Does God exist? (10 Viewers)

[ClockworkSoldier]

We have a true knack for derailing threads totally off subject.

And it's completely unintentional

 

[Hajime]

We have a true knack for derailing threads totally off subject.

And it's completely unintentional

Lol!!! Definately fun though!

 

[advanced sam]

ugh... and it keeps on going

 

[Hajime]

Well, duh... We don't drag threads off subject for no reason... Geez... You should try learning to do that sometime!

 

[veloc1ty]

Gtfo of this thread.

To make it sort of on-topic again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html

Interesting article. For those lazy, here's a pertinent part:

The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency.

The experiments also highlight the difference between asking people whether they still believe a falsehood immediately after giving them the correct information, and asking them a few days later. Long-term memories matter most in public health campaigns or political ones, and they are the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true.

The experiments do not show that denials are completely useless; if that were true, everyone would believe the myths. But the mind's bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.

The research also highlights the disturbing reality that once an idea has been implanted in people's minds, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information, which may be one reason they can paradoxically reinforce it.

Indeed, repetition seems to be a key culprit. Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain's subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true.

While the experiment was applied to small myths, it's clear that this could also be applicable to larger delusions... say, religion? Perhaps those who give up arguing with people have it right; repetition just makes the denial stronger.

 

[Hajime]

Gtfo of this thread.

To make it sort of on-topic again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933_pf.html

Interesting article. For those lazy, here's a pertinent part:


While the experiment was applied to small myths, it's clear that this could also be applicable to larger delusions... say, religion? Perhaps those who give up arguing with people have it right; repetition just makes the denial stronger.

Thanks for providing the lazy bit. Well, I don't believe in any religion(I'm not closed minded, just not a believer...) but I have no problems with those that do... If you really ask me, I've worked out my version of the meaning of life, so I couldn't care about anything else...

 

[tommykins]

veloc1ty - but it can also be applicable to those that theists consider as 'delusioned' by not believing in God.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

I'm with Hajime. I respect religion. One thing I don't like is the preachers who try and force God down your throat. Don't try and change someones beliefs because you think yours are better, respect their view and allow them to do what they do.

 

[Hajime]

I'm with Hajime. I respect religion. One thing I don't like is the preachers who try and force God down your throat. Don't try and change someones beliefs because you think yours are better, respect their view and allow them to do what they do.

Here, Here! Well said, Aus!

 

[veloc1ty]

Hajime, AusBluesMan: Cool. What are you doing in this thread?

tommykins: Yeah, it works both ways. It's problematic for structuring arguments though (if you read the whole article). Something like "Evolution does not mean we evolved from monkeys, it means we share a common ancestor" might provide sense to a creationist that minute, but in a day they will just remember affirmation of the myth.

 

[ClockworkSoldier]

Hajime, AusBluesMan: Cool. What are you doing in this thread?

Entertaining myself and waiting for a point I want to respond to.

 

[Hajime]

Yeah, But if you read back, there are a lot of theories that people put forward... Mile Edgeworth's theory about the two being put together, etc. I'm sorry, I just wanted to sound like I noticed something that noone else noticed.

 

[tommykins]

Hajime, AusBluesMan: Cool. What are you doing in this thread?

tommykins: Yeah, it works both ways. It's problematic for structuring arguments though (if you read the whole article). Something like "Evolution does not mean we evolved from monkeys, it means we share a common ancestor" might provide sense to a creationist that minute, but in a day they will just remember affirmation of the myth.

I agree, it's human nature to grasp onto smoething we believe and refuse to let go of the belief we've held for so long.

I am pretty much towards the there is absolutely no kind of omnipotent 'God' existing today. If God is the force that created the universe or what not, I'd say there is a God but for now, giving attributes to this 'creator' is what puts me off.

If I was to encounter something...'miraculous' or 'supernatural', I'd admit I'd go out of my way to review every possible scenario or explanation before I point it to 'God did it'.

I wish I still had scripture, wouldn't been more fun. I g uess they let us do it during younger yeasr (8-9) because we wouldn't be knowledgable on the topic and hence couldn't provide a solid argument.

 

[moll.]

veloc1ty - but it can also be applicable to those that theists consider as 'delusioned' by not believing in God.

Oi Tommy, it doesn't really.

But the mind's bias does affect many people, especially those who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts.

Most atheists have invested the time and effort to find out the scientific facts behind their beliefs. Granted, not all have. But probably a far greater percentage than theist.

 

[Hajime]

Hajime, AusBluesMan: Cool. What are you doing in this thread?

tommykins: Yeah, it works both ways. It's problematic for structuring arguments though (if you read the whole article). Something like "Evolution does not mean we evolved from monkeys, it means we share a common ancestor" might provide sense to a creationist that minute, but in a day they will just remember affirmation of the myth.

Well, discussing random stuff like everyone does in this forum...

 

[tommykins]

Oi Tommy, it doesn't really.


Most atheists have invested the time and effort to find out the scientific facts behind their beliefs. Granted, not all have. But probably a far greater percentage than theist.

I know that, but I was referring to the theists POV as 'facts'.

They deem their 'bible' and have other reasons to believe their view have 'facts' (ie. the inability to prove a negative) leads to their religion being 'right'.

 

[Hajime]

Did you not pick up Ausman's point? We shouldn't be forcing our beliefs! We are not really better than them...
.

 

[moll.]

Fair enough.

 

[Hajime]

Fair enough.

What next?

 

[reh]

lets get drunk n watch porn