"We've evolved to be creationists"

[coberst]

“We’ve evolved to be creationists”

“We’ve evolved to be creationists” is a quote from the “The Atlantic Monthly” article “Is God an Accident?”—December 2005 issue.

Paul Bloom, author of the article, informs us that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”.

Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”--the title of the article.

I have just found the answer to a question that has baffled me for years. Why do non-believers love to talk religion? Perhaps talking about religion is much like ‘whistling past the cemetery’.

Everyone loves to talk religion because we are all born with the “gut feeling” that there is a body/mind duality. Because we “feel” that mind is a “spiritual” entity we easily accommodate heaven, soul, god etc.

Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?

[aeest400]

Agree with first half, disagree with second half. I think atheists like to talk about religion because they think it's simply false and it grates on them that so many people go around accepting it as truth. Just imagine the frustration, for example, of being among a group of people who believe the earth was flat. It's almost a personal affront. Give those people power, profound and mundane, and the situation creates genuine moral alarm among nonbelievers (and maybe believers as well if the situation were reversed). I think an offense to a sense of truth and radical disagreement over the nature of "the good" is much more powerful than a hypothetical instinct to "whistle past the graveyard" in motivating the fascination of nonbelievers about religion.

[Phil153]

I see it as a humanizing of nature and the unknown. As highly socialized creatures with a well developed Theory of Mind, we have a tendency for that to spill over into other areas. Hence, a person must cause the lightning and thunder. A human like creature controls the growing seasons, and can be petitioned with offerings. Diseases are caused by demons. The forests are full of the spirits of ancestors. And so on.

Westerners have been trained by science that most of the above beliefs are untrue, but continue to give a human face to that which is still mysterious.

It's an embarrassing failing of human reason and insight, whether of not some actual creative force exists in the universe.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
“We’ve evolved to be creationists”

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, evolution has plenty of kinks and dead-ends. Looks like you found another one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Lestat]

I don't know who Paul Bloom is, but I disagree with him. Humans are born with an evolutionary predisposition to "believe", period. The ability to take certain things on faith in a human's first few years of life, aids survival. Unfortunately, it can also lead to gullibility.

Non-believers like to talk about religion in order to educate people. We've got presidential candidates who can't get elected unless they admit to believing in invisible beings. We've got public schools that want to teach our children non-scientific and absurd theories like intelligent design. At least, this is why I talk about religion.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”--the title of the article.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fully 1/6th of more of the earth (over 1,000,000,000) people are non-believers. How can he claim this?

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”--the title of the article.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fully 1/6th of more of the earth (over 1,000,000,000) people are non-believers. How can he claim this?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you claim that?

[coberst]

When written history began five thousand years ago humans had already developed a great deal of knowledge. Much of that knowledge was of a very practical nature such as how to use animal skins for clothing, how to weave wool, how to hunt and fish etc. A large part of human knowledge was directed toward how to kill and torture fellow humans. I guess things never really change all that much.

In several parts of the world civilizations developed wherein people learned to create laws and to rule vast numbers of people. Some measure of peace and stability developed but there was yet no means for securing the people from their rulers. I guess things never really change all that much

Almost everywhere priests joined rulers in attempts to control the population. Despite these continual wars both of external and internal nature the human population managed to flourish. Egypt was probably one of the first long lasting and stable civilizations to grow up along the large rivers. Egypt survived almost unchanged for three thousand years. This success is attributed to its geographical location that gave it freedom from competition and fertile lands that were constantly replenished by the river overflowing its banks and thus depositing new fertile soil for farming.

Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”.

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/302/folkmeta.htm

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding.

[/ QUOTE ]

If, as skeptics, we properly presuppose that there is no pattern .. we'd have a tough time explaining the patterns on that basis. We seem to bump into pattern and system everyway we turn.
Quantum level actions are so baffling because the pattern isn't emerging, so it's not like we don't recognize non-pattern when it's there to see.

Yes, most patterns are extracted from reality by our way of perceiving but that doesn't mean the pattern isn't there at the level we are observing it. The issue is whether it is meaningful(variously), not whether there is a pattern.

[ QUOTE ]
Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

...because in basic social interaction and dealing with macro nature, they work. Time-tested in the evolutionary fire. The fact they don't fine-tune at every level or that they screw up a rarer occassion doesn't take away from their value. Modern life has outrun them and they cause more problems now than when they evolved.

luckyme

[Piers]

How about gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning working as they have evolved to do”.

I don’t disagree necessarily, just don’t see any problem.

[PantsOnFire]

It is hard to accept the unknown. That is what I believe is our predisposition. So when we are presented with an explanation for the unknown, we embrace it.

Every single religion and/or spiritual belief from Catholicism to Native Americans is an explanation for the unknown. They answer all the big questions: How did we get here, where do we go when we die, etc. They also answer the smaller questions like thuder and lighting, water dripping from the sky, the big orange ball that warms us, etc.

I have changed my predisposition, which was reinforced during my younger years, to now accept that some unknowns are simply unknown. I don't know what will happen to me when I die and I plan to delay knowing as long as possible.

When I look at all the different explanations for after death, I can only conclude that they all can't be correct. Therefore, I conclude that since some must be incorrect, they all may be incorrect. It may simply just be an end, a blackness with no further existance. I can accept that.

What I can't accept is someone who wants to prove me wrong. That frightens me.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the young child. Learning to walk, talk, even eat and definitely awkward in all earthly matters. This child is unable to exist without aid from family.

Why is this so? Aside from the triviality of him "growing up" what you are seeing is a human spirit/soul being becoming accustomed to the earthly realm. This being, used to the non sensible realm, is adjusting to what we call earth. He is working forthrightly in the growth of his bodies and has no need to debate that "other world" for it is a certainty for him. The progression into earthly matter then covers that world of which he is born out of, that of the spirit and soul worlds.

"Cognitive functioning gone awry" is silly.It appears that some day people will be labeled as mentally retarded and receive psychiatric treatment for any belief in that "other world". The worst is yet to come. OP's presentation is just a precursor to some really unbelievable happenings.

[Phil153]

I suppose the orangutan and kangaroo and baboon souls are getting used to the earthly realm too? They have periods of development and learning and awkwardness too. How about the cow souls? Do you eat meat?

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
“human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree completely. The 'predisposition' comes from indoctination at a very young age, usually before consciousness. The supernatural explanation arises from unanswerable/difficult to answer questions in conjuntion with egoism and frustration. Once the supernatural explanation has been established, it is passed down generationally.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose the orangutan and kangaroo and baboon souls are getting used to the earthly realm too? They have periods of development and learning and awkwardness too. How about the cow souls? Do you eat meat?


[/ QUOTE ]

One has to be careful when transposing from the human to the animal kingdom for they are different. It would carry the discussion too far to get into the "animal soul" or the animals of the earth. The real measure is to differentiate between animal and human, not to combine them in one's generalizations.

Yes, I eat meat, but am very much a "wanna be" vegetarian but my circumstances make this very difficult to accomplish entirely.

[Phil153]

The point I'm making is that in the case of animals, it's much easier to see that it's simple brain development causing the changes, and not some "soul getting used to earth".

Even if one believes in a soul, it's pretty obvious that what's going on in children is a long period of brain adaptation and neural wiring. It has nothing to do with their soul. People with damaged brains are pretty strong evidence of that.

You seem to be 100% certain that people have supernatural souls and that most things can be explained in terms of that. Have you considered human nature without those beliefs?

[RazzSpazz]

[ QUOTE ]
One has to be careful when transposing from the human to the animal kingdom for they are different.


[/ QUOTE ]

So humans aren't a part of the animal kingdom????

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

The point I'm making is that in the case of animals, it's much easier to see that it's simple brain development causing the changes, and not some "soul getting used to earth".

Even if one believes in a soul, it's pretty obvious that what's going on in children is a long period of brain adaptation and neural wiring. It has nothing to do with their soul. People with damaged brains are pretty strong evidence of that.

You seem to be 100% certain that people have supernatural souls and that most things can be explained in terms of that. Have you considered human nature without those beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm 100% certain but the way "belief" is used now days(something that can't be known absolutely-more like a wish fulfillment) I can't relate to that word in the manner in which it's usually used. It's also not a matter of considering the alternatives for this implies an uncertainty or really a lack of perception. It becomes a matter of experience for which one prepares oneself but these experiences can be appreciated and lived through by thoughts themselves which are of a spiritual reality.

As a perspective(not asking for "belief") the development of the human nervous system is also the external manifestation of soul/spiritual happenings. Look out into the world and realize that the sensible reality(sight,sound,taste,etc.) is the external manifestation of spiritual beings. No different than the child attempting to "fit into" this body which itself is also the external manifestation of spiritual beings.

The world rhythms, rotation of the earth, progression of the sun, changes of the seasons,etc., all offer the regularity which man obtains in his rational being. In this, science, as known today, does its work but the placing of material matter as first and last is terribly unclear and in fact erroneous if thought through in all of its ramifications.These rhythms are the consequence of thought full beings who care deeply for the re creation of Man in his earthly work.

It's a lot, I know, and can throw one off his "pinions" but one can understand the logic in the presentation even if the critical intellect obstructs and "denies" the work. I suppose its about premises if we're speaking logically but there is substance to what I'm saying which is not an opinion.

I don't believe I've done justice to this reality for the "external manifestation" stuff is hard to take. Best to consider yourself as this being that "carries his body" through the doorway rather than "I walk through the doorway". Your body is also external to your soul/spiritual being. the great religions call the body the 'temple" given to them but not them. The "temple of the body".

Oh yes, if one considers human nature in the manner of your presentation one finds "oblivion". It, in and of itself, leads to an "awakening".

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So humans aren't a part of the animal kingdom????

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if in a biology class the professor may call humans as part of the animal kingdom. I believe it was Linnaeus via Aristotle who presented these catagories which are really a product of a certain type of thought.

But none the less, seeing the differences between animal s and Man would be a fruitful method of understanding both kingdoms.

But NO, humans cannot be considered a part of the animal kingdom.

[Archon_Wing]

OP,

I think humans have very nice imaginations, but it sometimes gets confused with reality. Of course, imagination is a great thing; that is why we have so many great artistic and literary works.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So humans aren't a part of the animal kingdom????

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if in a biology class the professor may call humans as part of the animal kingdom. I believe it was Linnaeus via Aristotle who presented these catagories which are really a product of a certain type of thought.

But none the less, seeing the differences between animal s and Man would be a fruitful method of understanding both kingdoms.

But NO, humans cannot be considered a part of the animal kingdom.

[/ QUOTE ]

How old is the earth Carlos?

Never mind...

[Lestat]

So without the body to receive physical signals of sight, sound, feel, smell, and taste, what exactly is the "soul" experiencing when the body is no longer available? For that matter, where do you suppose the soul goes to exist without the body?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”--the title of the article.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fully 1/6th of more of the earth (over 1,000,000,000) people are non-believers. How can he claim this?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you claim that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever hear of google?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So without the body to receive physical signals of sight, sound, feel, smell, and taste, what exactly is the "soul" experiencing when the body is no longer available? For that matter, where do you suppose the soul goes to exist without the body?


[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it right, the soul senses what the body brings to it via the senses. In the understanding I'm presenting it's called the "sentient soul". But the soul is tripartite as there is also the "intellectual soul" and "consciousness soul". So the soul is involved with more than just "sensing" the world.

Of course, the concept of "non materiality" is difficult but such is the soul. Upon death the soul enters a "life"(wish there were a better word) in the soul/spiritual realms where these beings I spoke of involved with earthly creation abode. The human soul travels through different realms which are related to and recreate the soul for his present/future being.

This passage through the "heavens" if you will, takes generally 900-1000 years until the soul's next earthly incarnation. There is much to be said concerning this realm but it is not a realm of passivity but is the realm where the great heavenly works are planned and created. The soul/spiritual being of man works here too and of course the consciousness is not related to the earthly physical body. You've been there but the veil of earthly matter denies your memory of the same.

The human soul/spiritual being is "born into the spirit" at death and "dies to the spirit at birth". The "sensing" is obviously not through the earthly physical body but experiences come to the soul in this world through "sensing" that is germane to this realm.One way to imagine the supersensible realm is to consider the color blue. One can see the "blue" but there is also an experience of "blue" which lives without sight. These beings present themselves to the human soul in a "color like" way but of course there is no color to see for you no longer have eyes.

By the way, the earth is as old as you want it to be /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the young child. Learning to walk, talk, even eat and definitely awkward in all earthly matters. This child is unable to exist without aid from family.

Why is this so? Aside from the triviality of him "growing up" what you are seeing is a human spirit/soul being becoming accustomed to the earthly realm. This being, used to the non sensible realm, is adjusting to what we call earth. He is working forthrightly in the growth of his bodies and has no need to debate that "other world" for it is a certainty for him. The progression into earthly matter then covers that world of which he is born out of, that of the spirit and soul worlds.

"Cognitive functioning gone awry" is silly.It appears that some day people will be labeled as mentally retarded and receive psychiatric treatment for any belief in that "other world". The worst is yet to come. OP's presentation is just a precursor to some really unbelievable happenings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that silly? You make it seem like this is the only example of evolutionary wiring gone awry. Its clearly not. We were designed to function best in an environment far different from the one we find ourselves in. Even were we in the correct environment, its entirely possible there would be inappropriate artifacts or misapplications of general systems. Its simply economic. Its easier to develop a system that works generally well but has some glitches than develop many, many more specific, more accurate systems, all to solve the same general problems.

Please forgive my liberal use of terms.

[Brenner Hayes]

[ QUOTE ]
This passage through the "heavens" if you will, takes generally 900-1000 years until the soul's next earthly incarnation.

[/ QUOTE ] C'mon, anyone with a brain knows that this passage takes precisely 1673-2118 years. (For those who don't know, it involves a complex equation which factors in your your earthly body's weight was in kilograms on the day you died along with your high score on Super Mario Brothers.)

Carlo, if you wonder why non-believers care so much about religion, it's because there are so many people like you who firmly believe in ideas without a shred of evidence. Your ideas may be somewhat benign, but many religious ideas are not. Such as:
-Anyone who draws a cartoon of our deity needs to be killed.
-Gay people can't have marriage rights because my god told me so.
-You can't experiment with stem cells and possibly cure numerous diseases because my god said so.

I could go on and on with this list and yes, it would include numerous items that directly and indirectly affect my life negatively. I don't tend to ignore people and ideas that negatively affect my life. Should I?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree completely. The 'predisposition' comes from indoctination at a very young age, usually before consciousness. The supernatural explanation arises from unanswerable/difficult to answer questions in conjuntion with egoism and frustration. Once the supernatural explanation has been established, it is passed down generationally.


[/ QUOTE ]

To what extent do you deny the biological component in ghost hallucinations or alien abduction fantasies? I think you're being overly dismissive just because you have a counterbalancing idea. You're better than that!

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that silly? You make it seem like this is the only example of evolutionary wiring gone awry. Its clearly not. We were designed to function best in an environment far different from the one we find ourselves in. Even were we in the correct environment, its entirely possible there would be inappropriate artifacts or misapplications of general systems. Its simply economic. Its easier to develop a system that works generally well but has some glitches than develop many, many more specific, more accurate systems, all to solve the same general problems.

Please forgive my liberal use of terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's silly because its weak and should be seen through. "Cognitive function gone awry" is just another euphemism for "aberrational thinking", "miscreant behavior", and of course the step to "psychotic disorder" perhaps via neurosis.

We could both stand here and say that in no way will people be treated for believing in the afterlife-it just couldn't happen. A church synod of 869 A.D. basically outlawed the spirit and stated that man consists of body and soul with the soul containing some spiritual qualities. It seems much to do about nothing but there is a difference between soul and spirit and this loss affected our educational system from that time. Those black robes you wear at graduation are compliments of that very church many denigrate at this time.

Now to this time. There are those who deny the soul and therefore leave man to his physical body only. This comes out of the modern scientific exegesis and it has power. You would think that the elimination of the soul in understanding the world would have little effect but it is a concrete step into the reality of treating a person for believing in the soul or afterlife.

Remember, this is a man(gone awry) who is saying that all of mankind's history is for naught and he implies or states that not only is it aberrational but he has the right way. This is a power thing, not science, but the use of science as a power formula.

At the very least, is an illness aberrational? Understanding that illness and health are two poles of the life of mankind and both are relevant and true. As a physician one can usually define an illness and good health. When one approaches the world of thought and thinking and declares a perspective pathological one has to sit back and take in that breath of fresh air. This "cognitive thought gone awry" is too easy. No work involved,it passes through human beings like air through a window screen. But it has effects and the effects are destructive .

Don't like to crash into a Jeremiah but that very world which he is in denial of gives grace, love , and charity to mankind without condition and in this we find our worth.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon, anyone with a brain knows that this passage takes precisely 1673-2118 years. (For those who don't know, it involves a complex equation which factors in your your earthly body's weight was in kilograms on the day you died along with your high score on Super Mario Brothers.)

Carlo, if you wonder why non-believers care so much about religion, it's because there are so many people like you who firmly believe in ideas without a shred of evidence. Your ideas may be somewhat benign, but many religious ideas are not. Such as:
-Anyone who draws a cartoon of our deity needs to be killed.
-Gay people can't have marriage rights because my god told me so.
-You can't experiment with stem cells and possibly cure numerous diseases because my god said so.

I could go on and on with this list and yes, it would include numerous items that directly and indirectly affect my life negatively. I don't tend to ignore people and ideas that negatively affect my life. Should I?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about politics. The world is full of movements that can affect our lives. You don't have to go very far to see that. Perhaps the difficulty is(as far as religion goes) that those in power of these various sects are not as forgiving as we would like nor show the compassion needed for a forthright life. That's true but as one of those held in contempt it is possible to still present the best that one has within this world.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is that silly? You make it seem like this is the only example of evolutionary wiring gone awry. Its clearly not. We were designed to function best in an environment far different from the one we find ourselves in. Even were we in the correct environment, its entirely possible there would be inappropriate artifacts or misapplications of general systems. Its simply economic. Its easier to develop a system that works generally well but has some glitches than develop many, many more specific, more accurate systems, all to solve the same general problems.

Please forgive my liberal use of terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's silly because its weak and should be seen through. "Cognitive function gone awry" is just another euphemism for "aberrational thinking", "miscreant behavior", and of course the step to "psychotic disorder" perhaps via neurosis.

We could both stand here and say that in no way will people be treated for believing in the afterlife-it just couldn't happen. A church synod of 869 A.D. basically outlawed the spirit and stated that man consists of body and soul with the soul containing some spiritual qualities. It seems much to do about nothing but there is a difference between soul and spirit and this loss affected our educational system from that time. Those black robes you wear at graduation are compliments of that very church many denigrate at this time.

Now to this time. There are those who deny the soul and therefore leave man to his physical body only. This comes out of the modern scientific exegesis and it has power. You would think that the elimination of the soul in understanding the world would have little effect but it is a concrete step into the reality of treating a person for believing in the soul or afterlife.

Remember, this is a man(gone awry) who is saying that all of mankind's history is for naught and he implies or states that not only is it aberrational but he has the right way. This is a power thing, not science, but the use of science as a power formula.

At the very least, is an illness aberrational? Understanding that illness and health are two poles of the life of mankind and both are relevant and true. As a physician one can usually define an illness and good health. When one approaches the world of thought and thinking and declares a perspective pathological one has to sit back and take in that breath of fresh air. This "cognitive thought gone awry" is too easy. No work involved,it passes through human beings like air through a window screen. But it has effects and the effects are destructive .

Don't like to crash into a Jeremiah but that very world which he is in denial of gives grace, love , and charity to mankind without condition and in this we find our worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that Slippery Slope Alarmism>Truth?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that Slippery Slope Alarmism>Truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being silly now. I stand by what I said. The dismissive attitude you're now presenting ends this post and offers nothing. I wish you well. By the way i don't believe that many will be alarmed by my presentation(nor am I) for the truth is always the arbiter of reality.

I guess the use of Jeremiah triggered your movement off point. I probably had it wrong for what I wrote took mental effort and I did want to get it "just right". So what I was feeling was "a terse effort of thought" and I shouldn't have confused it with fear.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what you are saying is that Slippery Slope Alarmism>Truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being silly now. I stand by what I said. The dismissive attitude you're now presenting ends this post and offers nothing. I wish you well. By the way i don't believe that many will be alarmed by my presentation(nor am I) for the truth is always the arbiter of reality.

I guess the use of Jeremiah triggered your movement off point. I probably had it wrong for what I wrote took mental effort and I did want to get it "just right". So what I was feeling was "a terse effort of thought" and I shouldn't have confused it with fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be making some alarmist argument that by referring to this as something 'gone awry' we are just a step away from locking up all believers. Thats ridiculous. Optical illusions are wiring gone awry, and no harm comes to those buying Magic Eye paintings. I'm sure, as usual, you have some point that the rest of us humans are unable to see, but I've little hope in the chances of you conveying it to any of us.

[Sephus]

lol you guys are arguing with carlo.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
lol you guys are arguing with carlo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always tell myself I won't. But in general I don't bother looking to see who is making the posts (although its usually obvious) and even when I do, I really just can't ever resist. I'd be the worst fish of all time.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol you guys are arguing with carlo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always tell myself I won't. But in general I don't bother looking to see who is making the posts (although its usually obvious) and even when I do, I really just can't ever resist. I'd be the worst fish of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a general thought pattern you run into in the heavyduty spirit world guys. My best friends brother could well be carlo, for example, so it helps in those social situation if you've been exposed to it. Also, it's good practice every so often in case you're accosted by one of the white robed guys on the corner at the art gallery.

luckyme

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
lol you guys are arguing with carlo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, Carlo must know what he is talking about with his margin for error:
[ QUOTE ]
This passage through the "heavens" if you will, takes generally 900-1000 years until the soul's next earthly incarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not vouch for this level of accuracy, myself. Give the dude a chance, he must get his knowledge from somewhere! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol you guys are arguing with carlo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, Carlo must know what he is talking about with his margin for error:
[ QUOTE ]
This passage through the "heavens" if you will, takes generally 900-1000 years until the soul's next earthly incarnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not vouch for this level of accuracy, myself. Give the dude a chance, he must get his knowledge from somewhere! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Often before I enter a discussion with a theist or a spiritworld'er I'll write a little note and slip it under the napkin. I write, "this discussion will end with you claiming special knowledge and/or powers that you can't demonstrate."

luckyme

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
napkin

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a flaw in an atheist's debating/discussion skills or the natural consequence of subjecting their belief to rationality? Food for thought.

[Lestat]

So you imagine the soul as having consciousness with the ability to think, without any way to physically see, touch, hear, smell, taste, oh... Or talk. That sounds worse than any earthly punishment of solitary confinement.

It's interesting how you can be so precise about all these intricate details while being 100% certain they are correct over all other religious theories and imaginings. That's a pretty big head you got there Carlo. Are you getting this stuff from some cult, or is it your own blend that you've made up along the way?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
So you imagine the soul as having consciousness with the ability to think, without any way to physically see, touch, hear, smell, taste, oh... Or talk. That sounds worse than any earthly punishment of solitary confinement.

It's interesting how you can be so precise about all these intricate details while being 100% certain they are correct over all other religious theories and imaginings. That's a pretty big head you got there. Are you getting this stuff from some cult, or is it your own blend that you've made up along the way?


[/ QUOTE ]

On more than one occasion I've mentioned Anthroposophy and Rudolph Steiner. A society for investigation of the spirit and much to the chagrin of others on a previous post the investigation is called spiritual science. I know Midge knows my history /images/graemlins/grin.gif.( by the way Midge, 900-1000 years is general and not fixed in stone for the time varies dependent up[on the needs of the individual and mankind) Not a cult, not a religion, people via meditative thought studying and researching that world of the spirit and relating it to our earth bound consciousness.

Rudolph Steiner Archive- http://www.rsarchive.org/ has some books(lectures and books) which can be downloaded or read online. Not trying to proselytize here but can't see how or why I shouldn't place it face forward.

Recommended

1) If intellectually inclined as most are now days--"Philosophy of Freedom" translated by Michael Wilson

2) "Theosophy"-good starter book which discuss those areas of the soul/spirit.

3) "Outline of Occult Science"--for a beginner quite challenging but doable.

4) "Knowledge of Higher Worlds and It's Attainment"-Instructions in meditation within a conscious state.

5) "Christianity as a Mystical Fact"-Places Christianity in historical perspective within previous mysteries.

The above are the "basic books" and study can go from there. I believe that #5 was recently added to the basic readings and it is interesting.

By the way, you won't find an Anthroposophist standing on the street corner in white robes(not a chance in hell-oops, is there such a place? /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, you won't find an Anthroposophist standing on the street corner in white robes(not a chance in hell-oops, is there such a place?

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment related to the general form and nature of the argument one will hear, not their physical look or their map coordinates.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
napkin

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a flaw in an atheist's debating/discussion skills or the natural consequence of subjecting their belief to rationality? Food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a natural consequence of a theists/spiritualists belief that they have reasons for believing that could convince a fair and objective listener ( not necessarily me, just an abstract entity with those qualities).

It's not a consequence of their having a belief. It's that they think that if they sit down and started over with a clean slate they can show how they must believe what they believe.

At some point in that explanation they will make either a special powers claim or a exclusive knowledge claim that they can't share... contrary to what they expected at the start of lunch. It's not a matter of whether they have these powers or knowledge it's just that they don't start the conversation claiming them, in fact they would usually deny they'll even do it if you asked at the beginning, "are you going to make any special power or exclusive knowledge claims?" they'd say, "no".
hmmm...I need to figure out a way to get a free lunch out of my predictive napkins, because sometimes I do start with that question.

To the first part of your question - it seems like it's a plus for the questioner/listener since he brings out an aspect that the believer wasn't aware was a necessary part of his presentation/claim/argument. No harm to the believer, it wears off in a few hours, and it gives me a bit of entertainment.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
napkin

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a flaw in an atheist's debating/discussion skills or the natural consequence of subjecting their belief to rationality? Food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always pick "flaw in my approach" although I don't really know or care if I'm right. Gives me something to work at, which is sort of the whole point.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
napkin

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a flaw in an atheist's debating/discussion skills or the natural consequence of subjecting their belief to rationality? Food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always pick "flaw in my approach" although I don't really know or care if I'm right. Gives me something to work at, which is sort of the whole point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how bringing a major factor in another persons position out into the open is a detriment to an exchange. What am I misunderstanding here?

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
napkin

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a flaw in an atheist's debating/discussion skills or the natural consequence of subjecting their belief to rationality? Food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always pick "flaw in my approach" although I don't really know or care if I'm right. Gives me something to work at, which is sort of the whole point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how bringing a major factor in another persons position out into the open is a detriment to an exchange. What am I misunderstanding here?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean it exactly like that, was just choosing the best of the two options he gave me. I guess what I meant was that if the argument gets hung up on the same point every single time I argue with a theist, then I'm not learning anything. Crafting my approach in such a way as to avoid coming to this impasse, or at least to approach it from a unique angle from time to time, is more beneficial TO ME. I guess that is making the assumption that its an impasse, whereas that isn't what you are saying.

Let me be more specific. I do almost the exact same thing as your napkin trick, although I don't bother writing it down (the people I speak with probably would think this was condescending, most of them I'm not close friends with). So, rather than try to bait them into it, I try to prevent them from getting there, because the 'there' is this place where they make special pleas. The more we can discuss before getting there, the better job I've done in 'controlling the discussion.'

[luckyme]

I'll try to be clearer also.
In exploring things I like to get as much on the table as possible as soon as possible, especially the possible roadblocks. So, it's not unusual for me to enter this discussions with -
"just to be clear, I am very skeptical of supernatural claims and I can't be persuaded of something just by somebody claiming special powers or exclusive knowledge."
" I don't claim any" is the typical reply.
quick scribble on my napkin and we're off.

[ QUOTE ]
So, rather than try to bait them into it, I try to prevent them from getting there, because the 'there' is this place where they make special pleas. The more we can discuss before getting there, the better job I've done in 'controlling the discussion.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Different discussions have different objectives. It's not a matter of baiting most of them. If you're going to discuss walking with someone, the sooner he can admit that his feet DO touch the ground the better. If you want to discuss the pleasure he derives from the brisk air and the aerobic effect it's not so critical to hit the ground-foot contact requirement as early. But it is a key factor in walking.

luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
My comment related to the general form and nature of the argument one will hear, not their physical look or their map coordinates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reply is dismissive and disingenuous, an escape into balderdash. You are telling people that you know how to handle theists but all you've done is put on armour which you will not allow anything to pierce.

What you are saying is that you know what you know and if another doesn't give what you know then end of story. It is Ok to be impervious to thoughts which are not yours but to make statements that this debunks a work is specious.

By the way, no special powers hidden from you, which makes your paradigm trivial.

Tell me, is autofellatio a hereditary trait or is it the result of random mutation?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply is dismissive and disingenuous, an escape into balderdash. You are telling people that you know how to handle theists but all you've done is put on armour which you will not allow anything to pierce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't subscribe to the claim that all ideas are worthy of respect. If that's dismissive, hokay. I don't beg that quarter for mine, shoot holes in them at will.
Having a solipsist for a best friend, I'm not too concerned with armor thickness though.

luckyme

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
by the way Midge, 900-1000 years is general and not fixed in stone for the time varies dependent up[on the needs of the individual and mankind

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. I'll bite. Tell me what evidence you have that it is so "in general". Can't wait to hear the justification for this one! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Or is it the same than all your claims, if Rudolph Steiner said so, it must be true.

BTW, adding "in general" to your claim hardly makes it more credible! Pure balderdash, it is, as you would say.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
by the way Midge, 900-1000 years is general and not fixed in stone for the time varies dependent up[on the needs of the individual and mankind


"
OK. I'll bite. Tell me what evidence you have that it is so "in general". Can't wait to hear the justification for this one! Or is it the same than all your claims, if Rudolph Steiner said so, it must be true.

BTW, adding "in general" to your claim hardly makes it more credible! Pure balderdash, it is, as you would say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can appreciate what you're saying, Midge, but we all learn from others and of course can do our own creative thinking which is rarer than one would expect.

My posts concerning reincarnation and karma are motivated to display that if there is some consideration of this matter that it too has an "outline or body" of understanding which can be appreciated.Within this 'premise", if you will, the presentation will be logically sound and transparently clear.

OK back to the "general". A human being reincarnates when the earth presents itself anew relative to his previous incarnation. In the earths movement vis a vis the sun the sun moves through the heavens through the zodiacal signs every 25,920 years. This is to say that at the spring equinox the sun rises in a particular sign(now Pisces) and in its movement continues through this sign in a period of 2160 years. I believe in Hindu terminology this is called "The Days of Brahmin"(25,920 years). So you'll have to give the fact that the earth "changes its countenance" every 2160 years and in this fact a human being can reincarnate for he will see a "new earth" in which he can fulfill his destiny without having to repeat the "old". Please do not consider this "new earth" as a complete change of physicality as the changes are subtle but powerfully present(this is our first jump).

Now the human being gains qualities at each incarnation which are transformative to his whole being. When you were a child you learned to write which was slowly done but now little thought is given to writing your name.You have gained the "quality of writing" which has left your conscious sense and you will write your name in a more spontaneous way. One of the qualities a man can develop during a lifetime may be "compassion". It is important to know that one can express this "compassion" in particular circumstances but the "compassionate exegesis" is not picked up like bread from the grocery store.
The quality builds and can come to expression through many lifetimes and of course many circumstances. In this man is re-created.

Karma is related to ties from previous lives which are worked through in harmony with others or circumstances themselves. In this man deals with the past also. Future and past are man's lot and reincarnation and karma is his boon to confirm his being.

Back to the 2160 years. Using only this as a guideline each human being should reincarnate each 2160 years. But he "generally" incarnates one half of that as he will incarnate as a woman and a man during this time and that gives q 1080 years between incarnations. To enter into a specific gender is also like coming to the changed earth.

There is more.A human being garners many karmic relics during these lifetimes and may indeed incarnate after 600 years for example. the time between lives is NOT FIXED for it is truly a function of the particular needs of the individual and the needs of mankind as a whole. Great leaders of mankind may well incarnate in 200 years in order to being their benefits to man. Humans may also incarnate in 200 years because of the inability to complete their work appropriately.

One can incarnate 5 lifetimes in a row as a man for this again, is individually manifested. Believe it or not, each human being is an active participant in his movement through the lifetimes in his great desire to become re created.

The above is a "shell" of realities unseen through the senses. Yes, there are "helpers" in man's journeys as well as "hinderers". It can literally take your breath away but not to worry, logic is not lost in this work nor is it the final arbiter of understanding. Of course the story gets bigger. Have to stop, should be enough to digest.

Many of the questions posted on this forum really speak to reincarnation and karma for the questions cannot really be adequately approached without taking into consideration the same. No secrets, no cult, no religion,no giving one's self up to a higher authority is the field of the anthroposophist who attempts to "experience" this understanding but certainly not see knowledge as something to be picked up as a tomatoe at the supermarket.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
..an do our own creative thinking which is rarer than one would expect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we can be thankful for that, since creative thinking based on fiction is only fiction of itself.

Your entire lengthy post contains nothing but a very few innocuous statements of facts, on which you base an entire theory of balderdash without citing a simple point of evidence in support.

In most adults there come a point in time when they can distinguish between fantasy and reality. It seems that you have not reached that point yet. Ah well, you will require many more re-incarnations, according to your unsubstantiated beliefs. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
n most adults there come a point in time when they can distinguish between fantasy and reality. It seems that you have not reached that point yet. Ah well, you will require many more re-incarnations, according to your unsubstantiated beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, Mickey and Minnie /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Phil153]

I'm constantly disappointed by believers. When I see them making fantastic claims, I often hope that their beliefs are based on personal experiences filtered through an intelligent mind. The world would be richer if something like reincarnation or a spiritual plane existed.

But then I run into things like this:

In the earths movement vis a vis the sun the sun moves through the heavens through the zodiacal signs every 25,920 years. This is to say that at the spring equinox the sun rises in a particular sign(now Pisces) and in its movement continues through this sign in a period of 2160 years. So you'll have to give the fact that the earth "changes its countenance" every 2160 years and in this fact a human being can reincarnate for he will see a "new earth" in which he can fulfill his destiny without having to repeat the "old".

An intelligent man would wonder what the rotation of the Earth around the sun could possibly have to do with the rebirth of an eternal soul, and he would recognize that concepts of new and old destinies based on the seasons of the Earth are nothing more than sympathetic magic from the ignorant of centuries past. The slightest bit of psychology will help you see that.

Sadly, they do not. It's possible to have a belief in a God or a soul or reincarnation that is consistent with basic reason and an understanding of structure, but I've never met one believer who has it. It's not encouraging.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
n most adults there come a point in time when they can distinguish between fantasy and reality. It seems that you have not reached that point yet. Ah well, you will require many more re-incarnations, according to your unsubstantiated beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]



LOL, Mickey and Minnie /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

by the way Midge, 900-1000 years is general and not fixed in stone for the time varies dependent up[on the needs of the individual and mankind



[/ QUOTE ]



OK. I'll bite. Tell me what evidence you have that it is so "in general". Can't wait to hear the justification for this one! Or is it the same than all your claims, if Rudolph Steiner said so, it must be true.

BTW, adding "in general" to your claim hardly makes it more credible! Pure balderdash, it is, as you would say.



[/ QUOTE ]

So, "LOL, Mickie and Minnie" is your answer to my question [Tell me what evidence you have ]??

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm constantly disappointed by believers. When I see them making fantastic claims, I often hope that their beliefs are based on personal experiences filtered through an intelligent mind. The world would be richer if something like reincarnation or a spiritual plane existed.

But then I run into things like this:

In the earths movement vis a vis the sun the sun moves through the heavens through the zodiacal signs every 25,920 years. This is to say that at the spring equinox the sun rises in a particular sign(now Pisces) and in its movement continues through this sign in a period of 2160 years. So you'll have to give the fact that the earth "changes its countenance" every 2160 years and in this fact a human being can reincarnate for he will see a "new earth" in which he can fulfill his destiny without having to repeat the "old".

An intelligent man would wonder what the rotation of the Earth around the sun could possibly have to do with the rebirth of an eternal soul, and he would recognize that concepts of new and old destinies based on the seasons of the Earth are nothing more than sympathetic magic from the ignorant of centuries past. The slightest bit of psychology will help you see that.

Sadly, they do not. It's possible to have a belief in a God or a soul or reincarnation that is consistent with basic reason and an understanding of structure, but I've never met one believer who has it. It's not encouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes down to the universe/earth being alive and man being a part of/copy of this very universe. All is connected and Man's soul state is a revelation of these connections.
The idea of "Made in the Image of God" is relevant .

You might think that rationality mandates that traveling through the universe is a nullity, an abstraction, no more than the bending of a gravitational force but no more. This only means that the "observer" intellect has disassociated itself from the earth, worlds and universe. Man sits outside this creative work but definitely not a part of thereof.

A rational intellect would consider himself a "part of" this creative happening and not disassociate himself from its works in body ,soul and spirit.

If you travel from New York to Florida there is no doubt that there are differences between the geographical locations which of course primarily manifest in the weather. Go between the USA and China and the differences become more apparent, not only the weather. Walk into a room full of high-minded people. Is this different than going to a baseball game? Can you sense the difference other than the noise levels? Is the experience of the Parthenon different that a Gothic Church? Is the only way you can see the difference is that one must chip off a piece of each structure and examine it under a microscope?

Do you really BELIEVE that as the sun travels through the universe that the background of stars, planets and space is no more than an inert background for you to do your thinking?

I have another for you. Man, on average, takes 18 breaths per minute. Total breaths per hour equals 1080(60*18) breaths per hour. Total breaths per day equals 25,920(1080*24) breaths per day.

Oh NOOOOOOO!!! Did it again! 25,920 yipes!!

The numbers are really only from an earthly perspective but they point to an underlying creation that posits life, not obtunded obtuseness.