The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

I don't know. But if I close my eyes, cover my ears and imagine my son it certainly feels like I am choosing to fire whatever neurons that are involved in forming that "image" in my "minds eye". It doesn't feel like it required any more external stimuli than I have already been exposed to in life. Did I require ongoing external cause for those thoughts? Or was the cause I have already been exposed to enough to allow further internal cause and effect phenomenon to take place wholly internally to my brain? Yeah I know. But that really sucks doesn't it?I guess my question is: Do we require continual external cause to be consistent with causality? Once I have had enough of a dose of external stimuli is my brain able to store and retrieve the results of those stimuli in some way? Can long past stimuli act as causes for further thoughts and feeling down the line? Effectively stored to trigger further internal cause and effect relationships between different parts of the brain at a later date.Not ultimately uncaused as such. Just delayed cause and then second hand cause. I am on the verge of waffling incoherently here. I am just throwing out ill considered thoughts really. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi again EMA, time to finish up. No; it seems you have failed to understand most, if not all of my post. I clearly said, in summary: I have standards, which are not universal and so others have different ones, but I will hold everyone else accountable to mine.Just because it is different doesn't mean you can't believe yours isn't superior.However, if there is an [un]intelligent designer, like God who is responsible for us... Well technically secular humanist, but that's just semantics. I hardly comprehend who my example proves your point.It's not the "person" who is "choosing."
It's their "brain." If that person took another's life knowing what they were doing, then yes, they would have a debt to society. Ignorant manslaughter is something else entirely.If the murderers are committed for "selfish" reasons, then, obviously in accordance with the rules I have already proposed, they would have to be held responsible and pay their debt to those they have hurt, in addition to being held indefinitely if their reasons have not changed.Oh, and my "humanist," "blameless," and "liberal" views?Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Well, as I may be forced to say, science perhaps has provided some tests to figure out a criminal's state of mind in relation to the crime. Hormones? Endorphins? fhhbdkadbe? Yup.As for "repenting" and "forgetting" memory is not so easily replaced- the person would very probably remember the event, just not be able to emphasize with it. It's kind of like the idea "are you the same person today that you were X years ago?" OCD
OCD
OCDPlease go to Wiki- they have info and cookies! The body/brain that make up the "person" made the choice and thus be made not to make it again.It seems that half the disagreements are coming from biases of the "soul" -dualistic or deterministic?T&U

There are certain areas of the brain for which you can do this, just like there are areas of the brain currently sending signals throughout your body that you are not conscious of. Any idea what your brain is telling your stomach right now? Likewise, you have areas of the brain that you can internally activate - and a small area at that. You are less conscious of what's happening in your brain than you are conscious of it, by a high margin (don't know the numbers off hand).So IMO, I'd say sure, you could probably control from within certain small areas where information is stored - maybe face recognition, smell recognition, taste, etc. But not very much I would say, because the information would be on what was most repeated. Your sons face, wife, parents, house, car, etc. Not really, because its the sum of all parts that makes us up. The deterministic neurons and the self experiencing free will are both real things; neither one is less important or more relevant than the other.Its like asking what's more relevant or important in reality, Newtons classical mechanics or quantum mechanics? They're both equally relevant and important IMO.Just as a unifying theory in physcis will merge NM and QM, fully understanding consciousness will unify our feelings of free will with our deterministic micro-world of neurons.We'll feel free will and understand why we have it. That doesn't suck, thats pretty fuck'n cool, I think. Blasphemy! - Oni

heres the one from from your first post, sorry for its lateness I suppose with the above statement we are closer than every to some agreement on this topic. There must be a very fine line between what you are saying and what I am saying. Disorders aside and the brain deciding in conjunction with outsideinfluences sounds amazingly suspicious to me, as a simple choice. I however would very definetly say the choice is nothing more than a choice derived from the process, influences BEING ONLY a factor in the process. Tooomato, Taaamato.50/50 is never refuted in a strickly 50/50 proposition, it could be nothing more by the very nature of the case. Again I will demonstrate. There are not choices as you suggest. There is only the choice you make and another you did not make. The brain has the ability to choose if you will from many sources and yes it does make the most likely logical choice from a logical procession of information presented to it. This describes a choice in the simplest sense of the word. Any effort to add to or describe is choice in other respect at its bare root is an exercise in futility.The number of possibilities outside the decision making process have only an influence effect to the original process, they ARE NOT the process itself. In some instances there areonly a few choices in any given decision. If my wife or husband asks me to pick them up at the store, at 9:00 pm, there are really only two choices in that circumstance, I can do it or not do it. I may choose to have someone else do it and some other WAYS, or doit at 9:15, but the end result is that she will get picked up or not. In this instance I will honor this request or I will not depending on the method I choose or do not choose. My single decision or choice is a very specific item in and of itself. Again, NOW WATCH, the single method or choice is very much separate from the ways and means in the process. Your attempts to incorporate influences and a multuplicity of choices into the actual single decision itself is again a distraction to make choice and freewill an impossibility to alleviate responsibility in most moral situations and settings.Most persons in authority and places of justice do not recognize such attempts. If I am missing something then in the simplest of terms, explain what it might be. You are and have ascribed socially incorrect behavior to imbalances and disorders, (where a clear choice is still involved) because the individual does not seem to fit in with a particular set of rules within a society. If an individuals actions and behaviors otherwise and PREVIOUSLY described as inappropriate due to imbalances, all OF A SUDDEN do fit in with societies norms, does this mean that he or she no longer has an imbalance? Is it society that decides whether an imbalance is present ? What exacally is the criteria to establish that a person has a disorder. From your criteria it seems to be society and not the brain itselfWould you consider a slave trader as having an imbalance in his or her thinking, and would this imbalance alliviate he or she of a moral responsibility, considering the fact that his society perceives this behavior as completely acceptable?In more modern sense Mr Dawkins has described people that believe in God as having mental disorders, what should we gather from his conclusions ? No I never said murder was not an action or a choice, I believe it is both. I said I believe people choose to murder simply by a choice, without disorders, imbalances or impulse, hence premeditated murder, its planned out with malice of forethought Are you formulating an argument from these verses? What is it that you want me to do witht hese verses? No I am saying the choice and possibility to do both is always present and I would CHOOSE not to strangle thembecause there would be no valid reason to do so. You see I just made a choice of my own freewill. What you are describing is instinct in an animal, we are different. You were right the first time this is the worst form of circular reasoning. First you say a person commits murder due to an imbalance and you say that Is wrong. T.hen you turn right around and say that I know what I do is right because it is what I do, yet you say I have no imbalances. How do you know that my chemical balances are physiologically correct, if my only criteria is because , .I think that because what I do is right is the right thing to do. Then how would you know that his are an imbalance in the first place, because you have decided that murder is wrong before you evaluated his physiology . IOW your putting the cart before the horse in his case because you believe murder is wrong to begin with, correct?So the conclusion based on your reasoning would be that you do not have a clue what an imbalance is in the first place to decide what right or wrong behavior is or is not in the first place. So then the logical conclusion is to simply say is that there are actually no imbalances in fact and nothing is right or wrong in the firs place. Which would of course, NOW PAY ATTENTION, make God not wrong, bad, irresponsible or evil for any of his actions. Heck you cant even figure out if what you are doing is right or wrong, or why your are doing what you don’t even know what is right or wrong, why are you trying to blame God for anything Whether there is one choice, two choices (as in the example of the pen on the desk), to which you have not adequately addressed, or a billion choices, it does nothing to remove the fact that a simple decision process is involved. The individual that takes the pen has two simple choices, do it or don’t do it. If he takes the pen and believes it is wrong it did not stop him. If he thinks about taking it but doesn’t, his choice was not to do it, the reasons while apart of the decision are separate from the choice. There are pros and cons in his mind, he weighs the only two choices and makes a simple decision, that’s all there is to it.To demonstrate that there are no imperfections in Gods system of freewill given to man, all one needs to do is say what I have said several times and demonstrated several times, and that is to show that in any given simple situation A PERSON CAN MAKE A DECISION IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. The system has the potential and possibility for perfection. The fact that imperfections exist are due to rational decisions and choices made in the opposite direction of what God had originally commanded, a choice in the opposite direction of a originally set out system, eat or don’t eat. You have not demonstrated that a murder is exclusively the product of an imbalance or that it cannot be a simple premeditated decision, as it is in many cases, which would render it a decision in the opposite direction of what was originally intended, which only reinforces the perfection aspects of the system in the first place, that a person has the choice to make either decision in the first place. A murder could have not taken place as easily as it could have taken place.The imperfections as you call them are a direct example of a violation of a perfect system in the first place, eat or don’t eat. The system is not at fault, the choices made are the fault. The system has never become imperfect. So by definition the system has remained perfect, NOW WATCH, because a DECISION could have been made in the opposite direction in the first place.Any attempt to complicate the simple dual nature of, and perfect system of freewill will always fail because it is perfect and simply to simple to miss. By consequences you mean a decision that could have gone in the opposite direction had another choice been made , correct. Are you starting to see what I mean? every attempt to demonstrate it other than a 50/50 proposition is nonsense Therein lies your whole problem. Satan and Eve did the same thing in the beginningIll get to your next post as soon as I can , I still have responses to ONIEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Just a quick note and ill finish the rest later. You should have neen a defense lawyer, your skills are being wasted otherwise. Ha Ha. Oh brotherEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Yep good answer. I will stop with the ill informed ramblings now. Very cool indeed.

Hi EMA, no problem with lateness here. (I can emphasize with that completletely) I don't understand what you are saying, EMA. A person is nothing more than the sum of all influences both external (memes) and internal (genes). There is no "person" in your context- i.e. the idea of a "soul."
All influences are what makes up the "process," both internal and external. There is no "core" that makes the ultimate decision. EMA, this is a false dichotomy, and you know it. There may be one choice you did make, but there are an infinite number that you did not. There is no absolute polar opposite to choices we make. If I kill someone, the alternate option wouldn't have been "don't kill them." It could have been: "Rape them" or "go home instead" or "take them on a date" or "drink a cup of ramen with the FSM." Again, a false dichotomy. You could have gone at 9:00 or 9:05 or 8:30 or 10:00 the next day. There are more than two choices. There may be only two outcomes in relation to a particular situation (in a very limited sense), but there are far more than just 2 decisions to be made. EMA, if some choices are eliminated unconsciously, then the "Free will" is not present. Free will would require absolute freedom to make an choice randomly; we obviously do not have that. The criteria is determined by two things: the quality as a gene and as a "meme." If a person's actions are harmful to their species or culture, then they will generally be looked down upon.But, as you say, the basic criteria in "people's" eyes is society, yes. Not an "imbalance" as you put it, no. First off, that was just an example. Secondly, he or she would mostly likely have a biology that rendered them unable to emphasize with their slaves and/or a much different upraising than mine. If his society deems it acceptable, that does not change what I think. I don't completely agree with Dawkins' grouping of religion as disordered; however, I do think there is some truth to it. Most religious people probably are genetically predisposed to accepting a command or idea without protest, and have probably had an upbringing that shared those ideals. So should I have said "manslaughter?" The outcome is the same for the dead person either way.Pick your poison. You asked for verses that an atheist could readily use. I provided them. It was just to prove a point. You're starting to get it EMA. This "reason" for strangling comes from stimuli; the more of one kind you have, the more likely you are to perform that action. If your brain is predisposed toward violence and you live in a violent area, then you would be more likely to do so, superficial that may seem. As I said, this is not circular reasoning; it only seems that way. What seems right to you corresponds with what your brain and culture have already deemed as such. It is more a matter of being consistent. In other words, you want others to do as you do. It's actually a pretty good gene from an evolutionary and memetic standpoint. To everyone, an "imbalance" is that witch does not fit with their viewpoint. To use an analogy, if my scale started out as a 2:1 ratio, then someone added 1 to the left to make it a 3:1, then I would regard it as imbalanced whether it actually was or not.Morality is all subjective, but that does not mean we can't hold others up to our own standards. Once again, a false dichotomy. He could take the pen and fling it across the room; he could use it to write up a report, or he could leave it where it was. And these don't even begin to cover the barest .01% of the possible choices. There are no opposites. It is a false dichotomy.If a perfect system can be made imperfect, it is not perfect. False dichotomy. It could have taken place in many different ways; some possibly much easier than resisting the irresistible urges of a sociopath. No, by consequences I mean the things that followed as a result of the action. If Bob kills Joe with a chainsaw, that doesn't mean that he could have just kidnapped him or used a screw driver or driven to Texas alone instead. That is what it seems your God does too. How is his morality any better than mine? No prob. I can wait. T&U

ONI writes:Sorry for the lateness on yours as well, simply very busy. I know you dont mind, just needed to apologizeHere we a have a kind of an odd situation, an a professed atheist who I assume by logical deduction and indirect implication dose not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, because God does not exist, explaining and instructing on how to interpret and understand the scriptures. Hmmm? OkSince however the scholarship of the world believes this to be a very valid interpretation (purpledawn notwithstanding,)and assumption I probably will go with them and the Apostle Paul and a little deductive reasoning reasoning from his writings. Lets take a logical look.Paul said by one man sin and death entered the world, so by deductive reasoning I am justified in believing that before this time there was no death and disease , which would include any kind of mental orders, unless you could demonstrate otherwise, can you demonstrate otherwise, unless you can I will have to go with the most logical assumption backed by scripture, since we are discussing the word of God.We may also assume that there were no neurological problems with Adam and eve, and we must assume they made a choice free of problems , due to the fact that God held them responsible for and punished them when they choose to do otherwise. If it were some kind of disorder, or if such things were possible before, there would be no need to hold them responsible for sucha decision andthere is no indication that there was in this instance, due to the reasons I have now stated.Sorry there is no tweeking going on here, unless you can find a flaw in it that you can expose, I would say that they made a choice, aside from any neurological problems, that is unless you would like to demonstrate that apart from what I have illustrated both from reason and the scripturePrior there seems to be no death, no disease, no problems, just bad choices. There was no guilt, no death or punishment, before the fall, thus no neurological problems. Since they were punished and not simply admonished, this is the best of possible conclusions in this connection.Paul makes it very clear that two things were a result of thier actions, SIN and Death, sin being disobedience and death being atleast physical, (why I stated Purpledawn notwithstanding)which would logically imply a state of perfection, or simply something that was NOW present which was not before. The conclusion of perfection is more than warrented as is indicated by the rest of the context and other passages, by the things that followed their SIMPLE CHOICE.One more point in this connection, you said neurons were not mentioned in the text, fair enough. However I would ask if they were present and there were imbalances present that prevented if from being a simple choice for which they were responsible, why doesnt God mention it to them or the writer to the audience. You see if you have the right to imply they are not mentioned, I have the right to ask why they were not mentioned if they were a factor.Instead the author God, says it in this fashion. "To him that KNOWETH to do good and does it not, it is SIN". You see, not imbalances or impulses just bad choicesBut that’s the very point at hand, TU has been unable to attribute every action,or as I call it a choice and in this instance sin or crime, to some sort of biological or mental imbalance. Simple choices that are wrong like stealing a pen defy that perception and interpretation. That is they cannot be attributed to a imbalance, the very idea is not reasonable and should be considered a bad choice free of some biological problem.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

How is that relevant? Do you think you can read and comprehend words better than I can? The Bible is to be read and understood on a personal level without outside opinion ... are you saying I can't do that?And I wasn't always an atheist, I believe there was a time before I reached the age of reasoning that I was a believer in invisible things. Don't just say it, prove it. Where's the evidence for that claim? I don't believe you are right on that at all. This is your interpretation ... see how you added the word "disease" for no reason? That's not in the story of the fall - it just says "death". How does a mental disorder relate to death, or just to go with your interpretation, disease? it doesn't. You are tweeking it. You are tweeking what it said. This is a complete distortion of what the verse says, and if I was a believer in the Bible I would be offended by what you are doing to those Bible verses. Exactly, and the original story in Genesis says the same thing. Sin and death, NOT diseases, mental disorders, neurological problems, etc... YOU are adding all that extra stuff to satify the problem you would be faced with otherwise. You have failed to understand how every single action we take is the result of deterministic neurons for which you have no free will over or control.The argument is more complex than the behaviourist outlook you have on it.Show me how you have free will over the neruons that control every thought and action in your body and you may have an argument.- Oni

Right, and if the process itself is determinsitic, where does that leave the choice? Would it not also indicate that the choice (being derived from the process) is also deterministic?In essence, where does the free will come in? Note that I agree that we experience free will, I'm just curious as to where we seperate the micro (deterministic process) from the macro (reality which we experience)...?If choice(s) are derived from a deterministic processes, for that final choice to be free willed would mean that somewhere internally there is a "choice maker" ... but there isn't, there is just a deterministic process that results in an action (final choice).Where does the free will come into play? Just because you said it doesn't make it so.Every action requires a reason for the action - we cannot break the law of cause and effect.The taking of someones life is not normal to the human process, this requires either an outside influence (someone killed a member of your family, etc), an internal raise in emotional level due to someones actions toward you, an internal disorder that controls your emotions, or a malfunction of your internal wiring that doesn't allow you to sympathize with your fellow human beings and thus taking their life is nothing emotionally to you - and of course there's indoctrination (Nazi) or brain washing (military).There is no "simple choice" to murder anyone, and I challenge you to present a case that shows this opinion of yours to be true. And no, premeditation also comes with an emotional baggage.And that's the main point - you have no control over your emotions (ergo you have NO free will over them) and at the moment of taking the actual life, you are not consciously in control of your bodies actions. Your ID says E(M)A not E(A)M - which is it?- Oni

ONI writes:No this was a simple observation. However, you do understand that in interpretation one can deduce things of a logical form and draw logical conclusions that are valid, unless demonstrated otherwise, correct? IOW this is a viable form of interpretation unless it grossly misrepresents the text, correct?Also, beg to differ that you dont believe in invisible things. You I assume believe in evolution as a comprehensive theory, correct. Im pretty sure you cannot actually show me biological Macro evolution in its entirity, presently, correct. You use the available evidence, as you see it to DRAW logical conclusions, the end of which you believe demonstrates a point you cannot actually see at present, correct? For no reason? earlier you stated: If as Paul stated by one man sin and death entered into the world, it would follow that such things were not present before this time, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, can you? this is the most valid conclusion from his words.Since there was no death it is more than valid that disease was not present due to the fact that disease is a large contributing factor to death. Can you demonstrate otherwise? if you cannot, there is no reason to believe this conclusion is not valid and truthful.Since mental disorders are a disease of sorts, it would follow that such things did not exist before this time, because there was no death, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. This seems a much better conclusion than to assume things of this type were present when death itself was notAs I stated before to which you paid no attention, if it needs to be stated directly that such things were present and the two disobeyed the command, it would follow that they had some sort of imbalance, according to your definition of incorrect behavior and God would certainly have made this known to them or the writer to us, why did they not, Biblically speaking of courseIt is a reasonable deduction to assume for all the reasons I have now stated, plus this one, that such things did not exists, unless you can demonstrate otherwise or show why these conclusions are invalid, can you? its is therefore Biblical to assume that because death was not present, that none of the other things associated with it were present as well, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. There were no disorders at all, of any type, Biblically speaking. This can be demonstrated by the mere fact that God saw thier actions as a choice in the wrong direction, held them accountable and punished them. All of this is in the text, thus scriptural. perhaps you could show that any type of disorders were present before the fall, that is, from a Biblical perspective, since you challenged me to demonstrate otherwise. Or is your implication that they were in complete control of thier actions before the fall?Question what is the opposite of no death, as a simple illustration. Ill wait for your explanation from scripture to show these conclusions as invalid.If your definition of disorder is that they had no choice over thier choices, then demonstrate it from the text and the fact that God punished them for thier actions. Dont just say it demonstrate it.Watch this, your indirect implication in conjunction with the topic at hand is that there were disorders because they disobeyed a simple rule, that is, it was not thier fault, because they were given to uncontrollable biological functions. Now, if this disorder was not present, then they simply made a choice, with no disorder and in full control of thier decision. However, if it was, you need to find it specifically in the text, or a text, since this is what you require of me, correct?You dilemma should be obvious, if no disorders, then your position on why people do bad things is invalidated, they simply choose of thier own freewill. If there were disorders, or uncontrollable choices you would need to demonstrate it from the text, without indirect implication or assumption,. ie tweeking, since you insist on absolute statements in that direction. If there choices or choice was a product of biological functions outside of thier control, God would not punish them, Biblically speaking. Which of these problems do you wish to pursue?So tell me again how I am tweeking or demonstrate why my conclusions are not valid, from a Biblical perspective. I have demonstrated this to be incorrect and what problem would I face otherwise?By the way sin is a disease that causes death. Listen carefully, "The wages of sin are death", physically and spiritually."Let no man say when he is tempted I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, nor tempts he any man, every man is tempted when he drawn away by his own lust and enticed, and when lust is concieved it brings forth sin and when sin is FINISHED it brings forth DEATH" This is the easiest part of all. because I CAN make a decision in the opposite direction, at any time in the process, if I CHOOSE to do so, hence freewill. Really, give me something hard Out of your second post to me today this is the only line I need, the rest is just verbage to tout this point.
This is not true just because you say so.. All I need to do is demonstrate that in any given situation i have the choice to make another decision in that instance and this is all I need to do to demonstrate that your rhetoric is not valid. I can make another choice in any situation and until you can demonstrate that otherwise, you have failed to demonstrate your point about control and freewill. Can you demonstrate it otherwise?You and TU seem to be indicating that I am referencing the spirit world aside from a physical process at this point, I am not. I certainly believe in Body, Soul and Spirit, but I dont need it to demonstrate freewill or choice apart from biological controls. Conscience or thoughts are a mystery from a human perspective. the process may be able to be explored but its results are indeed a mysteryEAM EAM I believe was taken, although I have never seen anyone use it, so I CHOOSE EMA, EAM is Extreme Alpha MaleEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

EMA, the only way for what you are saying to be true would be if there was some unchangeable internal "processor" that considered all variables yet made that ultimate choice alone. This is, for all intents and purposes, the definition of the soul. It has no place in either biology or reality for that matter.T&U

Ill incorperate this (blathering nonsense, ha ha),statement with your last post, Im working on it now, probably tommorrow, its alot of rhetoric to get through.EAM

Before I forget, if you guys get a chance watch the series this week on History channel, WW11inHD, its pretty impressiveEAM

Yes, and I feel that your interpretation grossly misrepresents the text. What I can show you is that you don't understand evolution and are grossly misrepresenting it. Just by your use of the word "macro" I know you don't know what you're talking about. No, evolution is observable and requires no faith. That depends, give me a date when this took place and we'll look at the fossil record. Were there dinosuars in the garden of Eden? Right, but it wasn't due to Eve's eating of the tree of knowledge. God said 'sin' and 'death', period - that is the punishment. No they are not, at all, not even a little. Your reasons failed as evidence. There was no 'sin' or 'death', period. That was the punishment, the other stuff could be said to be the result of evolution and reproduction (as science has shown it to be), but not a god given condition. You are grossly misrepresnting the text. No, I didn't say that, you again grossly misrepresent. No they are not. Sin is sin, diseases are diseases, the two have nothing alike. No you can't, you can't control the neurons that control your emotions - to say otherwise is complete bullshit. ...but once your emotions take over, you lose the control to decide and thus are at the mercy of your emotions.- Oni