Claiming you know Vs. actually Knowing

[_Sam Harris]

And you completely ignored the rest of the discission for that? That's lovely.

Thanks, Coffee. I think you and Merc and those who want excuses and ways out like you really don't want discussion at all. You have made up your mind what you think the religious world is, and you are determined at all costs to detest us and claim that it is really us who detest you.

:-)

Whatever. If you ever want to go back and look at the rest of the reply I took the time to write to you, you can. But it's too *gasp* rational. It's far easier to assume that I'm either some frightened child sucking on her thumb-God, or someone with a bomb-strapped to her body looking for abusive m*therf***s masquarading as "rational people" to blow up. Whatever.

You aren't looking for a sloution to the problem any more than Merc is, you're looking for a wet soapbox to stand on and rant. So, train moves on. Notice that tweedletwat and tweedletwit have nothing to say about my life story. Merc thinks he had a s****y Mormon childhood, so dad made you feel inferior....everyone connected to me on all accounts made me feel that way, I had not one friend or ally...

And I still managed to come out whole. He has no excuse for his vitrol, and niether does PP. It's pathetic when people go through stuff and then think they can dump their problems everywhere they go, I NEVER did that. You being a soldier, I think you would know something about honor. I felt it was the honorable thing to do not to harm those who harmed me. And that applies to religion, too. Even if you've been wronged, you don't need to being an ass to everyone you see because your view of God is skewed. Either let go of the precept or change it, jeez.

There are some immature people here. They project all their petty insecurities onto others "you're rejected by this and that" (I stand alone, so the concept of rejection means nothing to me), "you're so angry" (who's yelling?), just because they're too afraid to be ethically and spiritually (NOT RELIGIOUSLY, learn the difference people) responsible for themselves. It's effing rediculous how just spiritually elementary a few folk are on here, yet they claim to be so smart and so advanced in life, yet one of the simplest things they are such simpletons in.

Whatever, Coffee. If you want to have a discussion with me, keep your anger at bay, and actually have one. Don't read halfway down the page, see red and then decide you're gonna just blow off all sense to reply to half of what was said....and then call ME unintelligent. That's funny and ironic.

Makes me wonder why you're defending Merc so much. Is it because he's literally alone in his stance and you like lost mangy puppies, or is it because you're about to do the dumbest thing imaginable and join him?

[_Sam Harris]

Overlooking the Bednar thread the irritating assurance of knowledge concerning the unknowable makes me uneasy. Remember folks, just because you say something is known by you does not make it true.

The Mormon method of proving something true is an exercise in circular reasoning and convincing oneself that obvious contradictions do not exist. Saying that you know joe saw god in the grove does not make it so. The ONLY thing that makes it so is hard evidence. Emotional experiences do not confirm truth. They just confirm that there was a shift in your brain chemistry, an easy thing to induce in a gullible party.

Ok. My cynical hat is on.

The I know...this, that or the other thing is a LDS construct that keeps people in line and makes one part of the crowd. I wonder where the tradition of monthly testimony meeting arose and where the idea of bearing a testimony that containes the I know about certian elements came from .

But, to be part of the crowd you will want to know, and want to stand and say I know. Saying "I really believe this a lot" or "I have faith about these things but I really do not know" are all unacceptable. You are then viewed as defecient.

The idea of Elder Packer that a testimony is found in bearing it is even more nonesensical and I always thought it was. What say I know when I don't then I will? That sounds a lot like brainwashing to me.

Further, considert the LDS missionary. He/she goes at the prime time in life, for no pay and in fact most often pays for the privlidge, or the family does. If he spends all day every day doing this he will feel pretty stupid if he does not know pretty soon, even if he or she does not know when they start.

So, to say I know is even a pressure tactic to make sure you do know and once you know if you then think maybe you really did not know after all then you are asked "How can yuo deny that testimony you used to bear?"

It works well.

Thank you Jason for the concise and clear approach to my post. I wish others would be so forthrght as you are instead of using t as a method of exorcising hidden ghosts in their familial experience.

GIMR? I think you reject atheism because you do not want to pattern your family.

Merc, you don't know anything about my family. No one in my family is atheist. Please stop now before you embarass yourself again by making a blanket statement about my personal life that you cannot back up. Remember the stupid statement you made about me clining to God because I feared death? Yeah, that one?

[_dartagnan]

Mercury, whenever you get done congratulating yourself as the sole presenter of "facts and reality," I'd appreciate it if you'd actually engage the discussion with something more than assertions. It is easy to claim you're following science and presenting "facts," but it is another thing to actually demonstrate it. I presented the scientist who first postulated this God gene theory and he disagrees with just about everything you've been rambling about. He asserts that a belief in God is beneficial to the individual, contrary to your view. So far you've ignored everything I have presented and have chosen to maintain this back and forth "no it isn't - yes it is" squabble with GIMR.

It is also absurd to assert that theists are theists for fear of hell. Some religions don't even believe in hell. I suspect most theists are theists not because it is some primitive gene defect as you like to presume, but because life really is a mystery and humans want to believe there is a purpose to it. Again, you never responded to the "fact" that we cannot see electrons, but scientists believe they exist because it conveniently explains why material objects don’t fall through out hands. Likewise, we cannot see God, but his/her/its existence conveniently explains a lot about the beauty in the world we live in; things science has not been able to explain. It is truly difficult for some people to sit and wonder at the amazing world we live in and not conclude it was by intelligent design. Some of the most intelligent and influential humans who ever lived are/were theists.

There is absolutely zero evidence that belief in God is merely an evolutionary defect that is gradually being squeezed out, so stop ranting about how you're the only one living in reality and presenting facts. One man's fact is another man's comic relief. Your reductionist approach to religion is hardly impressive, and in fact, comes across as defective as any other defunct mental process.

And ultimately, you’ve presented yourself as an arrogant prick who seems to be upset that others don’t believe as you do (sound familiar?). You resort to insults while pretending you didn’t mean to, and you are even taking this Hitleresque approach that asserts you’re a member of an elite class of humans (i.e. more evolved) simply because you don’t believe in God.

Of course, your rants would be more credible if you would at least accurately represent the science you claim to respect so much.

[_guy sajer]

Mercury, whenever you get done congratulating yourself as the sole presenter of "facts and reality," I'd appreciate it if you'd actually engage the discussion with something more than assertions. It is easy to claim you're following science and presenting "facts," but it is another thing to actually demonstrate it. I presented the scientist who first postulated this God gene theory and he disagrees with just about everything you've been rambling about. He asserts that a belief in God is beneficial to the individual, contrary to your view. So far you've ignored everything I have presented and have chosen to maintain this back and forth "no it isn't - yes it is" squabble with GIMR.

It is also absurd to assert that theists are theists for fear of hell. Some religions don't even believe in hell. I suspect most theists are theists not because it is some primitive gene defect as you like to presume, but because life really is a mystery and humans want to believe there is a purpose to it. Again, you never responded to the "fact" that we cannot see electrons, but scientists believe they exist because it conveniently explains why material objects don’t fall through out hands. Likewise, we cannot see God, but his/her/its existence conveniently explains a lot about the beauty in the world we live in; things science has not been able to explain. It is truly difficult for some people to sit and wonder at the amazing world we live in and not conclude it was by intelligent design. Some of the most intelligent and influential humans who ever lived are/were theists.

There is absolutely zero evidence that belief in God is merely an evolutionary defect that is gradually being squeezed out, so stop ranting about how you're the only one living in reality and presenting facts. One man's fact is another man's comic relief. Your reductionist approach to religion is hardly impressive, and in fact, comes across as defective as any other defunct mental process.

And ultimately, you’ve presented yourself as an arrogant prick who seems to be upset that others don’t believe as you do (sound familiar?). You resort to insults while pretending you didn’t mean to, and you are even taking this Hitleresque approach that asserts you’re a member of an elite class of humans (I.e. more evolved) simply because you don’t believe in God.

Of course, your rants would be more credible if you would at least accurately represent the science you claim to respect so much.

I haven't been following this debate closely, as I generally do not enjoy reading through person disputes like this one, so I might have missed this, but here goes.

Regarding the God gene, has any research been done to determine whether belief, or tendency toward, belief in God has a genetic component? In other words, could a tendency to believe in God (or the supernatural writ large), and vice verse, be, to a degree, hard wired? I'm not implying any value judgment in the question, but I'm curious.

By way of comment, I don't find your analogy of the electron and God compelling. I'm not a physicist, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm guessing that, even if scientists cannot see electrons, they can more or less demonstrate their existence reasonably clearly. (What can one see with an electron microscope?)

The evidence for God is, I would think, much, much weaker. The existence of God might adequately explain natural phenomena, but so might other things, and often better, plus they offer a simpler explanation as opposed to a supernatural being running the universe. Many things once ascribed to God now have reasonably simple scientific or naturalistic explanations, so for he things we still cannot explain, which is a better bet, that there exists some natural explanation for it, which we have yet to discover, or that an all-powerful being residing in the ether somewhere is pulling the strings, as it were? The trend line strongly favors the former answer.

I can offer a theory that, in fact, a race of highly advanced aliens created the earth, the solar system, humans, and are controlling our destinies. They use super advanced computers to design the whole thing, and, for the hell of it, they intervene here and there out of whimsy, compassion, or whatever. My theory can likewise be invoked to explain all natural phenomena here on earth. Why is the God theory, ex ante, more credible than my alien theory?

Would you be willing to concede that, because scientists cannot see electrons, that this lends possible plausibility to my alien theory, given that we cannot see the aliens, and the fact that my theory explains adequately lots of natural phenomena?

God can be evoked to explain everything, and it nearly has over the years. So what?

[_Some Schmo]

Regarding the God gene, has any research been done to determine whether belief, or tendency toward, belief in God has a genetic component? In other words, could a tendency to believe in God (or the supernatural writ large), and vice verse, be, to a degree, hard wired? I'm not implying any value judgment in the question, but I'm curious.

My understanding (subject to error of course) is that there are genes that control the flow of chemicals to the brain that play a role in emotions and consciousness. It's not that there's a gene that makes you believe, but rather, genes that create a certain emotional brain chemistry that may predispose someone to belief.

[_Mercury]

Heres the thing. The idea we cannot see electrons is another in a series of bad comparisons. We can "see" electrons by shooting rays through, for instance, very thin gold foil and constructing a model based on teh angles of the rays when they emerge on the other side. Electrons are as visible as a photon.

last time I checked the Electronics revolution has no problem viewing electrons, at least at a level where reproducible results are statistically predictable. So predictable are they that people pay good money for waves to be turned into data. I'm no scientist but there are rates of utility with orders of magnitude higher than any reproducible results one would get from any experience in trying to see "god".

Hope this is on track.

The idea of a God Gene is simple. As Schmo stated, certain conditions within our genetic makeup predispose humans to a flavor of brain chemistry. These gene expressions help humans also develop other behaviors, such as bipolar disorder, depression, OCD, etc by creating an overabundance or deficit in the brains chemical makeup. Once again, I am a network engineer, not a geneticist.

Guy:
What, if any mortality incidents could explain an advantage to having this supposed gene or collection of genes?

- A factor of safety within a social group? "i believe its true therefore I am accepted within the group, therefore I have a higher chance of procreating"
- The killing/shunning of nonbelievers? A situation in which authority determines all those who do not express belief of marduk are tossed into the furnace?
- Belief in "God" making a mate more attractive?

[_Jason Bourne]

GOd could have created us with a God gene.

[_Mercury]

GOd could have created us with a God gene.

True. But wuhat is more likely? God creating us with the God gene or humans creating God by function of the God gene?

I'm going with the latter, as the God Gene might be similar to the instant love a mother feels for her child.

[_Some Schmo]

GOd could have created us with a God gene.

Wow... cruelest cosmic joke ever.

[_asbestosman]

GOd could have created us with a God gene.

Wow... cruelest cosmic joke ever.

Nah. God could have created us with an atheist gene instead.

;)