Confirmation Bias

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl Stated:
I'm not exactly sure where Gaz came up with the "tripping" reference unless he was thinking about drugs. In your post you say that the Holy Ghost is an invention of religion. And you know this how? Why would you rule out that the Holy Ghost is a spiritual manifestation of God?

Welcome to the board!

Jersey Girl

First, there is no credible evidence for God as your question assumes. That invention preceded the invention of “Holy Ghost.”

Just precisely how the two are distinguished is developed by various religious mythologies in Christianity. I know of no other religion which has contrived “Holy Ghost.” Historically, the notion of “Holy Ghost” follows the invention of God as that emerged in human culture following other superstition as explanation for what was perceived as mystery.

An elementary research regarding the evolution of one God demonstrates that “Holy Ghost” (singular) follows that notion. I grant that those saturated in any Christian dogma/doctrine appear to have no interest in examination of the evolution of their own religion.

Now, your question: “Why would you rule out that the Holy Ghost is a spiritual manifestation of God?”

Before one can make a case for “Holy Spirit,” one must first make the case for God. Although many accept blindly the general notion of God, only specific doctrine/dogma articulates specifics regarding the notion/invention of God.

In further response to your question, absence of evidence for any such entity as “Holy Spirit” is sufficient to reject the claim. And absent genuine and transparent evidence for God, that too should be rejected.

Therefore, in order to establish “Holy Spirit” as characterized by Christians holding different views, those who make the various claims have the burden of proof to establish their claim God and that their claim is correct over all other claims. Since we have a plethora of notions and constructions today for God, we would first need to establish which God notion is correct. Since they are contradictory even from the same set of scripts (the Bible), establishing either entity leaves proponents of such an idea severely challenged.

JAK

[_Gazelam]

The egyptions had a trinity God. Three as one. Apparently the idea of a Godhead isn't unique to post Christ times.

Amazing what you can learn from the writings of a prophet like Noah.

[_Mercury]

The egyptions had a trinity God. Three as one. Apparently the idea of a Godhead isn't unique to post Christ times.

Amazing what you can learn from the writings of a prophet like Noah.

The Egyptian theistic system resembled Mormonism as much as peanut butter resembles a tax form.

[_JAK]

The egyptions had a trinity God. Three as one. Apparently the idea of a Godhead isn't unique to post Christ times.

Amazing what you can learn from the writings of a prophet like Noah.

---------------------------------
“Idea” is a fair term. Ideas constructing multiple gods were inventions to explain. Of course, they explained nothing as any present-day notions of one God explain nothing. Yet, people want to believe that a god or the God is in charge.

The evolution of many gods to few gods to one God to no gods can be documented historically. The problem in that is that all God notions are constructed/invented as correct or true by those who make such constructions. The fact that ancients had notions of gods can be supported. That those notions had validity in fact cannot be supported.

In the USA today, many who claim belief in God also regard that the God in which they believe does and will “Bless America”. They generally intend that as an exclusive. Bless America and protect ours as we set about to kill humans from non-American countries is implied in “God bless America.”

Muslims say, “God is Great,” and they do not believe that God favors America as they speak as citizens of Iran or another primarily Muslim country. Belief in religious myth in no way gives the myth validity.

An ancient notion is not correct merely because it’s ancient. Evidence, scientific evidence historically has been and continues to be a threat to any religious mythologies. Further, religion modifies its positions to comply with discovery of science. The evolution is not the other way around. That is, ultimately science is not deterred by any religious doctrine/dogma. Science ignores religious doctrine. In so doing, it continues to research, explore, investigate, and discover. In short, religious dogma is irrelevant.

JAK

[_Mephitus]

God has turned into what i like to refer to as "the god of the margins".

Originaly since we did not have science to explain things, god was a valid argument as to why the sun rose in the morning, why birds flew, and everything else we could not explain. As we learned more and more science to explain things, god was marginalized into "ok, we now know that god doesn't do that so he must be over here doing this." untill now that the definition of what god must be is so large and complex as to be a laughable hold that people need for some divine being that watches and rewards you for behavior that doesn't make sense.

One of the guys who best explains this is my favorite author, Douglas Adams. If you go to youtube and search "douglas adams radical atheist" you will find a few interviews that he did.

[_harmony]

In short, religious dogma is irrelevant.

JAK

Would that that was so, JAK. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The number of dead rises daily because one set of men who believe one religious dogma are fighting another set of men who believe something entirely different, on the sand in the Middle East. And it goes back for uncounted generations. Religious dogma is not only not irrelevant, it's foolish to think that it is. As long as men hide their reasons for war behind religious reasons (instead of the real reasons of power and money), we will continue to add to the number of dead.

[_JAK]

In the context of my complete text, God inventions are irrelevant to discovery of evidence and fact.

harmony stated:
Would that that was so, JAK. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The number of dead rises daily because one set of men who believe one religious dogma are fighting another set of men who believe something entirely different, on the sand in the Middle East. And it goes back for uncounted generations. Religious dogma is not only not irrelevant, it's foolish to think that it is. As long as men hide their reasons for war behind religious reasons (instead of the real reasons of power and money), we will continue to add to the number of dead.

Within the context of your statement here, of course religious wars are a product of religious dogma. Religious dogma is irrelevant with regard to fact-finding and to discovery based on what we recognize as science today. And, as I observed, genuine discovery is not manipulated by particular religious dogma regardless of what that religious dogma is.

Medical advances, space technology, as well as other science-based discoveries are not altered by religious dogma. The degree to which religious dogma attempts to control scientific exploration is relevant. Embryonic stem-cell research might be an example in the USA.

However, within the context of my comment, the conclusion “religious dogma is irrelevant” is correct. What people believe and what laws cultures impose as a result of God notions are irrelevant to the goals, objectives, and pursuit of scientific investigation. Some early scientists were executed or jailed as a result of their discoveries because of God notions or religious doctrine.

That kind of historical result caused by religious dogma appears to be the context of your comment.

That the earth is a sphere is known today. Religious dogma to the contrary was and is irrelevant. It has no effect on the fact. Religious beliefs contrary to fact are irrelevant in the context of my comment.
--------------
In review I stated:

“Idea” is a fair term. Ideas constructing multiple gods were inventions to explain. Of course, they explained nothing as any present-day notions of one God explain nothing. Yet, people want to believe that a god or the God is in charge.

The evolution of many gods to few gods to one God to no gods can be documented historically. The problem in that is that all God notions are constructed/invented as correct or true by those who make such constructions. The fact that ancients had notions of gods can be supported. That those notions had validity in fact cannot be supported.

In the USA today, many who claim belief in God also regard that the God in which they believe does and will “Bless America”. They generally intend that as an exclusive. Bless America and protect ours as we set about to kill humans from non-American countries is implied in “God bless America.”

Muslims say, “God is Great,” and they do not believe that God favors America as they speak as citizens of Iran or another primarily Muslim country. Belief in religious myth in no way gives the myth validity.

An ancient notion is not correct merely because it’s ancient. Evidence, scientific evidence historically has been and continues to be a threat to any religious mythologies. Further, religion modifies its positions to comply with discovery of science. The evolution is not the other way around. That is, ultimately science is not deterred by any religious doctrine/dogma. Science ignores religious doctrine. In so doing, it continues to research, explore, investigate, and discover. In short, religious dogma is irrelevant.
------------------------

In the context of that analysis, religious dogma is irrelevant. The only sentence which you quoted was the final sentence in my post. The basis for the conclusion requires the context of previously developed thought in my original text.

Fact finding of science is not manipulated by God notions. For example, belief that the earth was at the center of the universe or that it was flat are both wrong. Religious views are threatened by scientific discovery when those discoveries present clear, transparent evidence that the religious beliefs are wrong.

JAK

[_harmony]

Fact finding of science is not manipulated by God notions. For example, belief that the earth was at the center of the universe or that it was flat are both wrong. Religious views are threatened by scientific discovery when those discoveries present clear, transparent evidence that the religious beliefs are wrong.

JAK

Do you honestly believe that? You sound like you think Science is God or has at least replaced God.

Only in a sterile world is religious dogma irrelevant. In the real world, even research scientists are buffeted by it, based on such things as funding sources and political ramifications (as the stem cell research folks butted heads found out). Try teaching evolution in the South, and you'll find out exactly how much religious dogma impacts science. Religious dogma impacts politics, social services, funding, research grant applications, foreign policy, commerce, our legal system, pollution, the economy... you name it, religious dogma impacts it. Just try building a new mall on top of a Native American graveyard and see how far you get.

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; what matters is if the guy holding the checkbook, voting in the election, or making the laws does, even if he's several steps removed from your sterile tower.

[_JAK]

Fact finding of science is not manipulated by God notions. For example, belief that the earth was at the center of the universe or that it was flat are both wrong. Religious views are threatened by scientific discovery when those discoveries present clear, transparent evidence that the religious beliefs are wrong.

JAK

Do you honestly believe that? You sound like you think Science is God or has at least replaced God.

Only in a sterile world is religious dogma irrelevant. In the real world, even research scientists are buffeted by it, based on such things as funding sources and political ramifications (as the stem cell research folks butted heads found out). Try teaching evolution in the South, and you'll find out exactly how much religious dogma impacts science. Religious dogma impacts politics, social services, funding, research grant applications, foreign policy, commerce, our legal system, pollution, the economy... you name it, religious dogma impacts it. Just try building a new mall on top of a Native American graveyard and see how far you get.

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; what matters is if the guy holding the checkbook, voting in the election, or making the laws does, even if he's several steps removed from your sterile tower.

Well, of course you can define or perceive “real world” any way you wish.

As I stated, religious doctrines/dogmas are irrelevant to the discovery based on the accumulation of information/evidence.

harmony stated in part:

You sound like you think Science is God or has at least replaced God.

That’s not what I stated nor is such an interpretation of my comment accurate.

harmony stated in part:

Try teaching evolution in the South, and you'll find out exactly how much religious dogma impacts science.

Incorrect. The southern part of the USA does not control nor dictate the research and discovery of science. Religious notions contrary to transparent, peer-reviewed factual detail are irrelevant to science. Repression "in the South" does not impact science in the international scientific community. Repression "in the South" may keep some ignorant. Poverty keeps people ignorant as well.

To be sure, repression and domination by such people as the state school board of Kansas which opposed even the appearance of the word “evolution” in texts impede the flow of knowledge where such views attempt to prevent discovery and prevent honest intellectual inquiry.

However, their views don’t impact science in the global pursuit of science. The impact which you reference is not an impact on science. It may be an impact on the education of some geographical culture which rejects science and rejects honest intellectual inquiry. It’s not an impact on science globally.

The world is not flat nor is it the center of the universe. God notions remain irrelevant to exploration of scientists regarding medicine, space, biology, and other scientific pursuits.

Your objection is not to scientific pursuit but rather to the attempts by anti-scientific cultures. Such cultures or groups’ superstitions are irrelevant to the pursuits of science. What IS remains unaffected by religious dogma. The fact of evolution in the universe is not controlled by religious bias of the South or of any other cultural area.

While finance is critical to scientific research, the suppression of funding does not alter the facts. The earth is not the center of the universe. Stalling the discovery of that fact does not alter that fact.

Scientific research continues without regard to or respect for religious mythologies. Such religious myths do not alter scientific fact.

JAK

[_harmony]

Well, of course you can define or perceive “real world” any way you wish.

As I stated, religious doctrines/dogmas are irrelevant to the discovery based on the accumulation of information/evidence.

harmony stated in part:

You sound like you think Science is God or has at least replaced God.

That’s not what I stated nor is such an interpretation of my comment accurate.

harmony stated in part:

Try teaching evolution in the South, and you'll find out exactly how much religious dogma impacts science.

Incorrect. The southern part of the USA does not control nor dictate the research and discovery of science. Religious notions contrary to transparent, peer-reviewed factual detail are irrelevant to science. Repression "in the South" does not impact science in the international scientific community. Repression "in the South" may keep some ignorant. Poverty keeps people ignorant as well.

To be sure, repression and domination by such people as the state school board of Kansas which opposed even the appearance of the word “evolution” in texts impede the flow of knowledge where such views attempt to prevent discovery and prevent honest intellectual inquiry.

However, their views don’t impact science in the global pursuit of science. The impact which you reference is not an impact on science. It may be an impact on the education of some geographical culture which rejects science and rejects honest intellectual inquiry. It’s not an impact on science globally.

The world is not flat nor is it the center of the universe. God notions remain irrelevant to exploration of scientists regarding medicine, space, biology, and other scientific pursuits.

Your objection is not to scientific pursuit but rather to the attempts by anti-scientific cultures. Such cultures or groups’ superstitions are irrelevant to the pursuits of science. What IS remains unaffected by religious dogma. The fact of evolution in the universe is not controlled by religious bias of the South or of any other cultural area.

While finance is critical to scientific research, the suppression of funding does not alter the facts. The earth is not the center of the universe. Stalling the discovery of that fact does not alter that fact.

Scientific research continues without regard to or respect for religious mythologies. Such religious myths do not alter scientific fact.

JAK

I see you worship the God of Science.

Nevermind.