NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, Grave what are you on about? You are either jumping to an unintended conclusion, or are throwing jargon about and watching where it splatters. I hope it is the former, suspect the latter, and am equipping a (+4) Umbrella of Skepticism regardless.

Man and you was doing sooooo well. Loose 20 points for the AD&D referance.

Dempublicents1;12533443 : "Actually, your source doesn't say that atheism is the fastest growing. It lists "non-religious", which it defines as "an umbrella term which, depending on context, may be understood as referring to atheism, agnosticism, deism, skepticism, freethought, secular humanism, general secularism, or heresy."
Heresy? Since when is heresy any kind of religious or arrelgious sentiment? It in itself is a derogetory umbrella term. Most heretics would either call themselves exceptionally devout (Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Roger Williams) or fairly secular (Anne Hutchinson, Salman Rushdie). Regardless, can heresy truely be classified as anything? After all, I would consider Joan and Martin Luther, and even Hutchinson to still be Christian, while Rushdie is a liberal, secularized Muslim. And yes, he was a heretic, because fanatic Islam put a fatwa on him, forcing him into hiding. So heresy as a category? Hate to nitpick, but no. NEW religions have risen from heresy! Protestants, Baha'i, Christianity as a whole, etc. (JESUS WAS A HERETIC DURING HIS LIFETIME!!!!)

I know that was beef with the source, not you, but still, I wouldn't trust Wiki in any issue requiring finesse.

Man and you was doing sooooo well. Loose 20 points for the AD&D referance.

Hate to nerd up this thread, but that wasn't AD&D, just regular.

Thanks for the props. And how did you get that title (galaxian warrior?) is it # of posts?

Hate to nerd up this thread, but that wasn't AD&D, just regular.

Thanks for the props. And how did you get that title (galaxian warrior?) is it # of posts?

Heh props, that word always makes me laugh, number of posts, yes I think so.

Hate to nerd up this thread, but that wasn't AD&D, just regular.

Thanks for the props. And how did you get that title (galaxian warrior?) is it # of posts?

It's number of posts. You'll have to hit hit at least galaxy warrior for us to take you seriously. ;)

It's number of posts. You'll have to hit hit at least galaxy warrior for us to take you seriously. ;)

Whoot!:D

Whoot!:D

Um, Peep, it's not the ONLY requirement. So sorry.

Um, Peep, it's not the ONLY requirement. So sorry.


Damnit man! I'm good ya know, talk to me and you'll see!:eek:

Amm...because the top 3 were monotheist, counting up to over 3 billion?

...because I posted 5 reputable sources stating the trend from polytheist to monotheist?

You posted 5 opinions, none of which (at least in your post) presented any evidence for their opinions. It doesn't matter who you are - simply saying, "Hey, there's a trend, really," doesn't objectively demonstrate anything.

...because no evidence was presented against?

If you have no real evidence for, then no evidence against is necessary. There is no evidence either way and no one can demonstrate any such trends.

This is often the case in religiosity studies. Many aspects of religion are impossible to objectively measure or demonstrate.

2, 000 years ago we can point to many polytheist religions that were believed and ritually followed out from Indo-Asian to Roman/Greco.

Now?

Can you demonstrate that this is a matter of an innate drive to move from polytheism to monotheism? I'd be more inclined to believe it came from monotheist-dominated countries going out and conquering others, and converting the "heathens" by threat of force.

His core argument was that polytheism evolves into monotheism. This, he has represented as some kind of universal truth.

If Atheism is growing so rapidly... and we aren't willing to assume the illogical premise that only Christianity and Islam are losing believers... then atheism must be monotheistic, for Barringtonia's 'argument' to hold any semblance of being made of less than 100% pure fail fibres.

Much earlier in the thread, he did make the claim that the trend was to move from many gods to one, and then to zero.

I could be wrong, but is this a post for religion or an ethos battle? Don't get me wrong, I am all for authentic sources, but can we please either move on or wrap the source wars (all 15+ pages of them) up and get back to religion, if not religiosity? It's been fun, though.

The real problem is the inherent subjectivity of discussion on religiosity. It is incredibly difficult to make any objective conclusions about religiosity, and studies that attempt to do so are generally riddled with flaws that many readers would never even notice, because they and the authors often hold similar assumptions about the nature of religion.

It's all well and good when people are saying, "Well, it is my opinion that...." But when you start trying to make statements about religiosity that you wish to support, finding any source that can truly be said to back up your claims is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

Heresy? Since when is heresy any kind of religious or arrelgious sentiment? It in itself is a derogetory umbrella term. Most heretics would either call themselves exceptionally devout (Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Roger Williams) or fairly secular (Anne Hutchinson, Salman Rushdie). Regardless, can heresy truely be classified as anything? After all, I would consider Joan and Martin Luther, and even Hutchinson to still be Christian, while Rushdie is a liberal, secularized Muslim. And yes, he was a heretic, because fanatic Islam put a fatwa on him, forcing him into hiding. So heresy as a category? Hate to nitpick, but no. NEW religions have risen from heresy! Protestants, Baha'i, Christianity as a whole, etc. (JESUS WAS A HERETIC DURING HIS LIFETIME!!!!)

Beats me. I think it's a matter of how the term is used generally. I doubt that any religiosity study actually counted "heresy" as non-religious, as that would require making assumptions about which beliefs are heretical - something that is pretty much never agreed upon, even within a religion.

But, the early Christians were called "atheists" (and the Church has called other religions this as well) by much of Roman society. When people are looking for a derogatory term, they'll often say things that are pretty much completely untrue.

Athiests actually acknowledge the existance of a being, but they say they don't believe in it.

Agnostics are actually popular, but they don't realise that that is what they believe in.

Athiests actually acknowledge the existance of a being, but they say they don't believe in it.

Agnostics are actually popular, but they don't realise that that is what they believe in.Ok, we're on page 68, or so. And whose forum reincarnation are you?

Much earlier in the thread, he did make the claim that the trend was to move from many gods to one, and then to zero.And whose trend was that?

And whose trend was that?

Yes, what Grave was saying is that according to the claim made by Barr that the trend moves in that direction, which if true would mean we would expect A) to see poly's moving to mono's to make up for the mono's moving to A's. It would mean that the new trend of atheism having the greatest growth would require it to be caused by almost exclusive movement from Christianity and other 'monotheistic' religions to atheism, which is what GnI tried to say.

I also find it funny that Christianity is grouped together when by most standards many, many, many Christians believe in more than one deity even if they call it something else.

And 'anti-God' is very much a deity by most standards. The premise of Satan is not just supernatural, but so powerful that God is having a war with Satan.

Yes, what Grave was saying is that according to the claim made by Barr that the trend moves in that direction, which if true would mean we would expect A) to see poly's moving to mono's to make up for the mono's moving to A's. It would mean that the new trend of atheism having the greatest growth would require it to be caused by almost exclusive movement from Christianity and other 'monotheistic' religions to atheism, which is what GnI tried to say.

Hey now, I think we should let the poly/mono/ath trend die in peace, as it made no sense.

I also find it funny that Christianity is grouped together when by most standards many, many, many Christians believe in more than one deity even if they call it something else.

And 'anti-God' is very much a deity by most standards. The premise of Satan is not just supernatural, but so powerful that God is having a war with Satan.

That's actually the point I was trying to make with my post on duality. But more than that, I was trying to say, that with all the supernatural things that most "Monotheists" believe in, how can they say that there is only one God? Especially if Angels and Demons are brought into the picture as well, and since they are superhuman in most instances, what is to prevent them from being perceived as God(s) when superhuman is apparently the norm for spiritual phenomenon? I would argue that the "Monotheists" are more of polytheists then we can say, and that people aren't moving from more gods to less, but rather to different gods - if at all.

@Matishastan
Then why on earth would the ONE TRUE GOD require a battle for our souls if he could take out the Devil/Anti-God, whatever you want to call him, whenever he wanted?

No, you made that implication, throughout you have been putting words into my...ammm....writing

No, I haven't.

I was going to read all 8 pages to get caught up since I last logged out, but I had to respond to this:

I still say you can argue that they are.
And I could argue that peanut butter is made from lima beans. I'd be wrong, but I could argue it. Just like you have argued several points on which you have been completely wrong throughout this thread.

If you discount growth by population (I really understand your point Ex Libre but no one is 'changing their mind'), or % growth from a very small base, more people are 'choosing' Christianity or Islam over any other religion.

Regardless of the utterly disputable nature of assessing, the fact is that atheism/monotheism are dominant in this world, a point that Muryavets has called me a liar on numerous occasions previously.
I called you a liar ONCE. Not numerous times. Just ONCE.

Now I'm doing it again because you are lying about what I said.

That's TWICE now. Still not numerous. But keep up your behavior and I'm sure it will happen more.

EDIT: And for the record, I DID NOT call you a liar because of the assertions in your arguments. I called you a liar because you claimed I had never offered links to sources to back up my arguments, even though I had already posted six sources in a post addressed directly to you.

No, I haven't.

Morning Muravyets,

My consistent position is:

Religion is a product of evolution, not the other way around. I've shown (fine) theories galore to support my positions.

Taking semantic bites out of my arguments all the time in no way provides any support for your points - essentially the argument against has been 'prove it, prove it, prove it' while constantly shifting the definitions.

We're now getting down to:

There's no definition of Christians.
Christians are not monotheistic.

I mean, really :confused:



This is semantic blah.

Morning Muravyets,

My consistent position is:

Religion is a product of evolution, not the other way around. I've shown (fine) theories galore to support my positions.

Taking semantic bites out of my arguments all the time in no way provides any support for your points - essentially the argument against has been 'prove it, prove it, prove it' while constantly shifting the definitions.

We're now getting down to:

There's no definition of Christians.
Christians are not monotheistic.

I mean, really :confused:

This is semantic blah.

Ha. You're killing me. Do you want to make an argument or bitch because we're discussing very real things about these religions?

You're making claims and failing to support them. That's not semantics. That's just a bad argument.

I have to correct myself. In addition to directly accusing Barringtonia twice -- for claiming that I had not presented sources to support my factual assertions and for claiming that I called him a liar numerous times -- I also said that his statements about Shinto contained lies that I had heard frequently from other sources that were religiously biased. I did not attribute those lies to Barringtonia except to the extent that he was taking ownership of them as part of his arguments.

Hope that clears up that detail.

If by logical mauling you mean disputing every link and source provided while providing none in reply, then yes, I am mauled.

Just disagreeing with sources, poking holes semantically, while providing no evidence the other way is easy.

I'd stand for the little guy against a crowd before joining the crowd against the little guy.
The Little Wrong Guy.

I was going to read all 8 pages to get caught up since I last logged out, but I had to respond to this:


And I could argue that peanut butter is made from lima beans. I'd be wrong, but I could argue it. Just like you have argued several points on which you have been completely wrong throughout this thread.


I called you a liar ONCE. Not numerous times. Just ONCE.

Now I'm doing it again because you are lying about what I said.

That's TWICE now. Still not numerous. But keep up your behavior and I'm sure it will happen more.

EDIT: And for the record, I DID NOT call you a liar because of the assertions in your arguments. I called you a liar because you claimed I had never offered links to sources to back up my arguments, even though I had already posted six sources in a post addressed directly to you.

I have been called liar more than once - I fully accept it hasn't been you each time and apologise.

I have attributed comments to the wrong poster before and I'll really check before I do again. As we've all noted, this thread is loooong

Amm...because the top 3 were monotheist, counting up to over 3 billion?

...because I posted 5 reputable sources stating the trend from polytheist to monotheist?

...because no evidence was presented against?
You posted 5 sources, but one of them actually disagreed with your assertions, so if we discount the source that refutes you, then you only posted 4 sources.

2, 000 years ago we can point to many polytheist religions that were believed and ritually followed out from Indo-Asian to Roman/Greco.

Now?
And here we are back at square one with you repeating the same assertion which we refuted and which you then tried to deny you ever made. The exact same refutations that applied the first time you tried to make this statement seem meaningful still apply now. I refer you back to the past 40 pages of this thread.

Jocabia -

Only according to your strict definition of religion - that religion is only 'I believe in God'. - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12518628&postcount=640



If you can't prove Him, then religion is irrelevant, we're not innately religious, we're innately orientated to propose God exists because we don't yet have a proven answer. Science is changing that.
Are you arguing that people who believe in a god are not religious unless that god is a real entity? I certainly hope not because that would be one of the most nonsensical remarks I've ever read.

People who believe in a god or gods, and particularly people who express that belief through religious practice, are religious, by definition. The relative factuality of their beliefs have nothing to do with it.



Polytheism has clearly trended to monotheism, I can't predict the future.
You have not proven your assertion about polytheism. Rather, your assertion has been refuted time and time again.



Yes, as I did previously



I pointed out the growth in Atheism, I can't predict the future, I can see past trends



:rolleyes:
Seeing a trend and understanding it are not the same thing, as you have demonstrated very graphically in this thread.

Also, you say you can't predict the future, but your entire argument is dependent upon a future development, namely the continued dwindling of polytheism. If you cannot know that this will happen, then you cannot make claims about the nature of religious beliefs based on it happening. You need to admit that all you are doing is expressing a wish based on your personal opinions/biases, and stop trying to fob it off as fact.

Muravyets - You posted 5 sources, but one of them actually disagreed with your assertions, so if we discount the source that refutes you, then you only posted 4 sources.

Which - the Japanese one?

If so it support my assertion. It states the trend from polytheism to monotheism and theorises that it might go the other way


And here we are back at square one with you repeating the same assertion which we refuted and which you then tried to deny you ever made. The exact same refutations that applied the first time you tried to make this statement seem meaningful still apply now. I refer you back to the past 40 pages of this thread.

I've seen no evidence of refutation, simply claims

First - I do need to address Jocabia's point about conquering nations - I'm not avoiding it and I'd like to initially state that it's a good point that I'm having some difficulty with - I need to research, which does not entail that I think your point is wrong, in fact I concur that it's right but I'm quibbling on 'enforced religion'.

To Muravyets - I am not saying people who believe in God are not religious, absolutely they are religious. I'm saying that religiosity is a result of the way our brains have evolved, not the cause of that evolution.

...and no, the past clearly shows the trend, please show me evidence to the contrary. I have nothing to say about the future.

Please clarify. I sort of follow, but cryptic reference and fragmented thoughts prevent me. I think you may be onto something, just follow up, k?

Okay - since I'm not sure what it is that is confusing you, I'm just going to repost my previous response, and try to put some 'hint' text in there. If it remains unclear, indicate something specific, and I'll try to addres it.

The 'indent text' will be my additions to the previous material (and that will be marked in bold):

What is the subconscious? Could it not be argued that the subconscious is part of the machinery? Part of the data processing software. We don't need to 'deny' it, at all.

This is framing my response to the other poster saying the model doesn't fit, because it ignores the 'subconscious'. I'm saying we don't have to deny the subconscious for the model to work - we just have to allow that the subconscious is part of the model.


Can we state that all our outputs are results of inputs? Yes... I think we can. We can't be sure, of course.

Everythng we think, say or do... comes from where? Divine inspiration? Some unknowable artifact of consciousness? Or - can all of our actions actually be considered some manner of 'reaction', of differing complexity and process...? Maybe.


Perhaps the process isn't a purely GIGO one...

Garbage In Garbage Out. Techy jargon... the basic implication of which is - if you feed crap in as data, you'll get crap results. With the right software, this doesn't have to happen - your programing can 'filter' obvious garbage (like a spamblocker does), and run analysis of the remaining data to find out how consistent/inconsistent it is. Then it can process accordingly - potentially giving you very good analytical results from a very mixed-bag of input.

I'm saying, the biological 'computer' can be like that - it can have the capacity to weed out the weak and make 'good' decisions about what remains.


- like I said, I suspect the program sorts for pragmatism,

...And this is why the 'program' can do so. Our received stimuli (I'm watching TV, for example) are filtered through a collection of previous stimuli, and the results of them. So - when Star Trek: Voyager comes on, my previous stimuli form a 'mask' that tells me this stimulus is similar to Star Trek DS9 but not the same... and the 'pragmatic' part of my brain tells me that the odds are strongly in favour of this episode being crap. (Because most Voyager is).

...it is evolutionary -


By which I mean, if such a mechanism exists, and it continuously 'records' data based on stimulus and result... the system will get progressively more and more 'accurate', and will acquire sets of responses, graded by appropriateness, and sorted according to circumstance.

The 'program' is adaptive.


but that doesn't mean our outputs are generated in some 'other' way.

Just because we can't be sure we are basically sensory-responsive machines with 'intelligent' processing... that doesn't mean our thoughts and actions are from some esoteric origin.

Morning Muravyets,

My consistent position is:

Religion is a product of evolution, not the other way around. I've shown (fine) theories galore to support my positions.
They have been the opinions of other scholars, not "(fine) theories." Everyone has an opinion, including you. Opinions are not proofs to back up assertions with, however.

Taking semantic bites out of my arguments all the time in no way provides any support for your points - essentially the argument against has been 'prove it, prove it, prove it' while constantly shifting the definitions.
The definitions have not been shifted by anyone but you. You are the one attempting to play some kind of shell game with both terms and topics, but we marks are not falling for it. You have made assertions of fact. Because you claim your statements to be factual, we challenge you to prove them by presenting the facts. Instead of facts, you give us only opinion pieces, and some of them don't even agree with your premise. Because of that, we declare your assertions to be bogus and your argument to be failed.

You can call that "taking semantic bites" but what it's really called is "refuting your claims by showing the fatal flaws in your argument."

We're now getting down to:

There's no definition of Christians.
Christians are not monotheistic.

I mean, really :confused:


This is semantic blah.
Take that up with posters who have suggested it. I am not one of them.

I have been called liar more than once - I fully accept it hasn't been you each time and apologise.

I have attributed comments to the wrong poster before and I'll really check before I do again. As we've all noted, this thread is loooong
Pah! A mere 69 pages. I've enjoyed much longer threads. You need to work out more.

Much earlier in the thread, he did make the claim that the trend was to move from many gods to one, and then to zero.

But - how are we supporting the shift from polytheism to atheism, then?

It doesn't fit the pattern.

And - wouldn't the pattern be polytheism to Atheism then, with monotheism as one possible pause point on the way? (Obviously, according to that 'trend' it can't be an 'end' point).

Also - I'd have to go back and check the wording, but I'm thinking that 'Atheist' wasn't the whole description to match the growth figure... thus the assertion of 'no gods' isn't necessarily accurate...

Okay - since I'm not sure what it is that is confusing you, I'm just going to repost my previous response, and try to put some 'hint' text in there. If it remains unclear, indicate something specific, and I'll try to addres it.

The 'indent text' will be my additions to the previous material (and that will be marked in bold):

What is the subconscious? Could it not be argued that the subconscious is part of the machinery? Part of the data processing software. We don't need to 'deny' it, at all.

This is framing my response to the other poster saying the model doesn't fit, because it ignores the 'subconscious'. I'm saying we don't have to deny the subconscious for the model to work - we just have to allow that the subconscious is part of the model.


Can we state that all our outputs are results of inputs? Yes... I think we can. We can't be sure, of course.

Everythng we think, say or do... comes from where? Divine inspiration? Some unknowable artifact of consciousness? Or - can all of our actions actually be considered some manner of 'reaction', of differing complexity and process...? Maybe.


Perhaps the process isn't a purely GIGO one...

Garbage In Garbage Out. Techy jargon... the basic implication of which is - if you feed crap in as data, you'll get crap results. With the right software, this doesn't have to happen - your programing can 'filter' obvious garbage (like a spamblocker does), and run analysis of the remaining data to find out how consistent/inconsistent it is. Then it can process accordingly - potentially giving you very good analytical results from a very mixed-bag of input.

I'm saying, the biological 'computer' can be like that - it can have the capacity to weed out the weak and make 'good' decisions about what remains.


- like I said, I suspect the program sorts for pragmatism,

...And this is why the 'program' can do so. Our received stimuli (I'm watching TV, for example) are filtered through a collection of previous stimuli, and the results of them. So - when Star Trek: Voyager comes on, my previous stimuli form a 'mask' that tells me this stimulus is similar to Star Trek DS9 but not the same... and the 'pragmatic' part of my brain tells me that the odds are strongly in favour of this episode being crap. (Because most Voyager is).

...it is evolutionary -


By which I mean, if such a mechanism exists, and it continuously 'records' data based on stimulus and result... the system will get progressively more and more 'accurate', and will acquire sets of responses, graded by appropriateness, and sorted according to circumstance.

The 'program' is adaptive.


but that doesn't mean our outputs are generated in some 'other' way.

Just because we can't be sure we are basically sensory-responsive machines with 'intelligent' processing... that doesn't mean our thoughts and actions are from some esoteric origin.

See if you can find On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, if you haven't read it already :) I think you'd both enjoy it tremendously

Pah! A mere 69 pages. I've enjoyed much longer threads. You need to work out more.

LOL - granted :)

Which - the Japanese one?

If so it support my assertion. It states the trend from polytheism to monotheism and theorises that it might go the other way
That is not what the quote you posted said. The quote you posted clearly stated two things: (1) that he had noted the beginning of a potential trend towards an increase in polytheism, and (2) the author's personal opinion that polytheism might be the best form of religion for a multicultural, multi-racial world. That first was merely the observation that something is happening that might lead to something someday. The second was nothing more than his personal thoughts -- not a trend, not a claim of fact, and not an interpretation of statistical data.

However, one thing it was was the exact opposite of what you claim it was.

I've seen no evidence of refutation, simply claims
Hahahaha! This is the funniest thing you've said so far.

Yes, what Grave was saying is that according to the claim made by Barr that the trend moves in that direction, which if true would mean we would expect A) to see poly's moving to mono's to make up for the mono's moving to A's. It would mean that the new trend of atheism having the greatest growth would require it to be caused by almost exclusive movement from Christianity and other 'monotheistic' religions to atheism, which is what GnI tried to say.

I also find it funny that Christianity is grouped together when by most standards many, many, many Christians believe in more than one deity even if they call it something else.

And 'anti-God' is very much a deity by most standards. The premise of Satan is not just supernatural, but so powerful that God is having a war with Satan.

I was busy, today. Thankfully - Jocabia was here to translate me. :)

I really think I need to work on being clearer. That can be my resolution. Thanks for the assist.

That's actually the point I was trying to make with my post on duality. But more than that, I was trying to say, that with all the supernatural things that most "Monotheists" believe in, how can they say that there is only one God? Especially if Angels and Demons are brought into the picture as well, and since they are superhuman in most instances, what is to prevent them from being perceived as God(s) when superhuman is apparently the norm for spiritual phenomenon? I would argue that the "Monotheists" are more of polytheists then we can say, and that people aren't moving from more gods to less, but rather to different gods - if at all.


Yes - this is one of my points from (much) earlier in the thread. It seems like the majority of 'Christians' call their religion 'monotheistic', but play it 'polytheistic'.

See if you can find On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, if you haven't read it already :) I think you'd both enjoy it tremendously

I haven't read it. Most of my politics/religion/philosophy/perspective on the nature of reality... is self-made.

I might look it up, though... if it has some interesting bearing on a thought I've evolved myself.

First - I do need to address Jocabia's point about conquering nations - I'm not avoiding it and I'd like to initially state that it's a good point that I'm having some difficulty with - I need to research, which does not entail that I think your point is wrong, in fact I concur that it's right but I'm quibbling on 'enforced religion'.

To Muravyets - I am not saying people who believe in God are not religious, absolutely they are religious. I'm saying that religiosity is a result of the way our brains have evolved, not the cause of that evolution.
Whoever suggested that it was the cause? How did that canard get into this discussion?

...and no, the past clearly shows the trend, please show me evidence to the contrary. I have nothing to say about the future.
A) Evidence has already been presented several times over by several different posters. If you are reduced to simply denying that arguments and evidence have been presented, even though they are here in the thread for all to see, then maybe this drama of yours has run its course.

B) Even though evidence has been presented, it did not need to be presented. We do not have to positively prove our points in order to show that your point is fatally flawed. We have been able to do that using your own sources. The fact is, your claims about the past are wrong and your assertions about the present and future based on them are, therefore, unfounded. Nothing else needs to be proven beyond that.

Yes - this is one of my points from (much) earlier in the thread. It seems like the majority of 'Christians' call their religion 'monotheistic', but play it 'polytheistic'.

I would say it's arguably henotheistic. They acknowledge the existence of other gods and godlings, but worship only one as a sole deity. It's still not monotheist, though.

I was busy, today. Thankfully - Jocabia was here to translate me. :)

I really think I need to work on being clearer. That can be my resolution. Thanks for the assist.

Don't worry. Soon, you won't have a choice. It will be required, my friend. ;)

For the record, not all Christians believe in that duality. I don't believe one can rectify free will as a human gift and then claim that angels waged war with God. Angels are servants and not godlings. They are just arms of the head. I also don't hold that Jesus and God are seperate aspects of God. None of this trinity stuff.

Yes - this is one of my points from (much) earlier in the thread. It seems like the majority of 'Christians' call their religion 'monotheistic', but play it 'polytheistic'.
I've always been a bit confused by that, too. As well as why so many Christians are deeply offended by the term "polytheism." Polytheism isn't a slur any more than monotheism is!

I would say it's arguably henotheistic. They acknowledge the existence of other gods and godlings, but worship only one as a sole deity. It's still not monotheist, though.
I did not know that term. Cool.

For the record, not all Christians believe in that duality. I don't believe one can rectify free will as a human gift and then claim that angels waged war with God. Angels are servants and not godlings. They are just arms of the head. I also don't hold that Jesus and God are seperate aspects of God. None of this trinity stuff.

I think that what you are describing is part of why I suggested separating "Christianity" into its different sects, as it can be somewhat difficult to discern which aspects of the Bible are perceived to be literal and which are metaphorical.

Okay - since I'm not sure what it is that is confusing you, I'm just going to repost my previous response, and try to put some 'hint' text in there. If it remains unclear, indicate something specific, and I'll try to addres it.

The 'indent text' will be my additions to the previous material (and that will be marked in bold):

What is the subconscious? Could it not be argued that the subconscious is part of the machinery? Part of the data processing software. We don't need to 'deny' it, at all.

This is framing my response to the other poster saying the model doesn't fit, because it ignores the 'subconscious'. I'm saying we don't have to deny the subconscious for the model to work - we just have to allow that the subconscious is part of the model.


Can we state that all our outputs are results of inputs? Yes... I think we can. We can't be sure, of course.

Everythng we think, say or do... comes from where? Divine inspiration? Some unknowable artifact of consciousness? Or - can all of our actions actually be considered some manner of 'reaction', of differing complexity and process...? Maybe.


Perhaps the process isn't a purely GIGO one...

Garbage In Garbage Out. Techy jargon... the basic implication of which is - if you feed crap in as data, you'll get crap results. With the right software, this doesn't have to happen - your programing can 'filter' obvious garbage (like a spamblocker does), and run analysis of the remaining data to find out how consistent/inconsistent it is. Then it can process accordingly - potentially giving you very good analytical results from a very mixed-bag of input.

I'm saying, the biological 'computer' can be like that - it can have the capacity to weed out the weak and make 'good' decisions about what remains.


- like I said, I suspect the program sorts for pragmatism,

...And this is why the 'program' can do so. Our received stimuli (I'm watching TV, for example) are filtered through a collection of previous stimuli, and the results of them. So - when Star Trek: Voyager comes on, my previous stimuli form a 'mask' that tells me this stimulus is similar to Star Trek DS9 but not the same... and the 'pragmatic' part of my brain tells me that the odds are strongly in favour of this episode being crap. (Because most Voyager is).

...it is evolutionary -


By which I mean, if such a mechanism exists, and it continuously 'records' data based on stimulus and result... the system will get progressively more and more 'accurate', and will acquire sets of responses, graded by appropriateness, and sorted according to circumstance.

The 'program' is adaptive.


but that doesn't mean our outputs are generated in some 'other' way.

Just because we can't be sure we are basically sensory-responsive machines with 'intelligent' processing... that doesn't mean our thoughts and actions are from some esoteric origin.

Very nicely explained.

"Everythng we think, say or do... comes from where?"

If we don't know, then we can only claim it as part of the machinery by assumption. My point was to say that to claim it is a part of the machinery --to make that assumption over any other --is to deny it in its nature as unknown by treating it as if known.

Consider that we don't actually know any causes; we know only results, and we assume a cause. If a pencil falls to the floor, we assume gravity. If a ball is seen to roll across a billiard table and, in touching another ball, the second ball is seen to move, all we have actually experienced are a series of results, one after the other, not causes. The philosopher David Hume demonstrated that we are conditioned to expect particular results by repetition, and in doing so we assemble an assumption --in fact, a whole philosophy --of causation.

Cause-and-effect occurs *because* we know things. We don't know the subconscious/unconscious mind.

Off the topic, and should I start a new thread?

But - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/04/12/darwins_rottweiler_looks_to_round_up_britains_atheists.html

Re Dawkins, only a fool argues so vehemently against something that he doesn't understand.

I did not know that term. Cool.

Yay! I've passed on some knowledge! I knew that Phil. of Religion class would pay off.

Yay! I've passed on some knowledge! I knew that Phil. of Religion class would pay off.

Yeah, me too. It's always good to learn something new.

Very nicely explained.

"Everythng we think, say or do... comes from where?"

If we don't know, then we can only claim it as part of the machinery by assumption. My point was to say that to claim it is a part of the machinery --to make that assumption over any other --is to deny it in its nature as unknown by treating it as if known.

Consider that we don't actually know any causes; we know only results, and we assume a cause. If a pencil falls to the floor, we assume gravity. If a ball is seen to roll across a billiard table and, in touching another ball, the second ball is seen to move, all we have actually experienced are a series of results, one after the other, not causes. The philosopher David Hume demonstrated that we are conditioned to expect particular results by repetition, and in doing so we assemble an assumption --in fact, a whole philosophy --of causation.

Cause-and-effect occurs *because* we know things. We don't know the subconscious/unconscious mind.

It isn't that we are 'conditioned' to expect particular results, per se - it is observation and repetition... we should expect the sun to rise every morning... because it is 'always' does - it is logical. That doesn't mean the sun always will rise every moning... and we should also be aware of that... observed patterns are only patterns until they aren't.

This topic came up as a tangent on a recent thread:

So the question of the thread is…

Do you believe that there is a biological or innate tendency toward religiosity?

Just as some people are born with a predisposition for things like musical talent or alcoholism, might some people be born with a predisposition for religion?

Pretty much everything has a genetic component to it. This doesnt mean you have "religious genes" but some people may be relatively more prone to it.

Yay! I've passed on some knowledge! I knew that Phil. of Religion class would pay off.
My thanks as well. I love learning new words. :) And I think this one is extremely useful. I think it describes the view of many, many people, of many religions.

It isn't that we are 'conditioned' to expect particular results, per se - it is observation and repetition... we should expect the sun to rise every morning... because it is 'always' does - it is logical. That doesn't mean the sun always will rise every moning... and we should also be aware of that... observed patterns are only patterns until they aren't.

We DO expect the sun to rise each morning, and only because of conditioning. It is what should be, and in some instances what must be, but not necessarily what will be.

We DO expect the sun to rise each morning, and only because of conditioning. It is what should be, and in some instances what must be, but not necessarily what will be.understanding planetary movement is a form of conditioning?

understanding planetary movement is a form of conditioning?

Is there no conceivable instance in which the world might be stopped in its rotation, or knocked out of orbit? Have you ever seen a TV show called 'Space 1999'?

We DO expect the sun to rise each morning, and only because of conditioning. It is what should be, and in some instances what must be, but not necessarily what will be.

Not at all - your assertion doesn't hold water. Many of the things I believed could have been termed as 'conditioning' - either deliberate or, more commonly, incidental.

Much of my 'self' has been rebuilt. Basic assumptions re-assessed. That was how I arrived at my 'pragmatism as moral code' perspective, and my 'implicit atheism' position. Part of that reassessment was the traditional, somewhat stereotypical, 'is it real?' debate - and involved examining just about everything we might consider as anchors (or fetters, perhaps?) on our existence. Such things as the question of certainty - do we ever KNOW anything... or are we just looking for patterns and best-fits? (Pragmatism, again).

I 'expect' the sun to rise each morning, in as much as I don't 'expect' the pattern to suddenly overturn. Im not ruling it out, I just think the evidence suggests it to be waaaay unlikely. And this position I have arrived at as an independent reassessment. Not only am I fairly comfortable it is not 'only because of conditioning'... I'm actually fairly content that 'conditioning' is out in the cold on this one.

Is there no conceivable instance in which the world might be stopped in its rotation, or knocked out of orbit? Have you ever seen a TV show called 'Space 1999'?

Erm... that was the moon...

Excellent show. +1 Kudos for the mention. :)

Erm... that was the moon...

Excellent show. +1 Kudos for the mention. :)

The moon was their world.

Not at all - your assertion doesn't hold water. Many of the things I believed could have been termed as 'conditioning' - either deliberate or, more commonly, incidental.

Much of my 'self' has been rebuilt. Basic assumptions re-assessed. That was how I arrived at my 'pragmatism as moral code' perspective, and my 'implicit atheism' position. Part of that reassessment was the traditional, somewhat stereotypical, 'is it real?' debate - and involved examining just about everything we might consider as anchors (or fetters, perhaps?) on our existence. Such things as the question of certainty - do we ever KNOW anything... or are we just looking for patterns and best-fits? (Pragmatism, again).

I 'expect' the sun to rise each morning, in as much as I don't 'expect' the pattern to suddenly overturn. Im not ruling it out, I just think the evidence suggests it to be waaaay unlikely. And this position I have arrived at as an independent reassessment. Not only am I fairly comfortable it is not 'only because of conditioning'... I'm actually fairly content that 'conditioning' is out in the cold on this one.

I notice, too, in your sig that you have traded in the 'implicit' atheism for 'explicit'.

"Not ruling it out" does nothing to contradict anything I said. Neither does "rebuilding your self image"; it actually serves as a good example of what I was talking about, as it is only through conscious conditioning of experience that we have a self-image, or even a "self" at all. Were you imagining that I was talking about other people beating something into your head?

I notice, too, in your sig that you have traded in the 'implicit' atheism for 'explicit'.


No - still 'implicit'. Just had a specific point to make in the sig. :)


"Not ruling it out" does nothing to contradict anything I said. Neither does "rebuilding your self image"; it actually serves as a good example of what I was talking about, as it is only through conscious conditioning of experience that we have a self-image, or even a "self" at all. Were you imagining that I was talking about other people beating something into your head?

If we are to assume that most people are 'conditioned' to accept this idea that the sun will rise every day, I have to assume that we are talking about something that 'most' people are likely to have had... the 'conditioning' intrinsic in being raised in some kind of society. If my deconstructive approach is 'conditioning', and being raised to it is 'conditioning', then 'conditioning' is a trifle meaningless... or a meaningless trifle, you choose. :)

I don't know about other people. Maybe they inherited religion genetically, maybe it's about nurture. But I don't think I inherited mine. My mother isn't religiou at all, except occasionally when she's tripping. I don't know who my father is, but given that he had a one-night stand with an under-age girl who was off her face on crack, I'm guessing no. My religion came from the circumstances in which I grew up, whre I had no choice but to accept God as it was the only source of hope I could find.

If we are to assume that most people are 'conditioned' to accept this idea that the sun will rise every day, I have to assume that we are talking about something that 'most' people are likely to have had... the 'conditioning' intrinsic in being raised in some kind of society. If my deconstructive approach is 'conditioning', and being raised to it is 'conditioning', then 'conditioning' is a trifle meaningless... or a meaningless trifle, you choose. :)

We are, and have been, talking about the conditioning of repetitive experience. It is the conditioning intrinsic in being conscious.

If you wish to make an argument for _how_ it is meaningless, I would gladly debate that position.

Is there no conceivable instance in which the world might be stopped in its rotation, or knocked out of orbit? What does that have to do with conditioning?

Have you ever seen a TV show called 'Space 1999'?No.

What does that have to do with conditioning?

No.

Would it surprise you, then, if the planets suddenly didn't behave as they were supposed to, defied the "laws of physics" to dance around in odd directions?

The "laws of physics" were assembled through observation of repetitive experiences, and through each instance of experiencing the truth of them we ourselves are conditioned to believe in them. If tomorrow suddenly things began falling "up or down," our conditioning would be what creates the feeling that a "surprise" instills in us. It is our conditioning that would be violated, not the "laws" themselves --Nature is what it is, and Science would merely have to re-examine the "laws" in order to adapt them appropriately to the new circumstances.

If we were not conditioned to expectation, there could be no "surprise." Falling "up or down" would instantly become the new "what it is."

It may sound like a smiple and obvious thing, but it's also a very important thing as it lays the groundwork for the idea that we cannot know what reality is apart from us, and that leads back to my question: Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it?

What does that have to do with conditioning?

No.

It has to do with why you cannot expect the sun to rise every day. The point being that reason assumes consistency, but this is not always a valid assumption.

Would it surprise you, then, if the planets suddenly didn't behave as they were supposed to, defied the "laws of physics" to dance around in odd directions?

The "laws of physics" were assembled through observation of repetitive experiences, and through each instance of experiencing the truth of them we ourselves are conditioned to believe in them. If tomorrow suddenly things began falling "up or down," our conditioning would be what creates the feeling that a "surprise" instills in us. It is our conditioning that would be violated, not the "laws" themselves --Nature is what it is, and Science would merely have to re-examine the "laws" in order to adapt them appropriately to the new circumstances.

If we were not conditioned to expectation, there could be no "surprise." Falling "up or down" would instantly become the new "what it is."

It may sound like a smiple and obvious thing, but it's also a very important thing as it lays the groundwork for the idea that we cannot know what reality is apart from us, and that leads back to my question: Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it?

Again, I'm confused by your use of 'conditioning'. "If we were not conditioned to expectation..." you seem to be using 'conditioning' as a way to claim that the 'observe-explain-predict-observe' cycle is... i don't know... something more concrete than a pragmatic mechanism? I think 'conditioning' implies something different to you, than it does to me.

You say we are 'conditioned to expectation'.. I say 'expectation' is based on consistent fulfillment of the 'cause leads to effect' paradigm. It doesn't need to be 'conditioned'... it need only be observed.


As for your last question: "Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it? We can honestly state it, but it doesn't make it true. I, personally, don't 'believe' it - but I don't 'not believe' it, either. I find it a more-than-acceptable potential mechanism, and can't see any fatal flaws in it.

One other thought: "Falling "up or down" would instantly become the new "what it is."..." Isn't that how it is, though?

Again, I'm confused by your use of 'conditioning'. "If we were not conditioned to expectation..." you seem to be using 'conditioning' as a way to claim that the 'observe-explain-predict-observe' cycle is... i don't know... something more concrete than a pragmatic mechanism? I think 'conditioning' implies something different to you, than it does to me.

You say we are 'conditioned to expectation'.. I say 'expectation' is based on consistent fulfillment of the 'cause leads to effect' paradigm. It doesn't need to be 'conditioned'... it need only be observed.

Same thing, different words.

'Conditioning' implies to me 'expectation' based on knowledge. I have no idea what "something more concrete" you may be talking about, sorry, so I cannot address that.

As for your last question: "Can we honestly state that all our outputs are the result of inputs, or do we just believe it? We can honestly state it, but it doesn't make it true. I, personally, don't 'believe' it - but I don't 'not believe' it, either. I find it a more-than-acceptable potential mechanism, and can't see any fatal flaws in it.

One other thought: "Falling "up or down" would instantly become the new "what it is."..." Isn't that how it is, though?

By "what it is" in the discussion of surprises I implied an acceptance of circumstances.

Same thing, different words.

'Conditioning' implies to me 'expectation' based on knowledge. I have no idea what "something more concrete" you may be talking about, sorry, so I cannot address that.


If that's all you mean by 'conditioning', why use such a loaded term? Conditioning carries implication of 'programming'... what you seem to be saying now, is that you mean little more than expectation.

Or, I'm missing something.


By "what it is" in the discussion of surprises I implied an acceptance of circumstances.

But, isn't that the human way? We just suck up new paradigms (pretty quickly), and go on about out business. Look at the paradigm shift in Judeo-Christian theology... or the paradigm shift around the Cuban missle crisis.

If that's all you mean by 'conditioning', why use such a loaded term? Conditioning carries implication of 'programming'... what you seem to be saying now, is that you mean little more than expectation.indeed.

If that's all you mean by 'conditioning', why use such a loaded term? Conditioning carries implication of 'programming'... what you seem to be saying now, is that you mean little more than expectation.

Or, I'm missing something.

Well, for one thing it was David Hume's idea, and one I thought is a good one. "Programming" or perhaps "self-programming" describes it well. What is 'expectation' but the anticipation of a particular outcome, and how can we anticipate if we we do not have a "programme" to rely on? And how can we say that our programme is entirely reliable?

But, isn't that the human way? We just suck up new paradigms (pretty quickly), and go on about out business. Look at the paradigm shift in Judeo-Christian theology... or the paradigm shift around the Cuban missle crisis.

Not sure about the examples you cite, but it would seem to me more "the human way" to expect things to be the way they've been before. Reliability is comfortable. If things suddenly fell "up" or "sideways" I can assure you a lot of people would get upset, especially if it was them.

Well, for one thing it was David Hume's idea, and one I thought is a good one. "Programming" or perhaps "self-programming" describes it well. What is 'expectation' but the anticipation of a particular outcome, and how can we anticipate if we we do not have a "programme" to rely on? And how can we say that our programme is entirely reliable?


I'm not familiar with his work. I think he overcomplicates.

Expectation doesn't need a programme. It needs nothing more than whatever is the core programme that governs the machine, and a database.

Hume says 'conditioning'... I say 'having the files at your fingertips".


Not sure about the examples you cite, but it would seem to me more "the human way" to expect things to be the way they've been before. Reliability is comfortable. If things suddenly fell "up" or "sideways" I can assure you a lot of people would get upset, especially if it was them.

Very short-term, perhaps. We are resilient that way.

I'm not familiar with his work. I think he overcomplicates.

Expectation doesn't need a programme. It needs nothing more than whatever is the core programme that governs the machine, and a database.

Hume says 'conditioning'... I say 'having the files at your fingertips".

I like that, thanks.
(I think he simplifies, immensely.)

Very short-term, perhaps. We are resilient that way.

Right up until we hit the stratosphere. :D

It has to do with why you cannot expect the sun to rise every day. The point being that reason assumes consistency, but this is not always a valid assumption.
"The race does not always go to the swift, nor the victory to the strong, but that is the way you bet." -- Damon Runyon.

In the meantime, if we are not to abandon the OP altogether, then, if the accustomed order of things were to be suddenly up-ended, then, after an initial period of WTF!, I would expect ;) people with less predisposition towards religion to say, "Oh, well, shit happens," while people with a greater predisposition towards religion might say, "God works in mysterious ways," and possibly start a new religion. Either way, equilibrium in both society and the human mind would soon be re-established. After all, it's not as if the accustomed order has never been up-ended before. Black Plague, anyone?