Where does religious belief come from? (3 Viewers)

[Martin]

A change of gears. Rather than discuss religion as a belief system, we move to the psychology of religion and how we can explain scientifically why people believe.

The best explanation I've seen yet is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMm...opic.php?f=20&t=80025&feature=player_embedded

Unfortunately, it's a bit short for its purpose (which is very substantial) and goes a bit too quick without explaining all the concepts properly.

This research is actually quite current, and there's been a lot happening in this area lately.

The basic claim is that religion is a by product of cognitive systems we have developed for other uses. One question it does not undertake is to say whether this invention (religion) was a beneficial or harmful one.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Did you read the teleological argument, Martin?

 

[Martin]

Don't know what you're talking about, so no.

 

[rounder]

http://leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html


It's a little long but it explains exactly what I mean when I am talking about plausibility.

 

[Martin]

Is this the fine tuning stuff all over again?

 

[rounder]

Yes.

 

[Martin]

We went over that already. The probability thread.

Stop wasting your time on that and watch this video if you have a chance.

 

[rounder]

We went over that already. The probability thread.

Stop wasting your time on that and watch this video if you have a chance.

I will watch the video. Just try reading the link I posted, you will understand how the plausibility argument is a viable one. Notice that plausibility is not the same as probability, if I was arguing for the latter then your objection would be justified since we do not know any different outcomes.

 

[Stephan]

A change of gears.

 

[Martin]

I will watch the video. Just try reading the link I posted, you will understand how the plausibility argument is a viable one. Notice that plausibility is not the same as probability, if I was arguing for the latter then your objection would be justified since we do not know any different outcomes.

Forgive me, but I'm not going to. I think I have made progress on the god thing by what we've discussed in the last few days, namely the issue of defining god prior to discussing him. That's my strongest argument and as long as that stands I have no reason to speculate on these other things.

As for "how all of this happened" I'm perfectly content to say I don't know. I don't have to know everything and many things I will never be able to explain. But for the sake of answering your point, I do not find "then it must have been god" claims convincing in the least, and I think you know this all too well. It's like trying to solve a murder investigation by pinning the murder on some person noone has ever heard of and the police have no record of his existence. I'm only willing to consider suspects that are known, because only that makes sense.

If anything, I'm a lot more interested in how and why people believe in god, because human psychology is something that concerns me right here, not somewhere in the far reaches of the universe where unexplained things exist.


Nice to see Stephan still on surveillance duty. I wonder who's paying him to go on stake out.

 

[Hist]

I will watch the video. Just try reading the link I posted, you will understand how the plausibility argument is a viable one. Notice that plausibility is not the same as probability, if I was arguing for the latter then your objection would be justified since we do not know any different outcomes.

Nice article, i enjoyed reading it. It shows atheism as bad as theism in terms of taking a leap of faith.

 

[swag]

I like trucks.

 

[JCK]

Me too

 

[Bjerknes]

You think demand for trucks will rise, then buy that Volvo stock, Jack. I just don't know about the demand and supply situation in Europe when it comes to that stuff, obviously.

 

[icemaη]

Does my browser have a bug? I can't see a poll...

 

[JCK]

You think demand for trucks will rise, then buy that Volvo stock, Jack. I just don't know about the demand and supply situation in Europe when it comes to that stuff, obviously.

Well I think that trucks will always exist. Right now the sales has dropped drastically but even the trucks out there are not rolling. Sooner or later they will start, transport will never stop. Once the trucks start rolling as they should, the demand will rise, starting by spare parts then going to complete trucks.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Parents is the answer to the question.

 

[JCK]

What have parents to do with trucks?

 

[Bjerknes]

Well I think that trucks will always exist. Right now the sales has dropped drastically but even the trucks out there are not rolling. Sooner or later they will start, transport will never stop. Once the trucks start rolling as they should, the demand will rise, starting by spare parts then going to complete trucks.

If you think that transporting will rise in price, meaning Volvo will get more bids, then that's good. But perhaps the key is the local and regional currency, which really dictates what happens to stocks and shipping rates. If you think inflation is a problem in the Eurozone markets, as in the flooding of the financial system with money, along with the demand for Volvo coming back in the long run, then that sounds like a good investment. Everything, IMO, revolves around currencies.

Remember, the more currency they print, the more the stock should rise. It's a give and take. I have no idea about the Krona, but if Volvo is doing well on their balance sheet and still has business, they should do fine.

Remember, the stock was probably beaten down a lot already.

But this is just my opinion. I am no expert, no financial advisor, or no long term investor.

 

[Bjerknes]

The key to all markets has been the US dollar, strangely enough. It falls, US stocks and all other equities rise. It rises, world stocks fall.

Everything is dependent on the US Dollar. And that is very scary.