We are programmed to believe

[The Inglorious One]

Hobbes, you are as much a student of history as Leo is a philosopher of science. You are both liars or victims of fraud. You offer no insights, no organizing principles and nothing with any truth-value whatsoever. All you have is a bunch of dry, disconnected "facts" with no particular end and no consideration of wider application than raw materialism.

All the fantastic progress you talk about is grounded in the fading momentum of prior religious values and meaning. And still you avoid ontology. What are you afraid of?

[Obvious Leo]

Answer my fucking question you obnoxious piece of shit. What has belief in the supernatural got to do with ontology? You don't even know what the bloody word means so stop using it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hobbes, you are as much a student of history as Leo is a philosopher of science. You are both liars or victims of fraud. You offer no insights, no organizing principles and nothing with any truth-value whatsoever. All you have is a bunch of dry, disconnected "facts" with no particular end and no consideration of wider application than raw materialism.

All the fantastic progress you talk about is grounded in the fading momentum of prior religious values and meaning. And still you avoid ontology. What are you afraid of?

I've found that those who religiously avoid answering direct questions are invariably untrustworthy scoundrels.

[The Inglorious One]

Answer my fucking question you obnoxious piece of shit. What has belief in the supernatural got to do with ontology? You don't even know what the bloody word means so stop using it.

Look, sweetie-pie, where did I say anything at all about 'the supernatural'? If you are afraid to discuss matters of ontology whether or not the supernatural is involved, why don't you just say so?

If not, then let's begin with a simple question: what must be in order for what is to be as it is?

[Obvious Leo]

When a statement has one of these marks ??????? after it you may be assured that it is a QUESTION. That means you ANSWER it and is not an invitation for you to ignore it and phrase a question of your own.

[The Inglorious One]

When a statement has one of these marks ??????? after it you may be assured that it is a QUESTION. That means you ANSWER it and is not an invitation for you to ignore it and phrase a question of your own.

Coward.

[Obvious Leo]

I have spoken on metaphysics at length in a number of different threads on this forum and have never retreated from any relevant questions which have been put to me. This topic is about the nature of belief and your attempt to divert it ain't gonna work. You stated that belief in the supernatural is a hard-wired feature of human cognition and you have been asked to provide some evidence or at least a coherent argument to support this claim. I'm waiting.

[The Inglorious One]

I have spoken on metaphysics at length in a number of different threads on this forum and have never retreated from any relevant questions which have been put to me. This topic is about the nature of belief and your attempt to divert it ain't gonna work. You stated that belief in the supernatural is a hard-wired feature of human cognition and you have been asked to provide some evidence or at least a coherent argument to support this claim. I'm waiting.

There you go again: inferring something from things never said. I suggest you read the OP and my response to the vegetable again. "Indication" is not the same thing as proof or hard evidence, especially when it comes to hotly debated issues such as the brain being hard-wired for religion. But if you are so incurious that you will not run a search for "hard-wired for religion" or look on Amazon for related books, then you are no better or different than religious fanatics who fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up to kill those who disagree with them.

Really, Leo. You should seek some professional help.

P.S. I asked you before what must be in order for what is to be as it is and you retreated behind a wall of "I don't know," which leaves one with a hodgepodge collection of disconnected and epistemically unjustified 'facts.'

[Obvious Leo]

I gather that I am free to assume that since you have repeatedly declined to answer any questions directed specifically at you that your only motivation for participation in this topic is to derail it. It's a well-worn theist's ply, albeit a transparently obvious one.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I can't even imagine how 'studies' could go about determining such a thing. You might as well say we are 'hard-wired' to believe whatever our parents tell us at a young age--something that is fairly obvious. Or that we are 'hard-wired' to follow authority figures. To say that studies have proven we are 'hard-wired' to believe in a particular 'god' is mischievous bullshit.

[The Inglorious One]

I gather that I am free to assume that since you have repeatedly declined to answer any questions directed specifically at you that your only motivation for participation in this topic is to derail it. It's a well-worn theist's ply, albeit a transparently obvious one.

What question of any relevance have you asked? What question have you asked that does not incorporate a lie, false assumption or is not an asinine way of looking for a way out?

You know where ontology, the study of being itself, leads when pursued to an ultimate conclusion, and you would rather fly a plane into a building rather than confront it. You believe that strongly in your particular truth. And because you do, you prove that we are programmed to believe.

[The Inglorious One]

I can't even imagine how 'studies' could go about determining such a thing. You might as well say we are 'hard-wired' to believe whatever our parents tell us at a young age--something that is fairly obvious. Or that we are 'hard-wired' to follow authority figures. To say that studies have proven we are 'hard-wired' to believe in a particular 'god' is mischievous bullshit.

Illiterate? Write for free help!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I can't even imagine how 'studies' could go about determining such a thing. You might as well say we are 'hard-wired' to believe whatever our parents tell us at a young age--something that is fairly obvious. Or that we are 'hard-wired' to follow authority figures. To say that studies have proven we are 'hard-wired' to believe in a particular 'god' is mischievous bullshit.

Illiterate? Write for free help!

Look up the word 'illiterate'. You don't have any answers to anything do you? You are a joke.

[Obvious Leo]

Cognitive neuroscience is a mature science with a rigorous methodology and one in which I am well schooled. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that ANY of our cognitive processes are neurologically hard-wired. Everything that goes in our heads is something which we've LEARNED. Inglorious is ingloriously full of shit.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes, you are as much a student of history as Leo is a philosopher of science. You are both liars or victims of fraud. You offer no insights, no organizing principles and nothing with any truth-value whatsoever. All you have is a bunch of dry, disconnected "facts" with no particular end and no consideration of wider application than raw materialism.

All the fantastic progress you talk about is grounded in the fading momentum of prior religious values and meaning. And still you avoid ontology. What are you afraid of?

Fine. It that is what you want to believe; then believe.

That's you all over. What you don't know, and are too lazy to learn, you cover with faith and belief, like a band-aid on a severed head.

Ignorance is not a defence.