Please Challenge This Hypothesis

[POI]

After years of debate, one topic seems to remain without waiver and/or adjustment. I'm placing this topic here, in the forefront/spotlight, to expose it to direct challenge. I will be more than happy than to (waiver from/augment/abort) this hypothesis, baring evidence to the contrary....

Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution. Meaning, 'survival of the fitter." Meaning, all humans who favored type 2 errors over type 1 errors are now mostly gone. We inherit our parent's predisposition to invoke type 1 errors, until otherwise logically necessary. Meaning, few will still BECOME atheists after "going to the well enough times" and not seeing God there.

Allow me to explain. In this context, a type 1 error would be first assuming intentional agency, and being wrong -- (good or bad). Alternatively, a type 2 error would be not to first assume intentional agency, and being wrong.

1) Walking down a dirt path, from point A to point B, and hearing a rustle in the weeds, and first assuming danger, would be a type 1 error IF incorrect. This person would still be alive if they are wrong. Maybe it was actually just the wind. Alternatively, if one was to instead first assume no danger, the wind, but there was danger, this person has first committed a type 2 error and is now likely out of the gene pool. And since this has been happening for a long time, we only have the ones who first invoke type 1 errors.

2) Getting in a car wreck with 3 friends.... Your 3 friends die, but you live. You assume you are purposefully spared. IF you are wrong, there is really no harm and no way to know. There is really also no way to confirm you were not spared. Hence, your possible type 1 error is never confirmed/corrected. Which means you can and will continue to attribute agency, where there may not really be any.

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #50]

In choosing battles (before tactics) one has to decide if the manpower, cluster shells and Bradleys to be sacrificed are worth it. The only points worth making here are that the semantic quibbles about 'god's was done by you, and now you try to pretend that you are the only one who saw through it.
The other is mocking scenarios of Science coming on a cloud and atheism through Dawkins, his messiah will rule over a Robot Utopia for ever and ever...Ahem.

It gets you nowhere and makes no point and secularism science and religious criticism will plug away as it always has and weather the mocking and hooting of those convinced that Jesus has the mojo as another anti atheist used to sling at We, the Goddless.

Ah gatta dream terday, same like yesterday...that one day a survey will show 60% irreligious and 40 percent Believers, with 20% flat earthists 15% creationists and 8% election -deniers. And religion no longer had the political clout to hi -jack every and all social legal and political institutions and the mocking will stop and the anti -atheists will start accusing each other "Why did you let that happen instead of making good arguments?"

Just a fantasy one might say, but I call it a mission -statement.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #50]

In choosing battles (before tactics) one has to decide if the manpower, cluster shells and Bradleys to be sacrificed are worth it. The only points worth making here are that the semantic quibbles about 'god's was done by you, and now you try to pretend that you are the only one who saw through it.
The other is mocking scenarios of Science coming on a cloud and atheism through Dawkins, his messiah will rule over a Robot Utopia for ever and ever...Ahem.

It gets you nowhere and makes no point and secularism science and religious criticism will plug away as it always has and weather the mocking and hooting of those convinced that Jesus has the mojo as another anti atheist used to sling at We, the Goddless.

Ah gatta dream terday, same like yesterday...that one day a survey will show 60% irreligious and 40 percent Believers, with 20% flat earthists 15% creationists and 8% election -deniers. And religion no longer had the political clout to hi -jack every and all social legal and political institutions and the mocking will stop and the anti -atheists will start accusing each other "Why did you let that happen instead of making good arguments?"

Just a fantasy one might say, but I call it a mission -statement.

Who specifically are the God/gods/higher power in question?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #50]

In choosing battles (before tactics) one has to decide if the manpower, cluster shells and Bradleys to be sacrificed are worth it. The only points worth making here are that the semantic quibbles about 'god's was done by you, and now you try to pretend that you are the only one who saw through it.
The other is mocking scenarios of Science coming on a cloud and atheism through Dawkins, his messiah will rule over a Robot Utopia for ever and ever...Ahem.

It gets you nowhere and makes no point and secularism science and religious criticism will plug away as it always has and weather the mocking and hooting of those convinced that Jesus has the mojo as another anti atheist used to sling at We, the Goddless.

Ah gatta dream terday, same like yesterday...that one day a survey will show 60% irreligious and 40 percent Believers, with 20% flat earthists 15% creationists and 8% election -deniers. And religion no longer had the political clout to hi -jack every and all social legal and political institutions and the mocking will stop and the anti -atheists will start accusing each other "Why did you let that happen instead of making good arguments?"

Just a fantasy one might say, but I call it a mission -statement.

Who specifically are the God/gods/higher power in question?

We have done this, I'm sure. Let the god -claimant tell us (goddless hellhounds) what they mean by 'god'or gods and we'll say what we think - like your harley davison doesn''t qualify in a religion debate. It is NOT for atheists to present definitions of gods - a common mistake the theist side continually make, like reversal of burden of proof, ignoring the materialist default and...most of the rest of the book.

[Data]

We have done this, I'm sure. Let the god -claimant tell us (goddless hellhounds) what they mean by 'god'or gods and we'll say what we think - like your harley davison doesn''t qualify in a religion debate. It is NOT for atheists to present definitions of gods - a common mistake the theist side continually make, like reversal of burden of proof, ignoring the materialist default and...most of the rest of the book.

Define agency. Define gods. Define supernatural. If the people who are making errors are making errors why blame the god who allegedly has agency? A Harley Davidson speaks to someone. How does that fit into your hypothesis?

[Data]

I find it odd that Data states he is (again), not going to read my responses, but asks me follow-up questions? I guess such questioning was meant to be rhetorical

Uh, yes, well that was a typo.

[TRANSPONDER]

I find it odd that Data states he is (again), not going to read my responses, but asks me follow-up questions? I guess such questioning was meant to be rhetorical

Uh, yes, well that was a typo.

By the way. I'm not going to read or respond to your posts anymore.

Good by again.

are you kidding? A Typo? Who writes your stuff, Donald Trump's speechwriter?

We have done this, I'm sure. Let the god -claimant tell us (goddless hellhounds) what they mean by 'god'or gods and we'll say what we think - like your harley davison doesn''t qualify in a religion debate. It is NOT for atheists to present definitions of gods - a common mistake the theist side continually make, like reversal of burden of proof, ignoring the materialist default and...most of the rest of the book.

Define agency. Define gods. Define supernatural. If the people who are making errors are making errors why blame the god who allegedly has agency? A Harley Davidson speaks to someone. How does that fit into your hypothesis?

I have looked at that carefully to see - even now - whether you are making a valid argument amongst the red herrings of demanding definitions of what are generally concepts used in discussion. I decided it doesn't. A prized piece of machinery doesn't speak to people, so is not a god, an invisible (or unseen) being that people believe has powers of intervention and agency (ability to do things) and probably should be worshipped and doesn't need a starship which makes it different from the gods from outer space.

The 'speaking to' of a prized flivver or jalopy is a personal thing and the Bike has no such agency so shouldn't be a definition of 'gods'at all. So it was either an error of thought on your part, or a deliberate attempt to hornswoggle us. Tough 'questions that demand an answer' is one thing, and we welcome it. Pointless quibbles just to waste our time are another.

Of course you might just no be able to do a proper coherent argument in forgetting that you raised alternative definitions of gods which you now argue against. My line was that they were always irrelevant to the discussion. That may be likely in view of the sarcastic sneers "You are such a strategic tactician" or the like.

[Data]

I have looked at that carefully to see - even now - whether you are making a valid argument amongst the red herrings of demanding definitions of what are generally concepts used in discussion. I decided it doesn't. A prized piece of machinery doesn't speak to people, so is not a god, an invisible (or unseen) being that people believe has powers of intervention and agency (ability to do things) and probably should be worshipped and doesn't need a starship which makes it different from the gods from outer space.

The 'speaking to' of a prized flivver or jalopy is a personal thing and the Bike has no such agency so shouldn't be a definition of 'gods'at all. So it was either an error of thought on your part, or a deliberate attempt to hornswoggle us. Tough 'questions that demand an answer' is one thing, and we welcome it. Pointless quibbles just to waste our time are another.

Of course you might just no be able to do a proper coherent argument in forgetting that you raised alternative definitions of gods which you now argue against. My line was that they were always irrelevant to the discussion. That may be likely in view of the sarcastic sneers "You are such a strategic tactician" or the like.

The occidental atheist must labor under the erroneous contention that a god has to be God. No matter how contradictory even in their own thinking. So much so that they will allow a delusional person can hear the imaginary voice of God or even Jesus, who they think doesn't exist, but not an inanimate object. There the delusional would have crossed the line for the purpose of the allegedly independent thinking atheist. Dripping with irony. Even though most of the gods ever know throughout recorded history have been inanimate objects.

Isn't it yet fashionable for you people to be openly antichristian instead of just weak atheists. The agnostic part I would happily concede, but the rest. Fascinates me. Like an amoeba.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have looked at that carefully to see - even now - whether you are making a valid argument amongst the red herrings of demanding definitions of what are generally concepts used in discussion. I decided it doesn't. A prized piece of machinery doesn't speak to people, so is not a god, an invisible (or unseen) being that people believe has powers of intervention and agency (ability to do things) and probably should be worshipped and doesn't need a starship which makes it different from the gods from outer space.

The 'speaking to' of a prized flivver or jalopy is a personal thing and the Bike has no such agency so shouldn't be a definition of 'gods'at all. So it was either an error of thought on your part, or a deliberate attempt to hornswoggle us. Tough 'questions that demand an answer' is one thing, and we welcome it. Pointless quibbles just to waste our time are another.

Of course you might just no be able to do a proper coherent argument in forgetting that you raised alternative definitions of gods which you now argue against. My line was that they were always irrelevant to the discussion. That may be likely in view of the sarcastic sneers "You are such a strategic tactician" or the like.

The occidental atheist must labor under the erroneous contention that a god has to be God. No matter how contradictory even in their own thinking. So much so that they will allow a delusional person can hear the imaginary voice of God or even Jesus, who they think doesn't exist, but not an inanimate object. There the delusional would have crossed the line for the purpose of the allegedly independent thinking atheist. Dripping with irony. Even though most of the gods ever know throughout recorded history have been inanimate objects.

Isn't it yet fashionable for you people to be openly antichristian instead of just weak atheists. The agnostic part I would happily concede, but the rest. Fascinates me. Like an amoeba.

One of those posts which is a candidate for 'most errors in shortest post' awards...pre p.s I'll have to number it.

(1) I don't even know what 'accidental atheist' means - care to explain?
(2) Atheists know - indeed argue - that a god - indeed cosmic creator - doesn't have to be Biblegod. It is rather the Christian assumes that 'god' has to be Biblegod.
(3)There is no evidence I know of to show that an inanimate (without brain cells) can hear the voice of anything, let alone a god. Your evidence for this, please?
(4) The 'line' the 'delusional' person has crossed is in crediting a hypothesis without Good reason. This is valid logical rationality.
(5) Dripping with Irony is trying to make a point out of nothing with sarcasm.
(6)You know that gods are mental constructs and the graven images whether Ptah, Shiva, Jesus on a cross or in fact the printed Bible or penned Quran which are all images of the mental reality alike.
(7) You have the evidence and the mental sense to understand that not all atheists are activists (which you call 'antichristian, but I'll just count this as one error) and I'll just let 'weak atheist' pass, though being slightly pejorative. But I'll count your ludicrous pose of being the one who is fascinated by the errors of the skeptics while you watch with a knowing interest, when in fact you understand nothing and really don't want to.
(8) And finally the well worn classical failure of the Theist apologetical to understand that 'agnostic;is not a belief position.

8 I count. In a short split para. That's a good error rate and I'd be tempted to than you for being such a good bad example, and couldn't have some a better job for atheism if you were our paid shill.

[POI]

I find it odd that Data states he is (again), not going to read my responses, but asks me follow-up questions? I guess such questioning was meant to be rhetorical

Uh, yes, well that was a typo.

Caught you again in another lie.

Post 47:

By the way. I'm not going to read or respond to your posts anymore.

Good by again.

ETA: I've changed my mind again. I will be reading and responding to them.

[Clownboat]

You want me to levitate into the heavens or part the Mississippi river for you? Would that impress you? Walk on water? Heal your gout? What do you want?

None of that seems necessary. How about differentiating your religious thinking from that of a Muslim for starters.

Perhaps you believe claims from the Christian religious holy book? See a Muslim and their holy book.
Perhaps you believe in your god concept because of faith? See a Muslim and their faith.
Perhaps you are a Christian because of where you were born? See a Muslim and religion by geography.

Sure, levitating would be cool, but let's be honest, it isn't necessary. Showing that your reasoning is different when compared to the reasoning of humans that believe in a competing god concept would be a better start IMO, if that can be done that is.

Why do you think religion by geography is a thing? Do the available god concepts want it to be that way? Seems odd and very human to me. What's your take?