have to suffer the event. He misses the real point of course... but then what is his presentation besides a withholding of one side of the discussion.
He claims that religions hijack morality. Yet religion describes morality. Religion takes a position on morality and the anti religious say "wait, everything you say is wrong - we wanna work it out for ourselves"... then come up with the same conclusions.
Altruistic Punishment: willingness to punish social cheats at cost to ourselves
The opposite of Christian morality - not the same as he says. Not hijacked - turned around.
All human communication uses innate human triggers otherwise it wouldn't be human communication. To single out religion as somehow at fault for using the same mechanisms is fallacious.
Religious rituals based on threat response, being compelling and rigidly scripted ...and he goes on: now we're in the land of abuse of religion to coerce.
Religion opposes science sure - it's a problem and it's never right. What religion is actually about tho' is never in conflict. So I think his conclusion is childish and gives credence to bad religion.
I saw no reason at all in any of that hour long stating of the obvious, that challenges my point at all.
Negotiating social relationships bore the capacity for religious thought. As soon as humans developed the capacity they cogitated philosophical ideas. Scientists seek to dismiss philosophical ideas as irrelevant when all the evidence shows how it's central to the makeup of a human being.
A reasoning byproduct that produces a positive effect sometimes unattainable by any other means - hmm... he's missing something there. Oh yes - a discernible function. How convenient. Or is he missing the actual point of religion and simply substituting the old red herring superstition.. which unbeknown to him we all dismiss. Of course the point of religion is to lay down a simple methodology for attaining human happiness.
Humans respond to human stimuli ... of course. Moot point. Religion is formulated and designed to be understood by people. God is described in a way that humans can understand. There is no need for it to be described for any other species/ entity etc.
Cognition of basic scientific principles is nothing to do with religious belief. That's the common misunderstanding. I can understand natural selection yet also understand what point God has to human life - how can that be... of course I have to be ignorant and or not understand the scientific. How sad to think that you have to have proof to believe in anything. How lacking in confidence in your own cognitive abilities to limit your thinking so badly. How can you reduce human experience so savagely and suggest that we are so one dimensional. Life must be so black and white - what is the point to all those other colours after all... why do we need them? Light and dark is all that matters isn't it?
Brains cogitate religious understanding in areas of the brain evolved by adaptive mechanisms. Well blow me over. Was anyone expecting a special are of the brain pre created LOL. What bollocks.
He makes a tenuous link between soul and our desire to maintain the missing life. We don't make plans for our funerals because we think we're going to be there - we're considering the event from the perspective of other people who will have to suffer the event. He misses the real point of course... but then what is his presentation besides a withholding of one side of the discussion.
He claims that religions hijack morality. Yet religion describes morality. Religion takes a position on morality and the anti religious say "wait, everything you say is wrong - we wanna work it out for ourselves"... then come up with the same conclusions.
Altruistic Punishment: willingness to punish social cheats at cost to ourselves
The opposite of Christian morality - not the same as he says. Not hijacked - turned around.
All human communication uses innate human triggers otherwise it wouldn't be human communication. To single out religion as somehow at fault for using the same mechanisms is fallacious.
Religious rituals based on threat response, being compelling and rigidly scripted ...and he goes on: now we're in the land of abuse of religion to coerce.
Religion opposes science sure - it's a problem and it's never right. What religion is actually about tho' is never in conflict. So I think his conclusion is childish and gives credence to bad religion.
I saw no reason at all in any of that hour long stating of the obvious, that challenges my point at all.
Negotiating social relationships bore the capacity for religious thought. As soon as humans developed the capacity they cogitated philosophical ideas. Scientists seek to dismiss philosophical ideas as irrelevant when all the evidence shows how it's central to the makeup of a human being.
