Dear Theist...

[owtth]

The answer to that is a resounding no.

"Red" is the brain's response to and interpretation of a real stimulus that does exist in the external universe. To say that "God" is the brain's response to and interpretation of a real, analagous stimulus is completely wrong. If I imagine a unicorn, a demon, a celestial teapot or a monster, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are the reaction to an external stimulus - they are all of the mind. To go even further and say that these constructs of the mind can actually exist within external reality and in one case create external reality is nuts.

Did Dev just make a semi-serious post? That's it we're all fucked.

[Animavore]

This is lunacy to me. Sheer lunacy. And I absolutely discourage that kind of behaviour.

That's what I mean about rationalists having a hard time with the irrationality of life inside the mechanism. If you really believe that life would be better if everyone just had good reasons for their decisions, then it becomes very hard to live with any kind of peace. One is always unsettled about "that kind of behavior". To me life inside the mechanism IS lunacy, and saying god told me to do it is as good a reason as any; probably better because it doesn't pretend to be rational.

Oh right. I get you. So better to just throw away rational thought and join the lunatics on the grass? Maybe I'll join the Westboro Baptists and throw signs up saying how much my god hates fags. After all, I don't need to pretend to be rational, even though that's exactly the job of theology is to rationalise beliefs, but I'll roll with it. If I tell god told me to do it that's all I need to get by.

[hiyymer]

You can't explain ANYTHING to me that's independent of my experience your explanation Becomes subjective as soon as it enters my mind .

I can't even prove I'm not dreaming it all ,the whole bloody concept of "I" is a construct BUT since Logic and science seem to be a valid way of finding things out
I will accept them . I see and feel the sun RISE but I know that it doesn't All arguments for the existence of God have far less Repeatable evidence than the sun rising . I know When I'm in love but I know that's an illusion .To say that God is anything more than any of these feelings or subjective experiences is insane .Show me any evidence for god !that was the OP the fact there is a god feeling in some people is only as evident as a love feeling and a whole lot less evident than red .

my, my, I, I'm, I, I, I, I, I'm, some people. That's the number of times you referred to an agent representation in the course of your post. Is it an agent or a feeling? That story in your mind that says "look what I decided. Look what I did. Look what I think.", is not to be found anywhere in scientific reality. Yet it is a very real thing to you and the perfect metaphor. So why are you so grudging about other people's agent that they call god. It's not a god feeling. It's the real experience of a self-caused agent. The only issue is whether the agent's intention represents something that really exists.

[devogue]

The answer to that is a resounding no.

"Red" is the brain's response to and interpretation of a real stimulus that does exist in the external universe. To say that "God" is the brain's response to and interpretation of a real, analagous stimulus is completely wrong. If I imagine a unicorn, a demon, a celestial teapot or a monster, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are the reaction to an external stimulus - they are all of the mind. To go even further and say that these constructs of the mind can actually exist within external reality and in one case create external reality is nuts.

Did Dev just make a semi-serious post? That's it we're all fucked.

I'm brilliant at serious posts.

[hiyymer]

This is lunacy to me. Sheer lunacy. And I absolutely discourage that kind of behaviour.

That's what I mean about rationalists having a hard time with the irrationality of life inside the mechanism. If you really believe that life would be better if everyone just had good reasons for their decisions, then it becomes very hard to live with any kind of peace. One is always unsettled about "that kind of behavior". To me life inside the mechanism IS lunacy, and saying god told me to do it is as good a reason as any; probably better because it doesn't pretend to be rational.

Oh right. I get you. So better to just throw away rational thought and join the lunatics on the grass? Maybe I'll join the Westboro Baptists and throw signs up saying how much my god hates fags. After all, I don't need to pretend to be rational, even though that's exactly the job of theology is to rationalise beliefs, but I'll roll with it. If I tell god told me to do it that's all I need to get by.

Do whatever you want. But you don't have to pretend that you actually have reasons. It's usually more effective not to. Reasons just tend to make the other guy wrong, and that is fatal.

"You shouldn't put up signs saying god hates fags because homosexuals are people just like you and me and they just have a different sexual orientation. It's not really a choice for them. Besides the constitution guarantees their right to do it. "
or
"I stand for fair play and good sharing and justice. That's my vision. That's what I want. I can't help it. It just inspires me. Everyone should get the same break regardless of what they believe, the color of their skin, who they make love to, how much money they have. Wouldn't that be great if the world was like that? Don't you want to help me make that happen? Don't you think that's what Jesus would want?"

[Thinking Aloud]

I think this is going in circles just outside the actual meaning ... but I think I know what hiyymer is getting at.

For myself, I experienced "god" in the past as something tangible - a genuine feeling that was very real to me - but now I interpret the same feeling differently when I get it, and don't give it any external source. To that end, I suppose I still experience "god" as a real feeling, but I don't call it that, and am aware it's a result of chemicals and stimulation within my brain and body.

That's kind of an aside, really.

[Animavore]

This is lunacy to me. Sheer lunacy. And I absolutely discourage that kind of behaviour.

That's what I mean about rationalists having a hard time with the irrationality of life inside the mechanism. If you really believe that life would be better if everyone just had good reasons for their decisions, then it becomes very hard to live with any kind of peace. One is always unsettled about "that kind of behavior". To me life inside the mechanism IS lunacy, and saying god told me to do it is as good a reason as any; probably better because it doesn't pretend to be rational.

Oh right. I get you. So better to just throw away rational thought and join the lunatics on the grass? Maybe I'll join the Westboro Baptists and throw signs up saying how much my god hates fags. After all, I don't need to pretend to be rational, even though that's exactly the job of theology is to rationalise beliefs, but I'll roll with it. If I tell god told me to do it that's all I need to get by.

Do whatever you want. But you don't have to pretend that you actually have reasons. It's usually more effective not to. Reasons just tend to make the other guy wrong, and that is fatal.

"You shouldn't put up signs saying god hates fags because homosexuals are people just like you and me and they just have a different sexual orientation. It's not really a choice for them. Besides the constitution guarantees their right to do it. "
or
"I stand for fair play and good sharing and justice. That's my vision. That's what I want. I can't help it. It just inspires me. Everyone should get the same break regardless of what they believe, the color of their skin, who they make love to, how much money they have. Wouldn't that be great if the world was like that? Don't you want to help me make that happen? Don't you think that's what Jesus would want?"

Maybe the other guy is wrong?
Still don't see that evidence for a god. Just a big, theological smoke-screen.

[hiyymer]

This is lunacy to me. Sheer lunacy. And I absolutely discourage that kind of behaviour.

That's what I mean about rationalists having a hard time with the irrationality of life inside the mechanism. If you really believe that life would be better if everyone just had good reasons for their decisions, then it becomes very hard to live with any kind of peace. One is always unsettled about "that kind of behavior". To me life inside the mechanism IS lunacy, and saying god told me to do it is as good a reason as any; probably better because it doesn't pretend to be rational.

Oh right. I get you. So better to just throw away rational thought and join the lunatics on the grass? Maybe I'll join the Westboro Baptists and throw signs up saying how much my god hates fags. After all, I don't need to pretend to be rational, even though that's exactly the job of theology is to rationalise beliefs, but I'll roll with it. If I tell god told me to do it that's all I need to get by.

Do whatever you want. But you don't have to pretend that you actually have reasons. It's usually more effective not to. Reasons just tend to make the other guy wrong, and that is fatal.

"You shouldn't put up signs saying god hates fags because homosexuals are people just like you and me and they just have a different sexual orientation. It's not really a choice for them. Besides the constitution guarantees their right to do it. "
or
"I stand for fair play and good sharing and justice. That's my vision. That's what I want. I can't help it. It just inspires me. Everyone should get the same break regardless of what they believe, the color of their skin, who they make love to, how much money they have. Wouldn't that be great if the world was like that? Don't you want to help me make that happen? Don't you think that's what Jesus would want?"

Maybe the other guy is wrong?
Still don't see that evidence for a god. Just a big, theological smoke-screen.

We weren't talking about god. We were talking about life inside the mechanism being irrational. The other guy being wrong is just your story. Objectively, group dominance works. It's a well tested evolutionary success. There is no society without a pecking order.

[Animavore]

We weren't talking about god. We were talking about life inside the mechanism being irrational. The other guy being wrong is just your story. Objectively, group dominance works. It's a well tested evolutionary success. There is no society without a pecking order.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about any more. Anyway it's off-topic. The thread is about god and evidence for him.

[PsychoSerenity]

I'm not saying that god objectively exists as the thing that we experience. I am saying that god is an agent in our experience that represents certain biological motivations that do exist, and that god can be experienced as transparently real.

OK sorry if I get this wrong, - I've just been trying to catch up on the whole discussion.

I think what you've been saying is:

A lot of people have had experiences, that are very meaningful, that they call God. Those experiences are the result of some unknown, but real, influences and biological motivations. Those influences have come from something (which you are calling God), which has natural causes and has played an important role throughout our evolution (which is why so many people get these experiences of God).

Fist of all is that what you're saying?

Secondly, if it is, Why continue to call it God?

It may be a real collection of experiences that come from a real source, but calling that 'God' causes two problems that I can see. Firstly it causes confusion between these natural influences, and the other 'Gods' that people tell stories about and that I think the OP was asking for evidence for - you know, the Gods that create the universe and throw thunderbolts. Secondly it stops you looking further into what the natural causes for the experiences really are.

I suppose what I'm asking is, if we can explain the god experience in terms of evolution and neuropsychology, wouldn't it be better to stop calling it God?

[Lozzer]

The complexity of the human genome

[Animavore]

The complexity of the human genome

[PsychoSerenity]

The complexity of the human genome

I never thought of it like that. I believe!

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not saying that god objectively exists as the thing that we experience. I am saying that god is an agent in our experience that represents certain biological motivations that do exist, and that god can be experienced as transparently real.

OK sorry if I get this wrong, - I've just been trying to catch up on the whole discussion.

I think what you've been saying is:

A lot of people have had experiences, that are very meaningful, that they call God. Those experiences are the result of some unknown, but real, influences and biological motivations. Those influences have come from something (which you are calling God), which has natural causes and has played an important role throughout our evolution (which is why so many people get these experiences of God).

Fist of all is that what you're saying?

Secondly, if it is, Why continue to call it God?

It may be a real collection of experiences that come from a real source, but calling that 'God' causes two problems that I can see. Firstly it causes confusion between these natural influences, and the other 'Gods' that people tell stories about and that I think the OP was asking for evidence for - you know, the Gods that create the universe and throw thunderbolts. Secondly it stops you looking further into what the natural causes for the experiences really are.

I suppose what I'm asking is, if we can explain the god experience in terms of evolution and neuropsychology, wouldn't it be better to stop calling it God?

He's saying it's all in our heads, but it's real in that sense (as a part of brain functioning).

[hiyymer]

Fist of all is that what you're saying?

Secondly, if it is, Why continue to call it God?

Yes. That' s about right.

Because it is God, and in exactly the same sense that Zeus throwing down a lightning bolt is a god. In our experience we have things called agents. Almost any force of nature or the motivations of any person or beast can be represented as an agent. There is no agency in scientific reality (what's really there), because agents are self-caused and intentional, and those things don't exist in scientific reality. "I want to eat" is just a way that the brain represents the fact that my blood sugar is low and my body is creating an emotional state called hunger. There is no 'I' in that self-caused intentional sense. It is my body that needs food, not I. (I think I said this already). Agency is so transparently real that we don't think about it twice. There are agents all over our experience. The God agent is a representation of biological processes, but it is still the experience of the transparently real agent that points to those processes. To me it is not real, because it is like the lightning bolt. Instead of saying thank God, I say thank brain. I understand that there is no 'I' in control and that my brain is my protector and subconscious decider of my most important life decisions. Accepting God is just accepting the nature of my experience and not having to have reasons. It's a way of getting on the playing field and just choosing chocolate because I choose chocolate and living it. But I wouldn't tell someone else to rename their God, any more than I would tell them to stop using the word 'I' or 'you'.