The Parietal Cortex - Home of the Holy Ghost

[StuartJ]

The ONLY thing members here have offered as evidence for the biblical Yahweh as "God" -- or the biblical "scriptures" as having come from Yahweh -- is the supposed influence of the "Indwelling Holy Spirit".

NOTHING ELSE

But NOT ONE member has demonstrated that the IHS is anything more than the voices in their head.

The voices that tell us that "God and the Holy Scriptures" are real and are greater than us, may simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

During their varied transcendent states, all subjects showed similar activity patterns in the parietal cortex, which processes sensation, spatial orientation, and language, and is thought to influence attention, among other functions. In other words, whether the thing that makes a person feel connected to something greater involves church, trees, or a stadium full of sports fans, it appears to have the same effect on the brain. https://qz.com/1292368/columbia-and-yal ... ur-brains/

Do we feel a sense of intellectual satisfaction with an answer that does not involve some version or other of "God" ...?

Can we trust the Columbia and Yale scientists ...?

(One typo edit made)

[StuartJ]

This Atheist has long understood that "God" is nothing more than an invention of the human imagination.

This Atheist has long understood that "scriptures" were written by imaginative humans.

NO believer EVER demonstrates that their version of "God" or "scriptures" emanated from ANYWHERE other than human imaginations.

I discarded the Great Game of Pretend decades ago.

I found it honest to do so.

I find it intellectually satisfying to now understand more and more of the mundane physicality behind the make-believe of "spirituality".

I find it intellectually satisfying to understand that "God" is simply the parietal cortex, and not Odin or Jesus or Isis or Jehovah or Allah or any other human-invented fantasy figure with extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers that awe the simple folk.

I welcome the work of evidence-based scientists.

I condemn the delusion and downright deception of priests and pastors.

I am relieved to be free of the primitive, superstitious he-came-to-earth-to-die-for-my-sins nonsense.

It was a fraud from the start ...

And still is.

[Jagella]

Do we feel a sense of intellectual satisfaction with an answer that does not involve some version or other of "God" ...?

Can we trust the Columbia and Yale scientists ...?

Speaking for myself, yes to both questions. I love to share in scientific discoveries that shake up our tired, old, probably wrong assumptions about reality. Maybe that's why I'm an atheist: I prefer knowledge to comforting myths.

NO believer EVER demonstrates that their version of "God" or "scriptures" emanated from ANYWHERE other than human imaginations.

True, but there is a passionate and concerted effort to make out one of these gods to be historical. That god is the Christian god, Jesus, and he alone among the gods has been privileged to be granted historicity by Christian scholars. It's amazing how western culture can affect disciplines like historical studies.

It was a fraud from the start ...

And still is.

Well, sadly, many people love fraud if it tells them what they want to believe.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 2 by StuartJ]

This post is utterly amazing, and revealing.

This Atheist has long understood that "God" is nothing more than an invention of the human imagination.

Allow to to explain something to you. An Atheist can claim to understand whatever they wish, but this would not in any way cause what they claim to understand to be correct.

Where in the world is there any substance to what you say here? It is like one of those Christians who do not use the mind saying, "this Christian has long understood that, "God" is NOT the invention of the human imagination."

Now, would this statement by a Christian have any substance at all? Well, no it would not. So then, why would you have the idea that it works for you?

You are not making any sort of argument at all. Rather, you are simply sharing with us, what you believe, without any facts, or evidence to back your belief. You know, like how many Christians "share with others what they believe?" GOOD GRIEF!

This Atheist has long understood that "scriptures" were written by imaginative humans.

And here is another example. I do not know what you refer to as "scripture" but I can tell you beyond doubt that, much of what is contained in the NT would be letters written to different audiences at the time, and they were reporting what is claimed to be real historical events, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by you, or anyone else for that matter.

Therefore, I have supplied evidence that these things would not have been from the imagination, because these writers are claiming these events actually occurred, and it is not enough to simply say, "it all could have come from the imagination", because we would at least need some sort of evidence that this would be the case.

So then, what is the evidence you have, that would cause,"this Atheist to understand that "scriptures" were written by imaginative humans?"

And again, this would be no different than one of those Christians, who "do not use the mind" saying, "this Christian has long understood that "scriptures" were NOT written by imaginative humans."

Where is the substance?

NO believer EVER demonstrates that their version of "God" or "scriptures" emanated from ANYWHERE other than human imaginations.

Hold on a minute, my friend! Aren't you the one who is claiming to have, "long understood that "scriptures" were written by imaginative humans?"

Because you see, it would be a fact that we have what you refer to as "scriptures." But I am not thinking that you have, nor can, demonstrate what it is you claim to "understand" concerning these things you call "scriptures", or "GOD", and you demonstrate this by simply, "sharing with us what you believe", like many Christians do, instead of giving us the evidence that would back up what you claim to, "understand", like many Christians do.

Because again you see, we have what you refer to as "scriptures", and I can demonstrate that many of the things in the NT would have been letters written to audiences at the time, and can also demonstrate, they at least claimed the events to be historical. So would you please supply some sort of evidence to back what you claim to have, "long understood?"

And again, how would what you say be any different than Christians who do not use the mind saying, "NO unbeliever EVER demonstrates that "God" or "scriptures" emanated from the human imaginations?" There would be no difference in the least, and both statements would amount to nothing.

I discarded the Great Game of Pretend decades ago.

Oh really? Well, I can imagine one, at one time who admits to not using the mind to become a Christian saying something like, "I use to PRETEND all was well in my life, but then I found the Lord, and I now have let go of my PRETEND world."

Can you see it? What one would say back then amounted to nothing, and now that the mind has changed, does not mean the thinking has changed, and what they have to say now amounts to nothing.

I found it honest to do so.

Oh my? I did not realize you, "found it honest?" What is that segment on the NFL show again? Oh that's right, it's called, "C'MON MAN!

I find it intellectually satisfying to now understand more and more of the mundane physicality behind the make-believe of "spirituality".

I find it intellectually satisfying to understand that "God" is simply the parietal cortex, and not Odin or Jesus or Isis or Jehovah or Allah or any other human-invented fantasy figure with extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers that awe the simple folk.

Well, allow me to ask you this. Would you be one who, "found it satisfying" to believe Christianity with all your heart soul, and mind? If this sort of thinking meant nothing at all back then, what would cause one now to believe that what one finds, "satisfying" would have anything at all to do with what may in fact be true?

I welcome the work of evidence-based scientists.

As do I! I am a big fan of science, and have benefited from it greatly, as we all have. However, there is not one scientist in the world, who has demonstrated that there is no God, nor have there be any who have demonstrated Christianity to be false. And the thing is, I will assure you that there are a good number of scientists, who would love to do just that.

I condemn the delusion and downright deception of priests and pastors.

I condemn the delusion and downright deception of many priests and pastors, which is one of the reasons I have not been to Church in years. However, I understand that, "the delusion and downright deception of many priests and pastors", would have no bearing at all upon Christianity being true, or false.

I am relieved to be free of the primitive, superstitious he-came-to-earth-to-die-for-my-sins nonsense.

Again, would this be coming from one who at one time would have said, "I am relieved, he-came-to-earth-to-die-for-my-sins?" If your "relief" meant nothing at all then, what would cause you to believe that it means something now?

It was a fraud from the start ...

And still is.

And another baseless statement with no facts, nor evidence in support.

Listen, I am very happy that you have found, satisfaction, relief, and comfort, in what you now believe. However, this is not an argument, and is in no way different than how many Christians who do not use the mind determine what they believe.

I think we can all agree here that it has been demonstrated, there are those who have the ability to change the mind, but this would not in any way necessitate that they have the ability to change the way they think, nor the way they may decide what to believe.

[Jagella]

This Atheist has long understood that "God" is nothing more than an invention of the human imagination.

Where in the world is there any substance to what you say here?

There isn't any substance to imaginary gods. That's the whole basis for skepticism. When there is a lack of substance for gods, many people wisely doubt their existence. Do you have any "substance" for your understanding that the Easter Bunny is an invention of the human imagination? If not, then you are special pleading demanding substance for an understanding that there are no gods while understanding there is no Easter Bunny with no substance at all.

It is like one of those Christians who do not use the mind saying, "this Christian has long understood that, "God" is NOT the invention of the human imagination."

Now, would this statement by a Christian have any substance at all? Well, no it would not. So then, why would you have the idea that it works for you?

The idea of gods doesn't work for us because we can see that the talk of gods is empty, confusing, and contradictory.

You are not making any sort of argument at all.

I'd like to see an argument that there is no Easter Bunny. According to your own logic, you need an argument and substance that there is no Easter Bunny.

...I can tell you beyond doubt that, much of what is contained in the NT would be letters written to different audiences at the time, and they were reporting what is claimed to be real historical events, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would have been read by you, or anyone else for that matter.

People can and do write letters about myth. There is no law of nature saying that a piece of papyrus won't stand still for baloney, nor is there any law of nature that prevents such baloney being sent out as letters.

So then, what is the evidence you have, that would cause,"this Atheist to understand that "scriptures" were written by imaginative humans?"

Talking snakes and talking donkeys in addition to dragons and unicorns and levitating zombies sounds pretty imaginative to me.

What one would say back then amounted to nothing, and now that the mind has changed, does not mean the thinking has changed, and what they have to say now amounts to nothing.

It's called "changing one's thinking to consider new evidence and reasoning." It's prudent to abandon old ideas as one discovers evidence that casts doubt on those old ideas. Just because a person has been wrong in the past doesn't mean that that person is wrong now.

I am a big fan of science, and have benefited from it greatly, as we all have.

In that case you consider the first six chapters of Genesis to be myth.

However, there is not one scientist in the world, who has demonstrated that there is no God...

Scientists haven't demonstrated that there is no Easter Bunny either. So the Bible god appears to share this distinction with the Easter Bunny.

...I understand that, "the delusion and downright deception of many priests and pastors", would have no bearing at all upon Christianity being true, or false.

But religious leaders wrote much of the Bible. Would delusion and deception on their part have no bearing on the truth of Christianity? It seems reasonable to me that a real god would not allow corrupt clergy to interfere with his efforts. So if there is much corruption in the clergy, and there is, then the existence of the Bible gods seems to be unlikely.

[StuartJ]

I find it intellectually satisfying to understand that "God" is simply the parietal cortex, and not Odin or Jesus or Isis or Jehovah or Allah or any other human-invented fantasy figure with extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers that awe the simple folk.

The ONLY thing members here have offered as evidence for the biblical Yahweh as "God" -- or the biblical "scriptures" as having come from Yahweh -- is the supposed influence of the "Indwelling Holy Spirit".

NOTHING ELSE

But NOT ONE member has demonstrated that the IHS is anything more than the voices in their head.

The voices that tell us that "God and the Holy Scriptures" are real and are greater than us, may simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

Please refer to the link in the OP.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

The ONLY thing members here have offered as evidence for the biblical Yahweh as "God" -- or the biblical "scriptures" as having come from Yahweh -- is the supposed influence of the "Indwelling Holy Spirit".

NOTHING ELSE

But NOT ONE member has demonstrated that the IHS is anything more than the voices in their head.

The voices that tell us that "God and the Holy Scriptures" are real and are greater than us, may simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

May simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

In that case, until it is proven I has best remain agnostic on that subject.

During their varied transcendent states, all subjects showed similar activity patterns in the parietal cortex, which processes sensation, spatial orientation, and language, and is thought to influence attention, among other functions. In other words, whether the thing that makes a person feel connected to something greater involves church, trees, or a stadium full of sports fans, it appears to have the same effect on the brain. https://qz.com/1292368/columbia-and-yal ... ritual-par...

Do we feel a sense of intellectual satisfaction with an answer that does not involve some version or other of "God" ...?

Can we trust the Columbia and Yale scientists ...?

Do who feel a sense of intellectual satisfaction with an answer that does not involve some version or other of "God" ...?

Can who trust the Columbia and Yale scientists ...?

And in relation the the 'who' - why should it need be that an individual requires faith-based beliefs to trust in, when in reality we do not have enough collected knowledge as yet to truly determine one way or the other.

To me the existence and related function of the Parietal Cortex in relation to the "voices in their head" argument does not exclude the possibility of a designer who even designed it 'just so' in order that the individual might explore the notion that "GOD speaks to the individual", and see where that might lead them specifically related to the Data Of Experience which consists of their subjective experience in this particular reality and any alternate reality also experienced in relation to the experience of this particular reality.

The idea of being connected to everything might be the very thing which can save humanity from itself.

[Jagella]

I find it intellectually satisfying to understand that "God" is simply the parietal cortex, and not Odin or Jesus or Isis or Jehovah or Allah or any other human-invented fantasy figure with extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers that awe the simple folk.

A fact-based explanation like this should be satisfactory for any reasonable person to conclude that gods are imaginary. While it may be true that evidence like this doesn't prove gods cannot be real, it does provide us with knowledge that gods can be and often are unreal. Since we have no knowledge of real gods, and we do have knowledge of imaginary gods, it seems sensible to me to base a conclusion on what is known rather than what is not known. In this case that sensible conclusion is that all gods are imaginary.

But it won't stop the apologists. They'll argue that this evidence isn't valid or that the Bible god can still exist and that we have evidence for him or--blah, blah, blah. It's amazing what people can come up with when they want to believe something.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by William]

I find it intellectually satisfying to understand that "God" is simply the parietal cortex, and not Odin or Jesus or Isis or Jehovah or Allah or any other human-invented fantasy figure with extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers that awe the simple folk.

A fact-based explanation like this should be satisfactory for any reasonable person to conclude that gods are imaginary.

An unreasonable conclusion naturally based in ignorance, since this;

May simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

In that case, until it is proven I has best remain agnostic on that subject.

I have yet to meet the individual who knows everything so outright, that they have convinced me to become an atheist.

Besides which, my particular idea of GOD is reasonable. I have also yet to meet the individual who knows everything so outright, that they have convinced me the virtues of thinking GODs do not exist and therefore I should become someone who proclaims the belief that GODs do not exist - aka - an atheist.

[StuartJ]

Christians do not provide the tiniest squeak of anything that remotely resembles evidence for the existence of THEIR versions of "God" ...

Yet they remain in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that they are real.

Hindus do not provide the tiniest squeak of anything that remotely resembles evidence for the existence of THEIR versions of "God" ...

Yet they remain in a state of the mind that assents to the proposition that they are real.

People like me - who have tossed beliefs in the bin - have long understood that "God" was only happening in my head.

Scientists have determined that "God" happens in the parietal cortex ... in the heads of humans.

THIS Atheist finds that evidence-based fact intellectually satisfying.

In fact, I ACCOND to the proposition.

And because it's an accondance - a conditional acceptance - it can change as more evidence comes to light.

Evidence such as believers demonstrating that THEIR version of "God" exists outside their own parietal cortexes.

Until then, I shall remain intellectually satisfied that my understanding that gods and "scriptures" are nothing more than the products of human imaginations has been confirmed by evidence-based science.