The God Helmet

[spittledip]

Funny, nobody ever sees the Spaghetti Monster or the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause, it's almost always this weird fucking Thingi that loves them.

good point

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

TLC i didn't know they found the gay gene which proves people are born gay. I still think it's nurture more than nature.

Sexuality is complex. I don't believe that there is a single "gay" gene. To the contrary, I believe it involves a number of genes functioning in concert. No doubt nurture has an impact on our sexuality and how an individual chooses to express it. However, I believe the basics of sexuality - which sex we are attracted to - is hardcoded in us all.

Anecdotally I'll provide an example. A friend of mine is gay. He has a Phd in Psychology and is actually a fairly pre-eminent scholar at a well known university. In the family he was raised in none of his brothers or sisters are gay. They are fairly liberal too so their was no prohibition against it. Still, he fought his attraction for years, even going so far as marrying and having children. Eventually though he could not deny what he felt inside. He is now divorced and only dates men.

Sexual attraction is nothing more than basic chemical impulses in our brain. Basic chemical impulses are driven by genes. There must be a genetic component to sexual attraction even if science hasn't pinned them down yet.

 

[Atreus21]

Sexuality is complex. I don't believe that there is a single "gay" gene. To the contrary, I believe it involves a number of genes functioning in concert. No doubt nurture has an impact on our sexuality and how an individual chooses to express it. However, I believe the basics of sexuality - which sex we are attracted to - is hardcoded in us all.

Anecdotally I'll provide an example. A friend of mine is gay. He has a Phd in Psychology and is actually a fairly pre-eminent scholar at a well known university. In the family he was raised in none of his brothers or sisters are gay. They are fairly liberal too so their was no prohibition against it. Still, he fought his attraction for years, even going so far as marrying and having children. Eventually though he could not deny what he felt inside. He is now divorced and only dates men.

Sexual attraction is nothing more than basic chemical impulses in our brain. Basic chemical impulses are driven by genes. There must be a genetic component to sexual attraction even if science hasn't pinned them down yet.

Perhaps, but not all religious people are born into a religious household. Some of the foremost theologians fall into this category.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sexuality is complex. I don't believe that there is a single "gay" gene. To the contrary, I believe it involves a number of genes functioning in concert. No doubt nurture has an impact on our sexuality and how an individual chooses to express it. However, I believe the basics of sexuality - which sex we are attracted to - is hardcoded in us all.

Anecdotally I'll provide an example. A friend of mine is gay. He has a Phd in Psychology and is actually a fairly pre-eminent scholar at a well known university. In the family he was raised in none of his brothers or sisters are gay. They are fairly liberal too so their was no prohibition against it. Still, he fought his attraction for years, even going so far as marrying and having children. Eventually though he could not deny what he felt inside. He is now divorced and only dates men.

Sexual attraction is nothing more than basic chemical impulses in our brain. Basic chemical impulses are driven by genes. There must be a genetic component to sexual attraction even if science hasn't pinned them down yet.

Basic chemical impulses may be genetic but they may also be switched on and off by environmental factors and reinforced or weakened by repetitive behaviors or by resisting them. That there MUST be a genetic component that is particular only to gay people may not prove to be correct. A duck must imprint genetically, but how it imprints is circumstantial.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Now you're splitting hairs. Sexual orientation is just as broad as religion. (Not trying to make a quantitative comparison of "broadness" mind you, just saying they are both very broad spectra of behaviors.) Nobody asserts that there is a gay bodybuilder gene or a wine-sipping urbanite vegan gay gene either. The varied incarnations of a lifestyle/mindset are undoubtedly much more due to external influences than particular innate traits. That doesn't discredit the claim that the general trait is largely due to factors other than conscious choice, be they due to genetics, neonatal nurture, or other influences which straddle the nature/nurture boundary such as epigenetics.

No doubt it's highly complex, as I wrote in a previous response. It's my opinion that genetics are a major component but that's really just a hunch and there's not enough evidence to really support any explanation for it yet so it's kind of a fruitless discussion.

However, I do know one thing for sure. Sexuality is not a conscious choice. Regardless of how it occurs nobody ever stops at at a certain age and decides to be straight or gay. All of us consciously decide to be religious, or not, though. That decision may be predicted on genetic factors that predispose us mentally to be more or less likely to be religious but it's still a conscious decision. You can't quit basic sexual desire. You can quit the desire to become religious, or adopt religion after being non-religious for the majority of your life so there's no basic chemical desire in our brain to become religious.

 

[dali71]

My belief is that this being a technical forum in a technical medium there is a substantial number of atheists/agnostics who have a way to post anonymously. Get a large group of people and the minority who are assholes have a higher chance to rise to the top.

That brings to mind...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Basic chemical impulses may be genetic but they may also be switched on and off by environmental factors and reinforced or weakened by repetitive behaviors or by resisting them. That there MUST be a genetic component that is particular only to gay people may not prove to be correct. A duck must imprint genetically, but how it imprints is circumstantial.

I agree that environmental factors have an influence, often a major influence, on gene expression.

However, I do not believe there is a gene that is particularly ONLY to gay people. imo, all of us have gay and straight genes and how those genes are expressed in each individual determines each person's basic sexuality. In fact, that would explain why there are so many variations of sexuality from the extremes of being straight/gay to those that inhabit the middle (bi-sexuals). It's the degree of expression of those genes that determines how we express our sexuality, which is why I believe quite a number of genes are involved. The complexity of sexuality makes a good argument for exactly that.

 

[Infohawk]

Unfortunately, this won't change many minds. Faith by definition is unreasonable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

However, I do know one thing for sure. Sexuality is not a conscious choice. Regardless of how it occurs nobody ever stops at at a certain age and decides to be straight or gay. All of us consciously decide to be religious, or not, though. That decision may be predicted on genetic factors that predispose us mentally to be more or less likely to be religious but it's still a conscious decision. You can't quit basic sexual desire. You can quit the desire to become religious, or adopt religion after being non-religious for the majority of your life so there's no basic chemical desire in our brain to become religious.

This is not what this thread is originally about.

This is:

Of course there are some who will probably start worshipping the helmet now...

We can discuss why some people are religious, why some had religious zeal for the Iraq war based on the faith they put in their leader. We can do the same about most everything. In fact your assertion about having no choice about sexual orientation is overstated. They may wind up locked into a preference, however sexual predestination is a belief.

Does that make gays better or worse than anyone else? Does that make them all latent pedophiles? Nope. I would never suggest so, HOWEVER there are some who are. Would it be fair to generalize and beat up gays for it? Nope. That would be completely wrong.

Whether or not being religious is genetic or a choice isn't germane to most of these threads. They tend to be less intellectual and more disparaging. That's my complaint.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unfortunately, this won't change many minds. Faith by definition is unreasonable.

Someone comes up with an experiment and gets a particular result and wonderfully this solves all the philosophical and theological questions asked over the ages. Because these questions aren't easily answered by something like this, faith is unreasonable.

Perhaps, but anyone who's mind would be influenced to come to any conclusion by something so simplistic and specific defines lack of reason.

It seems that Faith in the Helmet cuts the other way.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

This is not what this thread is originally about.

This is:

Well, the thread went off on a bt of a tangent as to why people believe they do, religiously and otherwise. Seems a more rational and reasonable discussion than the rather snaky and derisive "Of course there are some who will probably start worshipping the helmet now..." which was really nothing more than an opening to piss on those that have religious beliefs.

We can discuss why some people are religious, why some had religious zeal for the Iraq war based on the faith they put in their leader. We can do the same about most everything. In fact your assertion about having no choice about sexual orientation is overstated. They may wind up locked into a preference, however sexual predestination is a belief.

Does that make gays better or worse than anyone else? Does that make them all latent pedophiles? Nope. I would never suggest so, HOWEVER there are some who are. Would it be fair to generalize and beat up gays for it? Nope. That would be completely wrong.

I'm not sure where that is coming from. imo, sexual orientation being a genetic component would validly argue that people don't have any choice in the matter and therefore should never be persecuted for it.

Whether or not being religious is genetic or a choice isn't germane to most of these threads. They tend to be less intellectual and more disparaging. That's my complaint.

I disagree on your first point. The God Helment demonstrates that religious beliefs arises in our brains and can even be controlled. Looking at the genetic components of our brains along with why some people are and some people aren't religious is merely an extension of that.

As to your second point, I'm not really clear on what you're saying.

 

[Atreus21]

Unfortunately, this won't change many minds. Faith by definition is unreasonable.

You are absolutely right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, the thread went off on a bt of a tangent as to why people believe they do, religiously and otherwise. Seems a more rational and reasonable discussion than the rather snaky and derisive "Of course there are some who will probably start worshipping the helmet now..." which was really nothing more than an opening to piss on those that have religious beliefs.

Most of these threads are constructed for the purpose of derision. A cursory read of them shows that to be the trend. An intellectual argument about beliefs could be interesting, but that's not usually what happens.

I'm not sure where that is coming from. imo, sexual orientation being a genetic component would validly argue that people don't have any choice in the matter and therefore should never be persecuted for it.

Sexual orientation and genetics is something often referred to. Unfortunately what that link is and how strong it influences it is far from certain so saying that there is no choice is completely unproven.

An interesting point you make is that gays shouldn't be persecuted because they have no genetic choice. If it comes down to it, that may apply to those who commit crimes. They simply have no more choice in doing so than gays have being gays.

What's the difference? Criminals by definition harm another. That isn't true of homosexuals, unless they are also criminals. It isn't what one is, rather what one can be sanctioned for. Just an aside point, but it comes down to beating up on people because they happen to act in a way that may be different even though they don't harm another. Sort of like the vast majority of religious people, or atheists for that matter.

I disagree on your first point. The God Helment demonstrates that religious beliefs arises in our brains and can even be controlled. Looking at the genetic components of our brains along with why some people are and some people aren't religious is merely an extension of that. As to your second point, I'm not really clear on what you're saying.

I'm saying that this was never a thread to examine the results of such an experiment. It is one which uses the helmet to piss on others, and in fact that's how most of them go.

Well, the best way to end a troll thread is to stop posting in it so I bid adieu. Maybe one day a thread in a more mature forum discussing religion will offer something better.

 

[nonlnear]

Hayabusa Rider,

There are plenty of posters ignoring the trolling intent of the OP and having a civil discussion despite it. What's the problem with that?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Hayabusa Rider,

There are plenty of posters ignoring the trolling intent of the OP and having a civil discussion despite it. What's the problem with that?

Exactly. I went on the tangent I did to possibly discourage some of the golden shower crew. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Religion isn't my personal choice either but I've never understood those who feel the need to crap on those that are religious. So what if it's not a rational belief? You can be sure that nearly every poster on ATP&N has a belief or three that's not couched in rational thought.

 

[LumbergTech]

Exactly. I went on the tangent I did to possibly discourage some of the golden shower crew. I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Religion isn't my personal choice either but I've never understood those who feel the need to crap on those that are religious. So what if it's not a rational belief? You can be sure that nearly every poster on ATP&N has a belief or three that's not couched in rational thought.

My belief is that people are inherently irrational and that what we believe is just what we want...

That doesn't prevent someone from doing a good job of showing that someone else's beliefs are not grounded in observable reality

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

My belief is that people are inherently irrational and that what we believe is just what we want...

That doesn't prevent someone from doing a good job of showing that someone else's beliefs are not grounded in observable reality

That is true, but at least pick a challenging target and a horse that already hasn't thoroughly been beaten to a bloody pulp.

 

[Fern]

Can we all please acknowledge that religion, superstition and other such nonsense is completely ridiculous now? Yes, apparently religion is a purely emotional phenomenon. Yes, the experience that everyone thinks is so life-altering can be reproduced in a laboratory by stimulating a certain area of the brain. Yes, this suggests that, after all, religious belief is an evolutionary phenomenon which developed because it imparted a survival benefit on ancient cultures. Could any intelligent, thinking, non-delusional person possibly require more proof than this?

Of course there are some who will probably start worshipping the helmet now...

http://www.clusterflock.org/2010/06/dr-michael-persingers-god-helmet.html
http://health.howstuffworks.com/brain-religion2.htm
http://www.skeptiko.com/michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link/

First this:

"Persinger reports that at least 80 percent of his participants (working with the Koren Helmet) experience a presence beside them in the room, which ranges from a simple ’sensed presence’ to God. About one percent experienced God, while many more had less evocative, but still significant experiences of ‘another being’."


One Percent?
lol

So, only 1% "experienced God" and this is turned into your "The God Helmet " and all that you imply?

That's ridiculous.

-------------------------

Notwithstanding the above, the conclusion you (and others) draw from this experiment are quite obviously subjective.

If you are hungry and I can stimulate that part of the brain that makes you feel full (like after a big meal) does that mean food is just imaginary too?

Our ability to manipulate areas of the brain producing various effect just proves that we are physical beings subject to such stimuli, and nothing more.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

First this:




So, only 1% "experienced God" and this is turned into your "The God Helmet " and all that you imply?

That's ridiculous.

-------------------------

Notwithstanding the above, the conclusion you (and others) draw from this experiment are quite obviously subjective.

If you are hungry and I can stimulate that part of the brain that makes you feel full (like after a big meal) does that mean food is just imaginary too?

Our ability to manipulate areas of the brain producing various effect just proves that we are physical beings subject to such stimuli, and nothing more.

Fern

So, then, are we all of us clear, now, that because an orgasm is chemical we can all now laugh our asses off at Atheists who persist in wanting sex, that they are really suffering delusions induced by their brains, or in this case, lack thereof?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

So, then, are we all of us clear, now, that because an orgasm is chemical we can all now laugh our asses off at Atheists who persist in wanting sex, that they are really suffering delusions induced by their brains, or in this case, lack thereof?

If that's the case, wouldn't the laughter be a delusion of the brain as well?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hayabusa Rider,

There are plenty of posters ignoring the trolling intent of the OP and having a civil discussion despite it. What's the problem with that?

I've said that I'd welcome a thread based on an intelligent premise and I've had a discussion in that light.

Now suppose we were to have a thread about the nature of inner city crime started with the premise that blacks are stupid criminals?

 

[Jaskalas]

"The God Helmet" reminds me of a saying. Don't get into a mud fight with a pig.

 

[Fern]

So, then, are we all of us clear, now, that because an orgasm is chemical we can all now laugh our asses off at Atheists who persist in wanting sex, that they are really suffering delusions induced by their brains, or in this case, lack thereof?

I'm not sure I follow, in fact I'm pretty sure I don't as this is probably your "usual sarcasm and in no way reflects [a] real opinion".

But no. The point would be that since we are physical beings such a sexual urge could be induced by artificial means (chemical, EMF etc) and that, in and of itself, does not disprove the existence of 'real' sexual urges.

In your remarks you state that an "orgasm is chemical" and seemingly imply it is nothing more. The question would be is that chemical signature a result of something else, a 'real' sexual urge; or are all such urges simply a result of a chemical process and nothing more? I suggest that since we are physical, there will always be that chemical signature/trace, no matter the true source of the urge.

When threatened our bodies produce adrenaline, just because science can now produce and inject us with adrenaline getting the same physical effects doesn't mean 'threats' don't exist, nor that adrenaline creates those threats that we perceive[d].

So, if people experience God, and there is a chemical (or whatever) effect/result to that sensation and we can reproduce that sensation with artifical means (in this case with EMFs) and that reproduction proves there is no God, then likewise artifically reproducing adrenaline proves there are no such things as threats

Fern

 

[nonlnear]

I've said that I'd welcome a thread based on an intelligent premise and I've had a discussion in that light.

Now suppose we were to have a thread about the nature of inner city crime started with the premise that blacks are stupid criminals?

The thing is on most religion threads the stated intent of the OP is essentially irrelevant to the life of the thread. Try starting a religion thread inviting reasonable discussion without any troll posts and see how it goes... :awe:

I say we enjoy the few fragments of decent discussion we can get wherever they happen and simply enjoy them for what they are.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The thing is on most religion threads the stated intent of the OP is essentially irrelevant to the life of the thread. Try starting a religion thread inviting reasonable discussion without any troll posts and see how it goes... :awe:

I say we enjoy the few fragments of decent discussion we can get wherever they happen and simply enjoy them for what they are.

Now that makes sense to me