DiscussMormonism.com

-> This talk by Dr. Andy Thomson <- was extremely interesting. He talks about the cognitive mechanisms we've evolved that cause so many people to believe in god and religion. Fascinating stuff.




__________

Seen that talk before. There is a decent case that religion is a substitute but how do you tell reality from substitute?

Seen that talk before. There is a decent case that religion is a substitute but how do you tell reality from substitute?

If I press my finger to my eye and wake up, I was dreaming. If I don't wake up, it's real.

The Nehor wrote:Seen that talk before. There is a decent case that religion is a substitute but how do you tell reality from substitute?

Well,
You sure cannot tell when u got that thick helmet on, combined with your 2inch thick skull.
You got a problem for sure.

Dumb stuff as usual.

Someone posted this talk on this forum before and I'm pretty sure it was Schmo. I did a search for this guy on google and the first three pages pulled up nothing but atheist websites praising this particular talk which was given at a convention, not for cognitive science, but rather atheism!

That is perhaps the only venue where his rant would be welcomed with so much enthusiam.

I thought you guys were interested in science?

To say the least, this guy is clearly a Darwinian fundamentalist in the order of Dennett and Dawkins. Stephen Jay Gould criticized this little cult of extremists for good reason. They try to make evolution go way beyond its limits to explain just about everything imaginable, usually to scratch an atheist's bigotry itch. It isn't science that drives them; its their atheism.

solomarineris wrote:

The Nehor wrote:Seen that talk before. There is a decent case that religion is a substitute but how do you tell reality from substitute?

Well,
You sure cannot tell when u got that thick helmet on, combined with your 2inch thick skull.
You got a problem for sure.

To some coherence is natural, others learn it, then there's you.

It's kind of difficult to believe that "God's image" resides in a species that is barely one percent removed from chimpanzees. We can thank religion for 99% of disbelief in God. I'm not sure how "the creator of the Universe" became associated with glorified Bonobos and harems of wives.

Kevin Graham wrote:Dumb stuff as usual.

Someone posted this talk on this forum before and I'm pretty sure it was Schmo. I did a search for this guy on google and the first three pages pulled up nothing but atheist websites praising this particular talk which was given at a convention, not for cognitive science, but rather atheism!

That is perhaps the only venue where his rant would be welcomed with so much enthusiam.

I thought you guys were interested in science?

To say the least, this guy is clearly a Darwinian fundamentalist in the order of Dennett and Dawkins. Stephen Jay Gould criticized this little cult of extremists for good reason. They try to make evolution go way beyond its limits to explain just about everything imaginable, usually to scratch an atheist's bigotry itch. It isn't science that drives them; its their atheism.

If it was posted before (which I kind of doubt since it was only recorded about a month and a half ago), it wasn't me. I saw for the first time last night.

And yes, it was an an American Atheists conference. So what? The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

It never fails to crack me up when you use the word "bigotry" in your posts, since you are the board's champion of bigotry.

LOL

And it's no surprise you think it's dumb. I would expect no less from you. Everything that actually makes perfectly reasonable sense is dumb to you. No amount of reason penatrates the bubble of inanity in which you live. There's no need for you to provide more evidence of it; we've seen it so much, it's become axiomatic.

So what?

Just pointing out this fact because it should not be taken seriously. The fact that this is the only kind of platform this guy could muster is very telling. This wasn't a talk given among reputed scientists in the field. It was a rant given to gullible anti-religious bigots like yourself. No suprirse they ate it up uncritically. We see the same kind of phenomena at FAIR conferences.

The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

Uh huh. You mean like Kepler, Descartes, Faraday, Boyle, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, etc? What you just presented was a perfect example of fanciful wishful thinking. There is no science behind his presentation, just bigotry-based conjecture.

It never fails to crack me up when you use the word "bigotry" in your posts, since you are the board's champion of bigotry.

A myth created by the board atheists to divert away from their own bigotry. tolerate atheism quite well. You don't tolerate theism. This is an established fact.

And it's no surprise you think it's dumb. I would expect no less from you.

I'll take that as a compliment since Stephen Jay Gould also thinks it is dumb. What you present isn't science, it is science ficton.

Everything that actually makes perfectly reasonable sense is dumb to you.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It only seems to, to you, because it conforms well to your anti-religios bigotry.

No amount of reason penatrates the bubble of inanity in which you live. There's no need for you to provide more evidence of it; we've seen it so much, it's become axiomatic.

But you have presented no reason nor evidence. You just present a silly clip from an atheist conference whereby some fringe blowhard tries to pretend his "science" is really science. Yes, hardly surprising you find it "fascinating" and evidence based.

It's kind of difficult to believe that "God's image" resides in a species that is barely one percent removed from chimpanzees.

The fact that humans are far different from chimpanzees in every meaningful way, illustrates just how insignificant that 99% really is. Kinda makes you wonder if there is something to the Human being besides genetic coding. But since science cannot tap into those questions, it has to be considered fantasy, right guys?

I'm willing to bet you didn't even watch it.

Kevin Graham wrote:

So what?

Just pointing out this fact because it should not be taken seriously. The fact that this is the only kind of platform this guy could muster is very telling. This wasn't a talk given among reputed scientists in the field. It was a rant given to gullible anti-religious bigots like yourself. No suprirse they ate it up uncritically. We see the same kind of phenomena at FAIR conferences.

Riiiiight. You're not a bigot, huh? Whatever your say. Hilariously enough, you probably actually believe that.

Kevin Graham wrote:

The best source of science comes from atheists, since they aren't given to fanciful wishful thinking, and actually rely on evidence.

Uh huh. You mean like Kepler, Descartes, Faraday, Boyle, Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, etc? What you just presented was a perfect example of fanciful wishful thinking. There is no science behind his presentation, just bigotry-based conjecture.

Yep, you didn't even watch it. At least, not without prejudice.

Kevin Graham wrote:

It never fails to crack me up when you use the word "bigotry" in your posts, since you are the board's champion of bigotry.

A myth created by the board atheists to divert away from their own bigotry. tolerate atheism quite well. You don't tolerate theism. This is an established fact.

ROTFLMAO

You tolerate atheism?! OMG, that's likely the funniest thing I'll hear/read all week.

So now I see why you call atheists bigots ("to divert away from [your] own bigotry"). You just admitted your own motivation by projecting it on others. Awesome.

Kevin Graham wrote:

And it's no surprise you think it's dumb. I would expect no less from you.

I'll take that as a compliment since Stephen Jay Gould also thinks it is dumb. What you present isn't science, it is science ficton.

Like you, of all people, would know. Sorry, but your track record for recognizing good science is frightfully poor. Or are you just relying on Gould because he agrees with your sorry point of view? (Assuming, of course, Gould actually does think it's dumb. Based on your habit of reading your own motivations into what others say, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he doesn't think it's dumb at all. And if he does... well, I can't say I care one way or the other).

Kevin Graham wrote:

Everything that actually makes perfectly reasonable sense is dumb to you.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It only seems to, to you, because it conforms well to your anti-religios bigotry.

Oh look! He mentioned bigotry again! More diversion, dart?

Tell me, oh wise scientist type, specifically, what's dumb about it?

Kevin Graham wrote:

No amount of reason penetrates the bubble of inanity in which you live. There's no need for you to provide more evidence of it; we've seen it so much, it's become axiomatic.

But you have presented no reason nor evidence. You just present a silly clip from an atheist conference whereby some fringe blowhard tries to pretend his "science" is really science. Yes, hardly surprising you find it "fascinating" and evidence based.

Learn to read. I was talking about evidence of your inanity. And this board is riddled with it.

Kevin Graham wrote:

It's kind of difficult to believe that "God's image" resides in a species that is barely one percent removed from chimpanzees.

The fact that humans are far different from chimpanzees in every meaningful way, illustrates just how insignificant that 99% really is. Kinda makes you wonder if there is something to the Human being besides genetic coding. But since science cannot tap into those questions, it has to be considered fantasy, right guys?

Meaningful? To whom? You?

Dude, you are the biggest joke I have ever encountered on a message board, and that is really saying something. As far as I'm concerned, there's very little difference between you and your average chimp. Now that's meaningful.