PeterJ Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 I am from Australia and was watching 'Compass' on 29 July when they aired a program from the BBC Horizons show about Neurotheology and Evolution of God. link for proof: http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/openurl?link...l&Go.x=6&Go.y=4 This program basically says that religious experiences are caused by the effect of magnetic fields (which can be caused by anything from overhead powerlines to a clockradio) on the temporal lobes in the brain and this creates 'religious sensation' as most people describe it. It also mentions that many of the worlds religious leaders might have TLE or Temporal Lobe Epilepsy in lamens terms it means their temporal lobe is hypersensitive and these magnetic field induced hallucinations would be far more powerful that the average feeling. Finally it states that some areas of the brain during a religious experience almost shut down (our centre of time and space) for example while other areas increase activity. They looked at this and the idea that religious people live longer and healthier and came to the conclusion that we may have evolved this type of thing to believe in God or Religion. So there you have it. Evidence that we created God as an evoluionary survival mechanism and that religious experiences are fake hallucionations induced by magnetic fields. Once again heres that link http://www.bbc.co.uk/apps/ifl/openurl?link...l&Go.x=6&Go.y=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 sigh... this is going to go nowhere fast. Arguments about religion are never winnable. Simply because of the nature of the preconceptions involved. Example: An athiest's may base his argument on the assumption that facts can prove or disprove anything. A person of religious beliefs might base their arguement entirely on the fact that it is what they believe. You can't argue against that because there is no common ground to stand on for either side to start a structured argument. In order to have an argument you MUST have that base or else the entire structure crubmles. No ammount of "facts" will ever change someone's mind on a religious debate no matter how hard you try just as it won't matter how much you believe in something to an athiest. It's one of the reasons I don't ever get involved in a debate about abortion; it always turns into a religous debate and you can't win that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 It's perfectly winnable. You just have to have people who can look at the facts rationally and not be blinded by their assumptions. An athiest's may base his argument on the assumption that facts can prove or disprove anything. Facts CAN prove or disprove anything. If you refuse to accept facts that prove you wrong, you're just stubbornly denying the truth. You're wrong, even if you won't accept it. And note that allowing facts to decide the issue doesn't inevitably mean defeat for religion. If the religious side can present FACTS that show the truth of their side (not just wishful thinking), then they win the argument. It's as simple as that... if there's a god, present the proof and the argument is over. A person of religious beliefs might base their arguement entirely on the fact that it is what they believe. Then it's not a debate. Saying "I think" is not acceptable evidence in ANY form of debate (unless you're "debating" favorite colors or something like that). Why should there be any acception to the facts requirement just for religion? You can't argue against that because there is no common ground to stand on for either side to start a structured argument. In order to have an argument you MUST have that base or else the entire structure crubmles And guess what the rules of debating provide. If you can't address the issue with facts, then don't debate. It's that simple. No ammount of "facts" will ever change someone's mind on a religious debate no matter how hard you try just as it won't matter how much you believe in something to an athiest. Note the key point: belief =/= facts. You can say you believe in god, zeus, the invisible pink unicorn, whatever you feel like, and you won't be taken seriously until you back up your beliefs with facts and evidence. But if you provide clear facts, any rational atheist will concede the argument. Present me with proof of a god, and I'll believe in them. My mind is absolutely changeable, that change just requires a much more solid argument than any religious people have ever been able to provide. It's one of the reasons I don't ever get involved in a debate about abortion; it always turns into a religous debate and you can't win that argument. Of course you can win it. Once the other side abandons all rational argument and stubbornly ignores the evidence, the debate is won. If you try to claim the sky is green and I prove it is blue, it doesn't matter if you continue posting "the sky is green." You've lost, even if you won't admit it. And as for "can this topic be debated", the answer is a clear "yes". You have an article presenting an explanation for religion, with clearly stated test results and theories. If you don't like it, find the flaws and prove it wrong. If you can't, concede defeat. It's as simple as that. ==================================================== On topic: definitely an interesting idea... I prefer the simple "need for comfort against unpleasant ideas" origin of religion, but who knows, maybe they're both true. Moderator note: keep the discussion on the posted article. This is NOT turning into another flame war. If you can't debate this like mature adults, the strikes are waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 An athiest's may base his argument on the assumption that facts can prove or disprove anything.See the above for an example. Hope we can still be friends Peregrine. ;) And about the topic; I just see it as a "perk" that God gave us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 An athiest's may base his argument on the assumption that facts can prove or disprove anything.See the above for an example. Hope we can still be friends Peregrine. ;) Assumptions are only bad if they're wrong. In this case, it isn't. If you aren't dealing with facts and looking at reality objectively, you're just blinding yourself to the truth (whatever it may be). And this is equally true for ANY debate, not just religion. If we were arguing politics, there would be the same need for facts. You can't just say "Bush is Hitler reincarnated" without proof. You'd just get laughed out of the thread, and for good reason. Just like saying "Kerry can't make up his mind" isn't enough to win the debate. You'd need to present evidence... voting records, contradictory speeches, etc. Subjective opinions are only useful when the "debate" is over personal taste. It's fine to say "my favorite color is red because I like red." But ONLY in those cases. I ask you two this simple question: Clearly "the sky is green because I believe it is" would be completely wrong, and not a valid argument in a debate, because there are no facts to support it. Why should "god exists because I believe he does" be treated any differently? ================================== And about the topic; I just see it as a "perk" that God gave us. A "perk" that just happens to be possible to recreate with absolutely no divine involvement? Why would god create this "benefit" in a way that us mere mortals could recreate his divine gift so easily? Why not make it in a way that it could only be unlocked by the "right" religion? Could the answer be that there was no divine source at all? It's the most likely answer once you look at the evidence. And what about the connection between brain damage and religious visions? We can assume one of two things: 1) They are the product of brain damage, and simply a product of a mind that no longer works as it should.or2) God just happens to pick victims of brain damage to give his visions to. Why do I think 1) is a lot more likely..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Why not make it in a way that it could only be unlocked by the "right" religion? Because God/Jesus/Holy Spirit loves everyone equally, regardless of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinin Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Peregrine, if what you say is true, and the debate of religion is winnable, then everyone on the earth would either be an athiest or religious. So at this moment, no, its not winnable. There have been historians and scientists looking for proof of God for hundreds of years. If there were enough facts out there, then they would have been found by now, and used to prove either the athiests, or the religous wrong. But since those facts don't exist, all we can do is believe, or not believe. But if you're a believer like me, then there is hope, because we're taught to "spread the good news!!" and try to persuade people to believe with us. So right now the athiests are at a disadvantage because they don't have enough facts and the believers are flappin their mouths trying to recruit more followers.....sounds kinda like a sport.... ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Why not make it in a way that it could only be unlocked by the "right" religion?Because God/Jesus/Holy Spirit loves everyone equally, regardless of religion. What does that have to do with anything? My point was this: The same effects on the brain caused by religion can be created by things completely unrelated to religion/god/etc. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that that aspect of the mind was created by god for that specific purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 My point was that in any religious debate the person defending a religious point of view will almost always eventually take the position that they believe in spirituality due to the fact that they "just believe it" as a matter of faith. Sure, if they are willing to argue on facts then it's a different story but that's rare. My point was that these sorts of arguments are rarely ever actual Debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 ...they believe in spirituality due to the fact that they "just believe it" as a matter of faith... If there were proof that God existed than Christianity wouldn't be a religion. The whole point of faith is that you can believe something without proof. So, I guess I'm saying I agree (with Surian) and don't want to argue. Anyways, how is someone arguing with me over the internet going to change my whole lifestyle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.