Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.

Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:

Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.

>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Here's basic logic..

nothing comes from nothing

something exists

Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.


>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.


>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.

Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.

Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.

Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.

Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.

You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@legacy0100
Great! Finally someone that can disagree without being a thick-skulled knob-gobbler about it.
The only thing I would add is:
Considering discoveries in neuroscience reveal that ALL humans have nowhere near the control over our behavior as previously thought, their low standards aren't their fault.
http://youtu.be/wSQY7zHk5y8
[The interviewer initiates the question at 1:55, the answer is at 3:25-3:50]
Years of limited opportunities and poor impulse control create communities like you find in ghettos.
So why you might feel cultures are greater or lesser, again, that's plain ethnocentric bias.
All cultures are equal because they all developed as different ways of coping with life.
Just like how all biological adaptations like fins, feet, hooves, stereoscopic eyes, or large ears are all developed to cope with slightly different environment or circumstances.
And again, thanks for using your brain. = D


says the guy who just called us thick-skulled knob-gobblers. what is a knob-gobbler, genji? am i right in assuming that you've just used a term referencing male homosexuality in a negative manner? sounds like ethnocentric bias to me. i would know, because some pretentious twat just told me all about it.

@legacy0100

Great! Finally someone that can disagree without being a thick-skulled knob-gobbler about it.

The only thing I would add is:

Considering discoveries in neuroscience reveal that ALL humans have nowhere near the control over our behavior as previously thought, their low standards aren't their fault.

http://youtu.be/wSQY7zHk5y8

[The interviewer initiates the question at 1:55, the answer is at 3:25-3:50]

Years of limited opportunities and poor impulse control create communities like you find in ghettos.

So why you might feel cultures are greater or lesser, again, that's plain ethnocentric bias.

All cultures are equal because they all developed as different ways of coping with life.

Just like how all biological adaptations like fins, feet, hooves, stereoscopic eyes, or large ears are all developed to cope with slightly different environment or circumstances.

And again, thanks for using your brain. = D

@dgandhi

I don't understand why all self-reported data is "bad" data. Yes, self-reporting by itself is unreliable data. The problem with self-reporting is that you can't be sure the reason people checked a box on the survey is the reason the researcher thinks they checked the box. That's why it is so crucial to triangulate your data--for example with follow-up interviews and observation of how people actually behave (which, for example, Gallup doesn't do). Self-reported data is not "bad" so much as it is incomplete if that's all you're going to work with.

Case in point, in the article you linked to it turns out many people who only attended church once or twice a month reported themselves as attending "regularly." Yet these same people did not in fact differ in commitment to the religion as those that attended weekly--which is why they chose "regularly." So basically the Gallup poll provided an incomplete picture of what was going on (as did the weekly church attendance count--people going to church less often didn't necessarily mean people abandoning the religion entirely). In my comment to you, I was criticizing not the article you linked to but the polls cited by this video which were only surveys and not triangulated in any sort of way. Those are the ones I find unconvincing--for the same reasons the article you linked to found the Gallup data unconvincing. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Also, have you read Ecklund's research? I would be interested in hearing your critique of the methodology used.

As to your second point, I disagree with several of your statements. You can in fact be religious and not believe in the existence of a good deity. Most Buddhists sects have been doing it for thousands of years. There was another Sift on here a while back about an aboriginal group that had only one deity--and it was evil. It basically existed to torment them. Are they not religious?

I also disagree that belief is binary. What empirical evidence do you have that belief is binary? Does anything in neuroscience support this? "Kind of" believing in something sounds a lot like agnosticism to me... you're not sure something is out there, but you're also not willing to rule out the possibility that it exists either. This guy explains why belief can't be binary a lot better than I can.

Now, the information in this video is questioning what would happen if we deported all atheists. It seems clear from the examples of atheists they show that they are referring to self-proclaimed atheists. The atheistempire poll cited by this video clearly states that 7% of the people polled described themselves as either atheist or agnostic. It's not the pinnacle of research by any means, which is why I asked if you have any other data about self-proclaimed atheists. That was the reason I was asking you to keep things simple, by the way. It's not that I don't believe there aren't a lot of hypocrites out there who claim they are religious but act in a different way--I most certainly do believe that. For the purposes of commenting on this video though, I'm completely unconcerned with them.

As an end note (to what unfortunately became a rather lengthy post--sorry), let me just explain that the only reason I commented on this video was because I was disgusted by how completely half-baked most of the sources were and at the completely unjustified conclusions it came to. Now, in your original reply to me you suggested that 10% was a conservative number for the number of atheists in the U.S. And I took that to mean self-proclaimed atheists, which I found hard to believe (which is why I asked for a source). But it's clear to me now that when you say "atheist" you are referring to everyone--the non-practicing Christian who only shows up for Christmas and Easter, the hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches, etc.--into the term atheist. And I agree with you--if you lump all those people together, yeah, you'll get more than 10%. But I don't agree with lumping them all together any more than I agree with your "binary" definition of belief.

I don't think neuroscience speaks to the question of souls. If you are trying to speak vagaries like souls, you should start by defining your terms. It isn't even clear, for instance, that neuroscience speaks to concepts like "consciousness" (again, whatever that means). Maybe this is a clip that would be better served with some context about the claims he is refuting. Otherwise, it's a pompous Sam Harris doing what pompous Sam Harris does: read some Oliver Sacks and call yourself a neuroscientist.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
There is always going to be religion and group-think. There are going always be people who are less intelligent and less independently-minded. The only problem is when you've got someone who will manipulate those mindless masses for their own agenda. Let's be real. The power structure behind Christianity isn't actually interested in advancing faith...they want power...otherwise there wouldn't even be a power base in the first place and religion would be restricted to just the local churches.
There is nothing inherently wrong with religion and faith. You just gotta reign in their power base and influence to more tolerable levels. I do believe in freedom of religion even though I don't practice any myself. People should be free to believe whatever they want..just as long as those freedoms don't encroach on other people's freedoms.
Wanting Christianity eliminated because the zealots are guilty of oppressing people makes you no better than the oppressors

What horseshit. Do you realize Christians make up over 1/3 of the worlds population? Do you seriously think you can pigeonhole that many people? There are Christians in every walk of life, every kind of profession, intellectual or otherwise, at all ranges of IQ. The bible says only a fool doesn't believe in God. When I was agnostic, I truly was a fool because I had no spiritual discernment. That is why atheists believe the bible is nonsense. Without any awareness of the spirit, or the fact that they have one, they're no better than robots executing some program with a tacit self-awareness. Logic is nothing in and of itself..


I won't go too far here, but this is dangerous thinking. It's full-on vitriolic, bigoted, and hate filled. I don't know how you can read that to yourself and sleep at night soundly, willfully going out of your way to hate and dismiss a large part of the population. (Which you complain about...)

I'm an atheist and I've never meet you. I do no great evils (other than not believing in your God). Please tell me logically why I deserve your hate and specifically why you are certain that my "smarts" are faulty; as to this day I've heard the opposite from others about myself (people I know, not this Internet hogwash).

Your dipping into zealotry and from there it is a short journey to become the thing you hate; whether that seems likely or not, it has been fairly well defined, and a time-tested adage. What you're saying is exactly the same you complain about: pigeonholing.

/Zealotry is dangerous as it causes you to fall into the condition, "You can't see the forest for the trees.". Or, I would say it also causes "tunnel-vision".

//I'm not trying to provoke you as your fine to believe as you wish, but when you expect others to see things ONLY your way you will suffocate yourself socially as people HATE to be meddled with. Which is perhaps the reason many atheists are as vocal as they are; they've been meddled with.

P.S.--

Lastly, atheists don't follow spirituality as it has no logical or scientific basis (instead we usually follow neurosciences' and psychologies' term 'psyche'). If you define "the soul" via science it makes literally no sense; as we understand the brain to be more of a "compartment" like system. You have the left and right hemisphere, then the neo-cortex which is a glorified search engine that makes Google look like a baby in diapers, you have your perception based areas, your emotion based centers, and memory storage. When they work together you gain your perception and that is arguably where you find sentience. The brain is very complex, but it is being understood more and more each day. So what happens when one day we create a true, sentient A.I.? What if they are smart enough to understand the power of community and become more gracious than mankind? What exactly IS a soul at that point? One day religion in general may need to explain things that truly it's prophets may never of foresaw and it's followers will be hard pressed to explain (except for 'faith').

P.S.S.--

I hope you don't think this is an outright attack on you, as this isn't my intention. I merely wish to show you the differences in thought and secondly let you know that what you said is not "helpful" it's very negative in nature. It sounds as though you need to bury the hatchet with something.

Batshiat! There is a reason that word exists.

It sounds to me that he has literally caused a type of psychosis. The drugs have facilitated the change via memory and neuron construction. This doesn't sound like bi-polar (all though it seems like it's cyclical, I think it's the drugs--since he views them as a joke with no negatives), this sounds like a drug induced semi-delusion, schizophrenia, or literally a psychotic break.

This is what happens to you when you take too much--your brain finds a way to sustain itself in every fashion. The drugs were in the way so it cut around the useless area and reconnected. Simple stuff.

It made Charlie believe he's more than mortal, "in touch" with something "else", rampant rambling that's almost incoherent. This is ALL textbook; hell you don't need to be a doctor (one second he asks her if she's a doctor as though that brings qualification; the next he thinks the doctors have got it all wrong; rambling, psychotic...). Charlie needs to take a Human Anatomy 101, Psychology 101, and then either a Psychology +102, Neuroscience 101+, and then a Philosophy 101.

He might find out that his experience is: A-Not unique or special. B-VERY common to people to OD or take heavy doses of psychoactive drugs (or really any neurotransmitter/neurochemical based drug such as Xanax, Phenegran, or the common choice of an Opioid) C-Surprisingly he'll most likely end up like a statistic. Especially, because he thinks he's doing the right thing (psychosis).

I highly doubt Charlie will stop himself, it's up to the people around him that are close enough to affect a change (good luck with that; I know how hard that is to pull off).

Charlie Sheen is only human.

Placebos are a joke unto themselves as all testing so far has been done in a scenario were psychology can be manipulated and pathology is fixed.

If you offer a placebo to someone with REAL chronic pain they will throw it back at you, or be back the next day telling you it did nothing or helped within a normal range of perception (I think it's usually 10% or so; the more time you add the higher that percentage gets, eventually proving a placebo correct or completely wrong no matter what). Most of the studies look at conditions that are not pathological (or could barely be described as a true medical condition; it's usually mental health studies were the conditions barely exist if at all). Like a simple headache, but not a gunshot, cancer, or a cluster headache. Placebo study is a psychological study. No real doctor is going to screw over someone with pancreatic cancer with a placebo "radiation treatment". No real doctor will use a placebo as it's illegal. The very definition of placebo tells you why.

/Not trying to come off to snippy, but I have chronic pain and a placebo would be a day and night experience to me. Most will tell you the same thing. Example: a high morphine dose vs. a fake one. In 15 to 30 minutes your patient will be back, pissed, and emotionally/mentally upset. Placebos are meant for specific uses in testing not an actual treatment; as they do nothing if it is pathological, duh.

//edit: Yes, I know we don't know everything yet. Especially, how the mind interprets and "saves" it's data. Psychology is very young compared to other fields, but neuroscience is helping it catch up FAST. This is where you'll find placebo studies that go no where. (Placebos only work on pain that is thought of and borderline in the first place...)
///Also a few clarifications.

(Taken from Liveleak)
Serene Branson - did she suffer a stroke?

"Well, a very heavy burtation tonight," she said, smiling broadly. But her smile More.. disappeared as her speech devolved into a series of incomprehensible utterances.

To be clear, it's not immediately known what happened to Branson and calls to the station where she works went unanswered at presstime. But a neurologist who watched Branson's episode offered several possible explanations as to what happened to her.

"Stroke is the number one possibility," Dr. John Krakauer, associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, told CBS News. Other possibilities, he said, include a transient ischemic attack - a sort of "mini-stroke" that produces no lasting problems - a migraine headache, or a seizure.

>> ^spaceman:

Why I don't care:
1) You once believed in a god.
2) You are a guy.


@spaceman | The reason why the rest of us watch and listen to "just some guy; who believed in God":

The only reason you can type your sentence is from/due-to "other" men. Religion in all forms is from "other" men (unless you claim to hear voices or a physical divinity; but, please, not as an affront to you, make sure you're not psychotic or schizophrenic before telling us your interesting story as that is the case almost always; same with drug use; same with some other illnesses: narcolepsy, sleep walking, night terrors/sleep paralysis, and many other sleep related issues and all nervous system illnesses). Only a few things below talk more about what you said.
--------------------------
--------------------------
A little more to add to the conversation. Hopefully, this gets it all out as it will be fairly long, but the video is hard to reply to in a short manner. I hope this covers a large extent of what I wish to say about this very well done video witness/testimony.


One set of values you can research and witness to it's validity on your own, as he has done. Science also allows for this methodology, using the well known precept of "The Scientific Method".

A quick example is that many people of faith, even Evid3nc3, talks of feeling "x" with their "hearts" and knowing "x" with their "soul". In science there is nothing more than a simple, yet complicated, physical processes. It's all a creation and manifestation in your brain; if you think you "feel" something with your heart you're causing minor self-hysteria to the extent of creating a minor hallucination.

The "soul" is called the(primarily in psychology, neuroscience, and neurology; there are many other terms that try to mean "you"; typically, in grossly inaccurate ways, such as: ghosts, "psychic" remote viewing, many religions use of the magical-energy-divine soul, etc...) psyche which is typically (starting from the outer-functions and moving into core-functions) sensory systems, language center, feelings, memory, and then the key-piece the neo-cortex. So it must be understood that your brain does a lot of things still baffling (mostly the mechanics or mechanisms of function and chemistry), but the overall picture is fairly clear.

But, the brain is not a floating energy source, nor is it an absolute definition at any given point or time. Depending on how and where you look at the brain the very concept of you is different. It more akin to superposition of an electron or a kaleidoscope; the definition of you is not concrete until measured and even then you are already not what was measured.

Even from what little we do know, belief plays a central role in how our neo-cortex makes decisions and operates (even with memory and other functions, which is why we do make many mistakes as it's due to how our brain physically commits to anything it must or will do; it's perhaps the single best reason to show why, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."; you don't understand the human condition if you cannot forgive...). Could this translate into a bigger picture; our connected neurons telling us to accept faith and belief, sometimes, because that is what it does at the small scale?

*Offtopic Look up articles, books, and videos (look at TED for Marvin Minsky, Jeff Hawkins, Craig Venter, Jonathan Haidt and others --some of which are here on the sift-- related topics on there like the Mind, AI, facial-pattern-contextual-semantics-divergent-cat vs. dog software based Recognition, and then other media pertaining to 'Artificial Intelligence') or if you want to know strictly about how the brain works and makes it's decisions, look for a type of setup called a "hierarchical structure"; also known as a pyramid or pyramid scheme. One cell makes a decision based off of the accumulations of "guesses" the other millions of cells connected to it made; these cells are fundamentally the foundation for that setup, but the neurons are more flexible than that as each can be a parent and also part of the "foundation" structure, making the brain a fantastic structure. With time this becomes accurate (this occurs in less than a few milliseconds), although our vision, for an example, is horrifically distorted and wrong, if you could look at one "frame" based on a few cells. Only a small fraction of the frame would be correct; literally it would be as though your senses got one pixel correct in a 1080p image. Yet, repeat this millions of times with different data sets each round (and this is done as said above, fast) you get an accurate picture; or at the least 20/20-to about one-arc minute (the resolution for the human eye, on average).

One set you can't test, we call that belief or faith. "What is the reasoning for taking the leap of faith?", this is what you have to defend at this point. If faith is your only defense, I will (like many others will) assume you haven't looked into your own faith enough yet or you even refuse to look out of fear of being wrong. If you do not understand the topic you must be willing to ask for help as he did or you'll be a slave to your willful decision of ignorance, to the extent that you feel compelled to defend them, but you never convince anyone except yourself--and for yourself it is only because of the rote-righteous indignation.

If it's true it should withstand all scrutiny. Unless truth isn't your ultimate goal. Then, for us and many others there is no reason to follow your faith. Usually, this type of merit and defense are directly related to age due to learning this all when you're a child and devoid of an intense ability to decipher, attribute values, connect, and draw in a belief (if with some facts and proof you could call it a hypothesis).

It's all from men... I'm wagering you're dismissing this flippantly due to religion; if not what exactly is your point, as I truly would like to know why and where this claim of non-relativistic knowledge comes from, without a woman or man?

Also, if it has to do with his belief in being mistaken for believing in God that's a moot point as we have all erred in life. I know of no person that has reliably been able to "claim divinity", other than Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc... But, we also know now that mental illness and other factors can account for any manic or psychotic leanings. We also know magicians (or magister, proper) have been around A LONG TIME.

Plus, as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Which then one must ask another question, "Can divinity itself ever be established as being magic only?". This is then rounded up by a statement from Larry Niven (sometimes called Niven's Law(s)), "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.". These collide and distinctly form a conclusion about divinity and any of it's powers (descriptive magic or divinity and it's "how to use it" manual are indefensibly getting closer in each step to being more akin to physics; plus the Christian God hates magic, which begs the question, "Why do you need a God, if we can exact the same effects?"):

Divinity can only hope to use advanced knowledge and technology in a collusion to bring about one standpoint alone: "divinity" if described by God in any kind of ruleset (some of it is in the bible, already) stands on a rigorously tested and time shown: shaky ground.

Men would be gods whether God existed or not.

(P.S.: only the beginning and some bits here and there are for you, @spaceman. The rest is for our vestibule.)

Again I must add that this is a great find @dystopianfuturetoday.
You're doing yourself a great disservice not watching it (or all of it as the case may be).

I think the problem may be with the question rather than with the answer.

Do I believe in the existence of a Universal Consciousness? I have no evidence for or against, so I can't say.

Do I believe such a Consciousness has an impact on my life? No. Since I have no evidence that something like that is influencing my life, I tend to believe that it does not.

I think I may agree with your standpoint on belief formation when it is in the context of one's actual day-to-day life. Otherwise, if it is too hypothetical, I don't see why the mind would need to leap to one side or the other.

Other than that point, I think we may be talking about different concepts that overlap the same words. As I said, I'm not deeply into neuroscience or anything of the sort. If you want to discuss the concept of "belief" in a context other than "what do you believe is true" then you will have to explain further.