For some giggles... its interesting to note that when studies comparing the religiosity of a country to rates of illegitimacy, cwoc dismisses it. (paraphrasing) its obvious that there are other factors, he claims, making those results irrelevent.

But... stating a rise if illegitimacy in the UK... it can only be due to atheism!

Wheeeee!

I actually don't really see anything of use in that study. I would be interested to read it when it comes out, but it seems to me that the focus is off. If I say "I dare god (or whatever else you wanna use, a squirrel, whatever) to kick a puppy or murder my family" It isn't the object of the act that is distressing you, but the act itself. At least IMO.

edit: nvm really, didnt read carefully the first time. Guess I'll just wait for the study

That's interesting. I have a cat. Do I harbor a secret admiration for Bast?

The benefit described is a socio-cultural benefit, not necessarily an evolutionary one (what is good for a society won't necessary make anyone pass on their genes more).

Other than that, it would be a difficult hypothesis to support since you can't trace concepts of God reliably beyond Sumer - and while mutations are happening rapidly due to our enormous level of expansion after the agricultural revolution, natural selection doesn't really catch up in a short timespan like 6000-7000 years.

I'm sure I can find some people to scare with threats of scenes of known horror films. It could even make for an interesting philosophical article (psychologically speaking it isn't that interesting, that a narrative can cause emotion is an integral part in how we learn and very well known).

I'm not sure I would use that article to run and write an article that says "Do moviegoers really believe in horror films?".

Or I could do that too, but let's face it. I would be a very stupid person.

Granted, it's a stupid bit of legal red tape that unfairly penalizes atheists, but it was extremely unlikely to ever make a difference in her case. Just being pragmatic here but when things are so bad that (female) senior citizens are required to take up arms, that conscientious objector **** goes out the window.

The CO bit itself is nonsense anyway. If you're going to institute compulsory military service there's no reason a Mennonite in PA should get a break that someone else doesn't. [I do think an argument can be made for those looking for US citizenship, but that doesn't really jibe with the whole "land of the free" thing.]

This lady here should know there's some stupid laws and bureaucracy involved here in the US, she's only lived here 30 years. Far better causes to devote your efforts to, certainly more devastating policies.

The study is a bit confusing, there seems to be some part (Study 2) that would act as a control for it being 'god' vs 'the act', by substituting 'God, do X' with 'I wish for X'. But the non-Study links says that they did not include statements for alternate agents - isn't 'I' an alternate agent?


Slight sidetrack:
Have you ever watched one of those shows about ghost hunting or haunted houses, etc? One of the first ones I remember involved a series of tasks that individuals had to complete, and they each had a camera firmly attached to them, pointed straight at their face to catch their reactions. Some of the locations they went to were things like haunted houses, insane asylums, places where some poor souls had been subjected to "a bad time!", and it was always pitch dark. Even knowing it was a TV show, designed to be scary but full of hidden cameras and other production items, I think I would have been scared ****less in many of those locations.

From an evolutionary perspective I understand why we fear the unknown ("is that a predator hiding in the bushes? better not stick around to find out"). What I'm not sure about is why that fear would extend to the supernatural, ghosts etc?

I don't think you are stupid, but you clearly aren't carefully reading. "I dare Santa Claus to drown my son" did not have the same emotional arousal effect that "I dare God" did, therefore, I'm not sure your analogy holds. It's not what is being dared that causes discomfort in atheists, but WHO they are daring.

I found this especially enlightening: LIARS!

Actually, that is the exact reason for my own substituted analogy. My point was merely that you can stress people with fiction, which is somewhat trivial - people after all, don't read fiction like they read tax ledgers. My point was that using a stress reaction to question if people found a narrative to be is stupid.

Question:
Do you doubt you can stress people with fiction? Do you think that if you get a skin-reaction to a narrative, you believe it to be true?


Since you apparently feel so vindicated that you choose a strong words such as "LIARS!" to describe respondents, I think it is safe to say that you now have a moral obligation to answer the above question directly and truthfully.

Other than that, you are also wrong and your lack of knowledge shines through. Skin conductance does not necessarily denote a sense of threat.

Without emotion, we could not learn very well. We attach emotion to memory, and the strength of the emotion in part determines the strength of the memory. This translates also to social learning. Your mother tells you "don't put your hand on the stove, you will get burnt".... and your memory is much stronger than if your mother says "don't put your hand on the stove". Even later as grownup, when you know the stove is off... you're not putting your hand there carelessly.

Connecting a narrative to something vivid thus evokes stronger memory responses. This is why you would be more stressed by the idea of a velociraptor ripping your child to shreds, than you would to the idea of x ripping your child to shreds. Biblical narratives are powerful ones. Storms, angels of death, fathers willing to sacrifice their sons. They are also well known and most people know them. It would be very strange if you could not use them to illicit stress reactions.

The people behind the study probably know this, but instead of choosing a control comparable to god for an atheist (say... a dead dictator), they use non-vivid control questions or control question connected to less emotional responses. Thus you get the result you want, and you are streamlined for publication in "International Journal for the Psychology of Religion"

Also, this is very trivial and something any human knows: Everybody on this forum has been stressed by things they think are true and they have been stressed by things they don't think are true. It is absolutely trivial and not worthy of a discussion. Sadly it allows people to throw up bogus questions like "do they really believe this?" and call people liars, and thus it gets used anyway.

It is quite sad.

Someone is awfully defensive. Despite your emotional protests, and implications that one possible interpretation of these results is only believed by "stupid" and "sad" people, I don't think you are being fair to yourself to simply dismiss the particulars of the context altogether and instead apply a general, blanket statement such as your underlined statement above. But if it helps you to deal with the results and their implications, by all means, then make broad analogies and compare them to specific, concrete particulars. I think it would be much easier for you to simply admit that most atheists are probably uncomfortable with their atheism in some way. God is not Santa Claus. God is not Adolf Hitler... Not even to an atheist.

Lol. You mean that book containing those 'stupid' stories that atheists pound away at night and day on here as being 'nonsensical jibberish?!'

"I have identified a disturbing tendency of atheists to take what seems to be a plain and literal reading of the study and explain it away in one fashion or another. Seems to be something something besmirching something."

Edit to add: There is no Angel of Death in biblical narrative.

I can't really see where my posts have been "defensive" nor "emotional". I pointed out stuff you overlooked in your eagerness to call people liars, and posed a very relevant question you failed to address.

A "plain and literal reading" of the study would not contain the questions in the linked article, nor the claims Doggg is making. It actually is quick to emphasize the opposite, and instead say what I am saying in this thread regarding powerful narratives.

I agree.

Sarcasm generally doesn't contain a but a

This triggered my memory by the way. As you might (or might not) know, the study you are using as backdrop is a psychology study performed at the University of Helsinki, the most notable author being Marjaana Lindeman... a finnish professor in cognitive psychology and expert on superstitions.

So, since when did you drop this viewpoint:

It did after all seem like you felt fairly strongly about this. Are you still going to do a thread on "psychology is pseudoscience"?

This alone is amazing. I'll have to stop auto-scrolling past Doggg.

yea, he doesn't want to ever discuss it again though (seriously)

Aah, yes, TD has won the conversation, as he has outed my personal hypocrisies! Good job!

Well, it's a bit strange that you in one thread use words such as "pseudo-science", "quacks" and other very strong characterizations of an academic field, and then just a few days later use a study from that very field as evidence for equally strong characterizations of other groups and people. Especially when we also take into account that you don't answer the very natural questions that were posed towards this line of argument.

A cynic might think your aim was mostly to throw out characterizations, and that consistency and evidence aren't going to get in your way.

Don't fret. I'm working on a post that will take some shots in that direction.

theres no need to pot shot around. Why not just directly answer what was put to you in the other thread when you first brought this up?

Lol. If anyone needs therapy, it's you guys.

I mean, c'mon, you have to pick and choose your battles here. If was chasing every divergence in every thread I was involved in -- well, I'd just need to be paid for that.

What is interesting is that of late I've been blatantly thick with sarcasm (which seems obvious to the christian posters,) and then I watch in horror as atheists make serious, studied responses-- which is indicative of something: that something probably being the belief they hold fast to that they are intellectually superior.