Well aren't different groups going to manifest God in different ways?

Everyone's made in the image of God. It doesn't mean everyone reveals the family likeness in the same way.

Failed studies obvs a good thing,

gotta fail before you succeed i always say

Aren't we clever.

Trying to derail a thread by taking a post from another thread and pasting it in here.

That post wasn't in reference to studies....it was discussing another topic entirely.

the op did discuss the refution(failure) of studies, i just wanted to make it known that failure of studies should not be used to limit future studies because the man upstairs allows failure for a reason

Who said anything should be limited.

Why don't you start your own thread if you want to change the topic.

While this is obviously true, feeling the need to say it starts down the road to a false equivalence. Our society is one in where atheists and homosexuals get banned from the boy scouts, not the other way around. That I can't categorically say that zero instances of bigotry on the part of atheists has ever occured is hardly a counterexample to the significant negative consequences of religion in our society.

It's not the existence of the moral shortfall that's surprising, it's the blatant hypocrisy involved.

False equivalence? You are really going take that not being allowed to be a Boy scout and try to run with it? And then you would like to take this to the level of the types of religious injustices that happen all over the world? *THAT* would be a false equivalence.

Also, the atheist persecution link is not something that is unique to atheism. Cartoons of Mohammad draw this type of reaction regardless of your religion (or non-religion) of choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Westergaard

Both examples exude a level of ignorance that is not dissimilar to the ignorance of certain segments of fundamentalist Christianity that I would assume people like zumby hold in high disdain.

It's not supposed to be and I never claimed that it was. I don't deny that religious people have done negative things in our current society and throughout history, and the existence of atheistic bigotry doesn't justify/minimize those things, either.

I find it bizarre and sad that zumby is coming from the following position:

So... he wants to hear "positive news" -- "Non-religious people are more compassionate than religious people" -- because it will help to bring balance to not being allowed to be a Boy Scout and what amounts to a suppression of free speech that is not unique to atheism.

Really? That "positive news" is going to be something meaningful or relevant in some sort of bigger picture? This is completely absurd.

i have a feeling you really want to talk about eliminating studies from existence, go on let it out

I would defend myself against your incessant distortions of my position but as demonstrated in the other thread, when it comes to your opinion....

Now gtfo, sweetheart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_research
A very relevant wiki.

From study:
Greater Good Science Center doesn't seem biased against religion.



Metanexus also doesn't seem biased against religion.

http://www.metanexus.net
Moderated discussion list and newsletter dedicated to promoting the constructive
engagement of science and religion.

I hope this helps somehow, though it doesn't prove anything.

I find the article particularly misleading because religious people probably don't even report a lot of their charity. The NT admonishes Christians to not disclose their charitable works. I also suppose they have no way of measuring a Christian's charitable activism in his own community because the spectrum of activities is far too broad and nebulous and they would have had to set a testing limit on that spectrum that may rule out things that people who weren't the study administrators would consider to be charity.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the study.

lol u mad... which makes me think you really do care.

If you take a nonsense position, you're going to get called out for having a nonsense position. You tried to pull an emotional end-around on the very pointed question of why you would *want* to find out that nonreligious people are more charitable than religious people, and it failed to connect.

If you phrased it wrong, it's fine to go back and rephrase it. But I think you really just took a tactically bad line and now you're kind of stuck on that flub.

My opinion is that you're posting too fast, and not thinking through your words and ideas as fully as you should. But that's just my opinion.

There's an ignore feature. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can figure it out.

That's pretty good, actually. I've found that Seagram's VO and Coke tend to slow the process down.

Works for me anyway.

To answer the question in this thread's title I am going to use an analogy. People like to think in terms of definitive states. For instance, people are generally either considered 'smokers' or 'non smokers.' But addiction does not really work that way. There is no magical number of cigarettes after which a person is converted from a non smoker to a smoker. Though people may understand that realistically this is not how addiction works, they like to think of things in this way. And this is why a lot of people become addicted in the first place.

Most people do not start smoking with the anticipation of becoming addicted. But what a lot of them do not realize, or at least do not act as if they realize, is that addiction is not a definitive state. Instead, there is a range of addiction. The more you smoke, the more strongly addicted you become. The 'smoker' 'non smoker' distinction is largely an illusion (there are, of course, several technical potential points of distinction, such as whether or not there is Nicotine present in one's body).

Knowledge works the same way in terms of whether or not something ought to be considered accurate. There is no graduating point at which we can say, 'everything on this side of the line is not accurate, and everything on this side is accurate.' There are simply varying levels of confidence. The more rigorously something is tested, the greater the number of trials, and much more all add to how accurate we can consider something.

Just as knowledge works the same way as addiction, the institute publishing the study can be viewed similarly. There are many things which lend themselves to the credibility of an institution, as well as a study (whether or not the study was peer reviewed, for instance). The reputation of institutions is not just randomly handed out. You cannot just buy a reputation. It comes from continually producing results that wind up agreeing with studies eventually put out by other, independent institutions.

This is very interesting. It reminds me of God's plan to test everyone. See Peter's statements in the bible that people are put through manifold testing. Trials tend to build faith...they also have a sifting quality.

Wow. To a lot of your comments on this thread. I think it's obvious that your mind has been corrupted by religion.

I suggest you at least get current on the psychology of religion if you're going to act like you're an expert.

People Are Born with Religious Belief Argues New Book
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-new-book.html

"A controversial new book"

How are you acting like this is really the latest greatest current theory? Jewbinson is not acting like an expert. He was just making a comment. You, on the other hand, are acting like there's one side to this story and only you itt know it.

I'm not the one making a personal attack itt.

He can get current on the subject if he's such an expert.

You, too. I suggest you both buy this book:

Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes] [3 volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion (Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality)


Synopsis


Spiritual practices, or awakenings, have an impact on brain, mind and personality. These changes are being scientifically predicted and proven. For example, studies show Buddhist priests and Franciscan nuns at the peak of religious feelings show a functional change in the lobes of their brain. Similar processes have been found in people with epilepsy, which Hippocrates called the sacred disease. New research is showing that not only does a person's brain activity change in particular areas while that person is experiencing religious epiphany, but such events can be created for some people, even self-professed atheists, by stimulating various parts of the brain. In this far-reaching and novel set, experts from across the nation and around the world present evolutionary, neuroscientific, and psychological approaches to explaining and exploring religion, including the newest findings and evidence that have spurred the fledgling field of neurotheology.


It is not the goal of neurotheology to prove or disprove the existence of God, but to understand the biology of spiritual experiences. Such experiences seem to exist outside time and space - caused by the brain for some reason losing its perception of a boundary between physical body and outside world - and could help explain other intangible events, such as altered states of consciousness, possessions, alien visitations, near-death experiences and out-of-body events. Understanding them - as well as how and why these abilities evolved in the brain - could also help us understand how religion contributes to survival of the human race. Eminent contributors to this set help us answer questions including: How does religion better our brain function? What is the difference between a religious person and a terrorist who kills in the name of religion? Is there one site or function in the brain necessary for religious experience?


Biography


PATRICK MCNAMARA is Director of the Evolutionary Neurobehavior Laboratory in the Department of Neurology at Boston University School of Medicine, and the VA New England Healthcare System. He is also Assistant Professor of Neurology at the same sites. He is currently developing an evolutionary approach to problems of brain and behavior, and studying the evolution of the frontal lobes, the two mammalian sleep states (REM and NREM) and the evolution of religion in cultures. He is trained in behavioral neuorscience, neurolinguistics and brain-cognitive correlation techniques. He pioneered investigation of the role of the frontal lobes in mediation of religious experience.

Oh and btw, evolution is still controversial in some quarters.

Are we suppose to dismiss it because it's controversial?

Splendour, you do realize that just because people are born with a propensity for religious belief doesn't really prove anything except that people are born with a propensity for religious belief. It doesn't give any validation to religious claims.

Any?

That's debatable. Did you notice the: "Such experiences seem to exist outside time and space"

But it doesn't matter I'm more concerned with the programming claims that atheists make. The new science of neurotheology is debunking them.