Ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

[Jichard]

Hello...! :)

I did read the link, but, of course, the book had not actually been published 'at the that time' and so no real content was available.

This is unlikely, I think. Humans have (had?) always been superstitious and drawn to different Gods, Deities and supernatural beings, and so if Greek or Roman folks were declaring a disbelief in Greek or Roman Gods then they were probably already clinging to other super-beings! :)

You seem to be equating superstition with belief in God. where do you get that? an example of superstition is black cat crosses your path means bad luck. where is a god in that?

Well, the cognitive processes underlying superstitious are some of the same cognitive processes underlying religious belief. For example, intuitive thinking promotes religious belief and paranormal belief. Of course, the two can act in opposition to one another, with religious belief discouraging various forms of paranormal belief. We've been over this before on the CARM forum.

Some research explain how religious believers can come to see design and intentionality where there isn't any [background: theory of mind, in laymen's terms, involves attributing mental states to stuff (such as other humans)]:

"Supernatural believers attribute more intentions to random movement than skeptics: An fMRI study"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...6#.Vekai_lViko

"A host of research has attempted to explain why some believe in the supernatural and some do not. One suggested explanation for commonly held supernatural beliefs is that they are a by-product of theory of mind (ToM) processing. However, this does not explain why skeptics with intact ToM processes do not believe. We employed fMRI to investigate activation differences in ToM-related brain circuitries between supernatural believers (N = 12) and skeptics (N = 11) while they watched 2D animations of geometric objects moving intentionally or randomly and rated the intentionality of the animations. The ToM-related circuitries in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) were localized by contrasting intention-rating-related and control-rating-related brain activation. Compared with the skeptics, the supernatural believers rated the random movements as more intentional and had stronger activation of the ToM-related circuitries during the animation with random movement. The strength of the ToM-related activation covaried with the intentionality ratings. These findings provide evidence that differences in ToM-related activations are associated with supernatural believers’ tendency to interpret random phenomena in mental terms. Thus, differences in ToM processing may contribute to differences between believing and unbelieving [emphasis added]."

"Religious People and Paranormal Believers Alike or Different?"

"The results showed that the relationship between religious and paranormal beliefs was positive among paranormal believers and sceptics but negative among religious people. High intuitive thinking, low analytical thinking, mystical experiences, and close others’ positive attitude toward the supernatural distinguished both kinds of believers from the sceptics, while conservation and self-transcendence values distinguished religious people from paranormal believers."

"Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief"

"An analytic cognitive style negatively predicted both religious and paranormal beliefs when controlling for cognitive ability as well as religious engagement, sex, age, political ideology, and education. Participants more willing to engage in analytic reasoning were less likely to endorse supernatural beliefs. Further, an association between analytic cognitive style and religious engagement was mediated by religious beliefs, suggesting that an analytic cognitive style negatively affects religious engagement via lower acceptance of conventional religious beliefs. Results for types of God belief indicate that the association between an analytic cognitive style and God beliefs is more nuanced than mere acceptance and rejection, but also includes adopting less conventional God beliefs, such as Pantheism
or Deism."

"Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose"

[Carrikature]

What book?

If you're not aware, the book he keeps referencing is the one he wrote.

[Tassman]

h content[/B]








I've written several scholarly articles on that subject. The atheist pabulum, on brain/mind determinism is crap. l Have proved it. I also published articles about it in the academic journal that I published, Negations.

one such article:

Mind is not reducible to brain

There is no good reason to think that the mind is not reducible to the brain...despite your mistaken assumption that endless verbiage equals a convincing argument for dualism. It doesn't. Experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that is the basis of our "mind" and not some "spiritual " component which is not subject to those laws.

If you're not aware, the book he keeps referencing is the one he wrote.

Oh, no I wasn't aware of that but I'm not surprised.

[metacrock]

Well, the cognitive processes underlying superstitious are some of the same cognitive processes underlying religious belief. For example, intuitive thinking promotes religious belief and paranormal belief. Of course, the two can act in opposition to one another, with religious belief discouraging various forms of paranormal belief. We've been over this before on the CARM forum.

o hello Royce. I disproved those [prtemd studies at that time since then I've done even more to discredit them. Now I'm working on an article for journal publication showing why they are BS and Dr Hood is helpingg me.

[INDENT]

"Religious People and Paranormal Believers Alike or Different?"

"The results showed that the relationship between religious and paranormal beliefs was positive among paranormal believers and sceptics but negative among religious people. High intuitive thinking, low analytical thinking, mystical experiences, and close others’ positive attitude toward the supernatural distinguished both kinds of believers from the sceptics, while conservation and self-transcendence values distinguished religious people from paranormal believers."

all of those so called studies are dependent upon deigning SSN s superstitions it's not even talking out mystical and thuus have application to my arguments.

you need to read the essay I linked to above showing the true concept of SN.

[metacrock]

Royce I always meant to tell you I do admire the fact you use studies. that puts way ahead of most CARM boarders.

[metacrock]

If you're not aware, the book he keeps referencing is the one he wrote.

so what? that just means I'm an expert in the field

It's endorsed by some major people including the inventor of the M scale.

[metacrock]

you can try to chip away at my pride of authorship but you don't have a book. You probably never will. my book is recognized by the leading researcher in the field.

There is no good reason to think that the mind is not reducible to the brain...despite your mistaken assumption that endless verbiage equals a convincing argument for dualism. It doesn't. Experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that is the basis of our "mind" and not some "spiritual " component which is not subject to those laws.

No Donald, just being a lot words does not negate the meaning they say. you have look at the actual meaning the words say. try that.

I gave six reasons why it's not reducible and I documented them with expert testimony so you have said nothi9nmg., your little silly protests and your derisive no0nsesx is not an argument. Be as snide as you wish it proves nothing. I cleaned your clock six times now and you know it. You will always know it.

Oh, no I wasn't aware of that but I'm not surprised.

so? tell me what's wrong with it?

[metacrock]

no one ever argued that Loftus was wrong because he wrote a book. I actually mentioned several times that I wrote a book. read the thread.

[Carrikature]

so what? that just means I'm an expert in the field

It means several things. It can't be treated as an outside authority, for one. What it doesn't mean is that you're an expert. Literally anyone can write a book, and in today's world literally anyone can self-publish it. Which, if I'm not mistaken, you've already admitted to doing here.

It's endorsed by some major people including the inventor of the M scale.

I think we have different definitions of 'major people'.

[metacrock]

It means several things. It can't be treated as an outside authority, for one. What it doesn't mean is that you're an expert. Literally anyone can write a book, and in today's world literally anyone can self-publish it. Which, if I'm not mistaken, you've already admitted to doing here.




I think we have different definitions of 'major people'.

I am sure we do. you are not a scholar I am. you are not an academic, I am. when I say major people I mean in their field such as psychology of religion. you mean big named atheists.

your little arbitrary categories are of no interest. My book is recognized by the major5researcherinthefield you cdan't changeit. You can check the validity but looking up the research that'[s what foot notes are for;

[metacrock]

It means several things. It can't be treated as an outside authority, for one. What it doesn't mean is that you're an expert. Literally anyone can write a book, and in today's world literally anyone can self-publish it. Which, if I'm not mistaken, you've already admitted to doing here.

here is an academic journal of religious studies their review of my book

read it little know all
you are always insulting people just because they say your are stupid and can't write.

I think we have different definitions of 'major people'.

yes I mean big name academics who know their field you mean opinionated know nothings
\
kr. know all this guy is Dr. Jamaes Hannam Ph.D., historian from Cambridge hesays of my book:

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2014...hinman_22.html

Overall, as a first book that breaks new ground in the philosophy of religion, this book represents a considerable achievement. Joe’s publishers, Grand Viaduct, also deserve credit for helping him overcome the disadvantage of dyslexia to communicate his ideas in a format such that they might achieve the recognition they deserve.