Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Wayne92587]

If God does not exist, neither does Evil.

Evil does not exist.
Evil and the acts of Evil are perpetrated by the disciples of Evil, Mankind.

Illusion is the source, the creator, the cause, of Evil; Illusions, thinly veiled shadowy creatures lurking in the darkest corners of the Mind, is born of Guilefulness, deception, lies, because of Man missing the mark, the Truth.

[Wayne92587]

If God does not exist, neither does Evil.

Evil does not exist.
Evil and the acts of Evil are perpetrated by the disciples of Evil, Mankind.

Illusion is the source, the creator, the cause, of Evil; Illusions, thinly veiled shadowy creatures lurking in the darkest corners of the Mind, is born of Guilefulness, deception, lies, because of Man missing the mark, the Truth.

[ThomasHobbes]

If God does not exist, neither does Evil.

Evil does not exist.
Evil and the acts of Evil are perpetrated by the disciples of Evil, Mankind.

Illusion is the source, the creator, the cause, of Evil; Illusions, thinly veiled shadowy creatures lurking in the darkest corners of the Mind, is born of Guilefulness, deception, lies, because of Man missing the mark, the Truth.

Good is that which pleases man, evil is that which pleaseth him not.

Neither are forces in the universe, nor ideologies to follow, but are value judgements about things.
Guile and deception are as much good as evil depending on the context and the observer.

[David Cooper]

It is not likely, there are no specific genes for 'rape' and 'pillage'.

Is that any more certain than there being or not being religious genes? It all looks like speculation to me, but I think rape-and-pillage genes are more likely than religious ones. It's all very hard to judge though without being able to study people's upbringing in detail to see how much of it is actually down to that rather than the genes. We'll only get good scientific information on that when we have AGI in every home watching all the interactions.

You have overlooked some missing links here.
At the moment the majority >85% of humans are religious, so obviously they are bias and will not want any changes to their religion.

In some societies where they used to be primarily religious, they aren't any more - it doesn't look as if genes control this, but culture and ideas.

It is strange to me you cannot do the simple inference from cause to effects.

I can see very clearly the chain of causation that leads to the holy hate generating the holy violence, and particularly in individuals who are genetically predisposed to love violence and to enjoy abusing others.

I believe the basic moral function is already established within the human DNA but it is not very active in the majority. It is slowly unfolding within humanity.

You can see it in animals too, both within families and community groups where they generally work as a team, the behaviours that control many of their interactions being controlled by instincts. In some individuals though, just like with people, you see psychopathic ones which abuse others, and that's probably caused by a failure of some kind where the enjoyment of harming individuals from a rival tribe aren't inhibited properly within the individual's own tribe. With religious extremists, of course, it doesn't take that kind of misfire to help them abuse people of a group that they don't consider to be their own, although the general trend in humans is for them to be friendly towards other groups unless they have good cause not to be (based on bad experiences), so the individuals who are automatically hostile are probably more psychopathic genetically, and they take delight in being as vicious as possible. Islam was clearly designed to appeal most strongly to such people, giving them an excuse to act on the hate that they are already keen on. That's why you can find an episode in the Hadith where Muhammad boasts about having people burned to death in their houses for failing to attend prayers at the mosque. This complicates things with Islam, because it appeals to two different kinds of people: vicious ones who enjoy abusing others; but also more ordinary religious people who are blind to the hate and only see the good side of it (much of which actually doesn't come from Islam at all, but is just a collection of good values which those populations already had, but which they wrongly attribute to Islam rather than to the pagan tribes of their ancestors which those values actually came from).

So I wonder how you could arrive at the conclusion people [and you?] see religions [Islam in particular] as benign.

Because they genuinely think they are benign, and the values that they hold are for the most part benign. They simply ignore the violent stuff and pretend to themselves that it isn't there, or that it has no relevance to anything - it's no different from the way most Christians in Europe now reject all the homophobia in the NT and go directly against its teachings. They are arguably not real Christians any more, but they think they are. Most Muslims are likewise not proper Muslims, and they too think they are proper Muslims, even though they use cameras to make images of living things (including people), thereby creating things that might be idolised and worshipped as rival gods to Allah. They break the rules without any worry, and they excuse this by talking about a balance of good and bad behaviours being sufficient to qualify for heaven - they are not expected to be perfect, so they needn't follow all the rules, and particularly when the rules seem silly. I think they could be open to the idea of getting rid of all the hate from their religion, because that hate isn't important to them at all. It only attracts the psychopathic ones, and they are a minority which could be turned on and removed from society, thereby leading to a more peaceful world where no one needs to live in fear any more.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum,

I have not claimed them as facts.
They are my views but I have substantiated them with arguments and supporting facts.

Interesting. Aren't substantiated claims equivalent to facts? If they aren't just speculated claims/views and they aren't facts, then what are they?

Note people, [notable scientists] raise hypothesis from prior established facts all the time. Mine proposition is a hypothesis and that is not a fact.

I mentioned 'analogy' and it is so obvious the extremes that SOME religious did and even the majority did are parallel to activities driven by the 'zombie parasites'.

The point is, you're specifically claiming that people with religious beliefs are infected with a “zombie parasite”, its not just an analogy, because that is your express claim. You've claimed that it is the same or similar to a "zombie parasite" found in ants, but you have yet to substantiate that claim. To even begin to substantiate that claim requires tons of evidence as is it far reaching, and you'd also have to produce your research which shows a correlation between ants and humans that is related to your claim. You can't expect people to agree with you just because you've made the attachment/correlation, and a video on ants is not substantive. It just isn't compelling in my view. Currently, it reads like a bad tabloid article - "Religious people infected by Zombie Parasite!"

I hope you have not thought I was arguing for a biological parasite like those of the infected ants example.

In the case of the "zombie parasites" in ants and other animals, the ants were subliminal compelled to act 'weirdly' for the interests of the "zombie parasites."
In the case of theists, they are also acting 'weirdly' in a range of behaviors to the extreme of sacrificing their lives, their children lives, and commit other evil acts against humanity.
Therefore the inference is there must be 'something' that is taking control over their mind to compel [subliminally] them to commit those 'weird' acts.

As mentioned below, the question and task is 'what is the nature of that parasite zombie?'

The task is how to explain this "zombie parasites" in principle, technically and demonstrates its activities [cause and effect] objectively.

As I stated, I think it requires much more than that. For a start, what is the correlation between the behaviour of ants, and the behaviour of people with religious beliefs? Also, didn't you previously state that you don't believe in cause and effect?

When did I ever state I do not believe in cause and effect? What I stated is I don't believe in an absolute 'first cause'.

I agree I have not presented a conclusive case to substantiate my hypothesis "Religious people infected by "Zombie Parasite!"" I'll reserve that to be presented in a book.
I don't think it is possible to convince anyone here 100% within the inherent constraints in such a forum.
However I have left many clues, note I mentioned the existential crisis, existential dilemma many times.
I have found additional reinforcements from ongoing reading of Heidegger [touted as the father of existentialism - Heidegger rejected that].

I want to push the 'zombie parasite' analogy so as to bring to people awareness that the grounds of religions is something very parasitic and unworthy to defend and protect.

So many would disagree with you, and I'm sure that they would present their own justifications.

It is a matter of who will win with justified arguments. I agree so far my presentations are not that convincing but it will prevail in time. If I were you I will stretch my mind further and deeper to find out more to either prove the thesis true or false. If false, you will still learn something.

The story of Abraham then is similar to the common stories from today's schizophrenics and other mental problems where they hear voices from a god commanding them to act. Example below and there are tons of such evidences;

Its not at all in my view, try to view things more subtly. According to the scripture, Abraham and Sarah were visited physically by God/God's messengers, they had a meal with them if I recall correctly. He had more reason to believe in God than faith alone. With most (if not all) of the protagonists in the Bible, God interacted with them on a physical level, their claims about God were substantiated with miracles. Far different from the host of mentally ill people who claim to hear God, feel God and so on and so forth...

The point is 3000+ years ago there were no knowledgeable psychiatrists like we have today. If Jesus or Mohammed were to stake their claims today, they will be outed as cranks. This is why there is no way there will be any equivalent prophets nor messengers who can get away with a new religion [and converting the masses] in the modern time and from now on.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the logical steps you took in order to reach your conclusions. I don't really have a problem with your views on the Quran. I agree that it contains inherently evil verses that can inspire its adherents to violence. What I wanted you to provide was the logical steps to this conclusion:

The proximate root cause is not a pursuit 'eternal life' which is secondary. The proximate cause of religiosity is an existential crisis pulsating and driving deeper than the level of basic instincts like the 4fs i.e. fight, flight, food, f_sex; security, etc. The existential crisis breed a kind of parasite zombie of DOOM that drive the majority into clinging onto illusory stuffs to sustain sanity.

Because I don't understand how you surmised that?

I want to correct and clarify the above in more details.
I have written previously, DNA [and RNA] wise ALL humans are already infected with a "parasite zombie of DOOM" where it remain dormant in some [atheists and others].
Re DNA, I do not meant genes but it is the RNA activities that enable the "parasite" to emerge.

I was watching something interesting, whereby an atheist became a Christian. You have to bear in mind that some people have religious beliefs or become religious due to their experiences, which can't be explained by science or any other empirical models. They may not have been religious prior to their experience(s). These experiences may correlate with other religious testimonies or scriptural accounts. Would you claim that such people are infected with a “zombie parasite”? If so, isn't your claim more of a label than something which is truly substantive?

The point with an atheist becoming Christian is a case of the "parasite zombie of DOOM" which was once dormant becoming active and infectious again. Note,

Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

Note my regular quoted case of Anthony Flew the one time world's most notable atheist who became a deist in the later part of his life.

The is based on the fact, millions neurons atrophized from day of birth and continue to do so throughout one's life time.
Where the "parasite zombie of DOOM" is dormant re theism, it is suppressed by rather flimsy inhibiting neurons, like a temporary dam holding back the terrible forces of a thundering river.
With age, these inhibiting neurons atrophizes and when the threshold is broken, the person will turn / cling to theism naturally.

This inhibiting threshold is not threatened / broken by natural atrophy and age but stress and other sudden dramatic activity anytime in one's life can breakthrough the resistance of that threshold and drive one to theism.

The "parasite zombie of DOOM" do not necessary drive one to theism, it has other non-theistic impacts, e.g. non-theistic religions and other secular-social issues [drugs, opioid, etc.].

[Spectrum]

Is that any more certain than there being or not being religious genes? It all looks like speculation to me, but I think rape-and-pillage genes are more likely than religious ones. It's all very hard to judge though without being able to study people's upbringing in detail to see how much of it is actually down to that rather than the genes. We'll only get good scientific information on that when we have AGI in every home watching all the interactions.

I wrote in the above post. The emergence of rape and religiosity is not in the DNA-genes but in RNA activities. [Maybe the genes has a part, but I am not into that yet] The DNA provide the basic blueprint but it is the RNA where SOME 'contractors' did not build as planned.
Note the case of synaethesia, homosexuality, and other deviations which I don't think are in the genes but happened during birth development in the womb.

You can see it in animals too, both within families and community groups where they generally work as a team, the behaviours that control many of their interactions being controlled by instincts. In some individuals though, just like with people, you see psychopathic ones which abuse others, and that's probably caused by a failure of some kind where the enjoyment of harming individuals from a rival tribe aren't inhibited properly within the individual's own tribe.

There are elements of altruism and empathy in animals [non-humans] but they are not within the ambit of the Philosophy of Morality.

With religious extremists, of course, it doesn't take that kind of misfire to help them abuse people of a group that they don't consider to be their own, although the general trend in humans is for them to be friendly towards other groups unless they have good cause not to be (based on bad experiences), so the individuals who are automatically hostile are probably more psychopathic genetically, and they take delight in being as vicious as possible. Islam was clearly designed to appeal most strongly to such people, giving them an excuse to act on the hate that they are already keen on. That's why you can find an episode in the Hadith where Muhammad boasts about having people burned to death in their houses for failing to attend prayers at the mosque. This complicates things with Islam, because it appeals to two different kinds of people: vicious ones who enjoy abusing others; but also more ordinary religious people who are blind to the hate and only see the good side of it (much of which actually doesn't come from Islam at all, but is just a collection of good values which those populations already had, but which they wrongly attribute to Islam rather than to the pagan tribes of their ancestors which those values actually came from).

I agree with the above.
Those who are supposedly moderate and good 'Muslims' do good as driven by their inherent good nature as human beings.
This is why we must highlight the inherent malignant evil ethos within Islam the ideology and not blaming any Muslim.
The problem is the texts of the Quran are present as vaguely and deceptively that it is very difficult to nail and pin 'evilness' to the core of Islam. I am confident I have done that with my analysis.

So I wonder how you could arrive at the conclusion people [and you?] see religions [Islam in particular] as benign.

Because they genuinely think they are benign, and the values that they hold are for the most part benign. They simply ignore the violent stuff and pretend to themselves that it isn't there, or that it has no relevance to anything - it's no different from the way most Christians in Europe now reject all the homophobia in the NT and go directly against its teachings. They are arguably not real Christians any more, but they think they are.

Most Muslims are likewise not proper Muslims, and they too think they are proper Muslims, even though they use cameras to make images of living things (including people), thereby creating things that might be idolised and worshipped as rival gods to Allah. They break the rules without any worry, and they excuse this by talking about a balance of good and bad behaviours being sufficient to qualify for heaven - they are not expected to be perfect, so they needn't follow all the rules, and particularly when the rules seem silly.

Agree with the above and note my point above.

I think they could be open to the idea of getting rid of all the hate from their religion, because that hate isn't important to them at all. It only attracts the psychopathic ones, and they are a minority which could be turned on and removed from society, thereby leading to a more peaceful world where no one needs to live in fear any more.

I have regularly mentioned the getting rid [ban], censoring and regulating of evil and hate elements from the media [News, movies, computer games, etc] to prevent the vulnerables especially children from being influenced by such evil elements. If we can do that to secular activities why not doing the same to Islam and other religions with evil elements.

I agree with your push in this direction and while I agree to an extent, I also have reservations on its effectiveness. Note there are lot of debates on whether Islam can be reformed or not. Most think it cannot be reformed based on the same points I have given.
One deterring factor to reformation of Islam is that 'zombie parasite of DOOM' I discussed in the other posts.

[Fanman]

Spectrum,

Note people, [notable scientists] raise hypothesis from prior established facts all the time. Mine proposition is a hypothesis and that is not a fact.

Perhaps the fault is mine, but I don't understand? You've claimed that your views are substantiated by arguments and supporting facts. If that is the case it would mean that your hypothesis is correct as according to the facts and arguments that it is supported by, meaning that what you're claiming is evidently, true. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I don't think you've reached a stage where you can call your hypothesis substantiated. At the moment it is just an idea, which is at best an analogous.

I hope you have not thought I was arguing for a biological parasite like those of the infected ants example.

No, of course not, but you're relating it to DNA/RNA??? If the “zombie parasite” is not something biological, then I think it describes a particular mode of thinking which presents or manifests as something parasitic within the minds of people with religious beliefs. If you want to, you can describe the religious mindset as being "parasitic" or claim that people who are religious are infected by some kind of cognitive parasite, but you're going to have to do a lot of work to make that claim substantive. It is also very derogatory.

In the case of the "zombie parasites" in ants and other animals, the ants were subliminal compelled to act 'weirdly' for the interests of the "zombie parasites."
In the case of theists, they are also acting 'weirdly' in a range of behaviors to the extreme of sacrificing their lives, their children lives, and commit other evil acts against humanity.
Therefore the inference is there must be 'something' that is taking control over their mind to compel [subliminally] them to commit those 'weird' acts.

I think that there's a spectrum of behaviours that religious beliefs cause, ranging from normal (for a person with religious beliefs) such as praying, and then you have the extreme acts such as you describe which are abnormal. I think that from your perspective, any behaviours related to religious belief would seem “weird”, because you don't have any religious beliefs, so you believe that there's something wrong with the person, viz “zombie parasite”, but from someone's perspective who is religious, religious behaviour on the “normal” end of spectrum is not weird or abnormal, so the claim of them being infected with a “zombie parasite” may seem absurd. Perspective is a very important factor here.

As mentioned below, the question and task is 'what is the nature of that parasite zombie?'

I agree, but you've given yourself a lot of work to do, given that you first have to establish if such a thing exists.

When did I ever state I do not believe in cause and effect? What I stated is I don't believe in an absolute 'first cause'.

You previously argued, if I recall correctly, that cause and effect is illusory as according to Kant. I could find the exact posts, but it would take time to search.

I agree I have not presented a conclusive case to substantiate my hypothesis "Religious people infected by "Zombie Parasite!"" I'll reserve that to be presented in a book.
I don't think it is possible to convince anyone here 100% within the inherent constraints in such a forum.
However I have left many clues, note I mentioned the existential crisis, existential dilemma many times.
I have found additional reinforcements from ongoing reading of Heidegger [touted as the father of existentialism - Heidegger rejected that].

You could present your arguments in the form of a book, if you're so inclined. But I feel that the veracity of your claim is based upon the soundness of your arguments, and I have argued that so far they aren't sound. Thus far it seems like an idea or a hypothesis that isn't well enough supported to be sound, but I guess if you could pull the whole thing together and support it with some substantive evidence, you may be onto something. It would certainly be something interesting to read.

It is a matter of who will win with justified arguments. I agree so far my presentations are not that convincing but it will prevail in time. If I were you I will stretch my mind further and deeper to find out more to either prove the thesis true or false. If false, you will still learn something.

Why does it have to involve winning ? Not everyone may agree that the justifications posited on either side of the argument are valid. Its difficult to justify who is right or wrong in this case because your hypothesis is a matter of perspective and perhaps not fact. How would you prove that people with religious beliefs are infected with a cognitive “zombie parasite” when the existence of such a thing can only be demonstrated by behaviours analogous to ants. I mean, how would you define which behaviours were the result of the parasite and which are not? Where does the parasite begin and where does it end? What causes it? How can you tell when it's active? And I'm sure that there are many more questions where you would find answers difficult to justify.

I want to correct and clarify the above in more details.
I have written previously, DNA [and RNA] wise ALL humans are already infected with a "parasite zombie of DOOM" where it remain dormant in some [atheists and others].
Re DNA, I do not meant genes but it is the RNA activities that enable the "parasite" to emerge.

Isn't this your views about existential crisis reformatted and expanded upon? I can't agree with this, as to me it seems very speculative and if I'm honest, vague. We all have existential anxieties/questions due to the nature of our impermanence, and this may manifest more strongly in some than others, but that doesn't mean there's some type of “parasite” present within our DNA/RNA, or that religious people have more or less existential anxiety than others.

The is based on the fact, millions neurons atrophized from day of birth and continue to do so throughout one's life time.
Where the "parasite zombie of DOOM" is dormant re theism, it is suppressed by rather flimsy inhibiting neurons, like a temporary dam holding back the terrible forces of a thundering river.
With age, these inhibiting neurons atrophizes and when the threshold is broken, the person will turn / cling to theism naturally.

Many people would disagree with you. IMV, theism cannot be reduced to one single cause. It doesn't seem to be something that is so linear to me. There are in my view multiple causes for theism, some more generic than others, but there being a single cause doesn't seem right to me.

[David Cooper]

I see the religious side of people as being much the same as an astronomer finding it awesome looking at heavenly bodies through a telescope. Nature is awesome, and feeling that awe is a greatly positive experience which we don't want to do away with. Religious people simply feel it about something that doesn't exist but which they've been led to believe is out there, and the real problem with their brain is that they're being irrational in their selection of things to trigger that kind of feeling. Religions make appealing promises which cause people to want to believe and not to have the spell broken. We see the same kind of people getting excited about seeing royalty, even though there's no such thing other than in their minds - they've been brought up with a faulty model of reality installed into them, and most people are too emotionally tied to their model to want to rebuild it to make it compatible with the real world.

It's the same with magic shows where people watch magicians doing things that amaze them, whereas some of us are always able to work out how the tricks are done and aren't in the least bit impressed with most of them. (I saw a beauty recently though where the old trick of a knife hidden in the target that springs out when the magician pretends to throw a knife at it was taken to a new level by having part of the surface of the target move out of the way to reveal a playing card that had been hidden behind it which the knife hidden in the target then cut down into, creating the illusion that a knife had flown through the air, pierced one of a flock of cards that had been thrown in the air, and then stabbed into the target which was strapped to someone's chest. The careful tearing off of a corner of a card to make it fit the corner-less card hidden in the target was another clever element of the trick. The creativity of some tricks is something to admire, but most people in the audience admire the dismal tricks just as much [and often much more than] the ingenious ones, and I've seen a talent show where the winner of the series was a magician whose tricks were all of the dismal kind.)

Most people actually suffer either from an intelligence deficit or an inhibited intelligence, shackled by existing beliefs. They also tend to select their beliefs based on authority rather than reason, so if they're trained to believe particular things that are wrong and are later confronted with evidence that those beliefs are wrong, they reject the evidence as it's easier to ignore reality and just go on conforming with the authority that trained them. When an authority is also backed up by violence and discrimination, it becomes even more powerful and leads to the idiocy spreading, but if you strip the violence and other mistreatment away, they can decline instead. What strikes me though is just how aggressive people can be in holding to their non-religious false beliefs and how they reject mathematical proofs that are set before their eyes. I think the cause of this in the brain is the same as is involved in religious belief, and it's really all about the ideas that get in first having a higher probability rating applied to them than any ideas that contradict them which come in later, so it makes it extremely hard to change people's mind about things even if they're clearly wrong - they resist corrections to their model of reality, and they do this because changing the model can be highly disruptive. It may be better in some cases for them to go on being wrong rather than dismantling the model and spending the rest of their life being confused instead, and the more wrong they were, the more disruptive the changes will be. If you happen to be loaded up with good information from the start, any minor changes that you have to make to your model of reality later won't overturn many other parts of the model, but if the whole thing is built upon magical thinking, pulling out the magic leaves it shattered. From an evolutionary point of view, avoiding that shattering by sticking to incorrect beliefs may be better for the individual. The simple solution to this though is to make sure that all children have a better model fed into them from the start, and with AGI helping to bring them up (all their toys will be able to speak to them), that will happen.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum,

Note people, [notable scientists] raise hypothesis from prior established facts all the time. Mine proposition is a hypothesis and that is not a fact.

Perhaps the fault is mine, but I don't understand? You've claimed that your views are substantiated by arguments and supporting facts. If that is the case it would mean that your hypothesis is correct as according to the facts and arguments that it is supported by, meaning that what you're claiming is evidently, true. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I don't think you've reached a stage where you can call your hypothesis substantiated. At the moment it is just an idea, which is at best an analogous.

My thesis is substantiated with substantiated facts and sound but I did not claim my conclusion have been proven empirically.

I would accept my thesis [theoretical] is proven empirically as an empirical fact when we have traced the sets of neurons responsible for religiosity and theism. From there we can find the cause and effect link between this set of neurons to the conjuring of the idea of God and all other religious issues. Then we will have to find corrective steps [foolproof] to wean off the impulse for a God.

I hope you have not thought I was arguing for a biological parasite like those of the infected ants example.

No, of course not, but you're relating it to DNA/RNA??? If the “zombie parasite” is not something biological, then I think it describes a particular mode of thinking which presents or manifests as something parasitic within the minds of people with religious beliefs. If you want to, you can describe the religious mindset as being "parasitic" or claim that people who are religious are infected by some kind of cognitive parasite, but you're going to have to do a lot of work to make that claim substantive. It is also very derogatory.

It has to be deliberately derogatory to have an impact due to this consequences below and its future threat to humanity.

Wake up to this real empirical facts!!


Note the secular driven North Koreans has managed to built up such a terrible nuke threat to humanity under the noses of the UN and everyone else. However [as reported] they [under threat of sanctions and war] are willing to give up their nukes permanently upon certain conditions.
I bet if the religious driven Islamic State has nukes it will be a no-holds-barred for them to unleash nukes on everyone including themselves [in time] since to them it is win-win [kill as martyr and rewarded in heaven] case in accordance to their immutable holy books.

In the case of the "zombie parasites" in ants and other animals, the ants were subliminal compelled to act 'weirdly' for the interests of the "zombie parasites."
In the case of theists, they are also acting 'weirdly' in a range of behaviors to the extreme of sacrificing their lives, their children lives, and commit other evil acts against humanity.
Therefore the inference is there must be 'something' that is taking control over their mind to compel [subliminally] them to commit those 'weird' acts.

I think that there's a spectrum of behaviours that religious beliefs cause, ranging from normal (for a person with religious beliefs) such as praying, and then you have the extreme acts such as you describe which are abnormal. I think that from your perspective, any behaviours related to religious belief would seem “weird”, because you don't have any religious beliefs, so you believe that there's something wrong with the person, viz “zombie parasite”, but from someone's perspective who is religious, religious behaviour on the “normal” end of spectrum is not weird or abnormal, so the claim of them being infected with a “zombie parasite” may seem absurd. Perspective is a very important factor here.

The most a theist claim is all their actions are driven by the Will of God.
However, I have demonstrated God is an Impossibility.
So no matter how theists claim their God driven acts are 'normal' ultimately it cannot be 'normal' but perverted by an illusory God, i.e. God ask me to go to church, God command me to kill infidels, God command this and that. How can you claim this is normal?

Taking an objective stance and reviewing the acts of theist acting upon an illusory God, it is obvious there is something in the mind that is controlling those behaviors that rational and wise people would not do.
We can conclude it must be some sort of “zombie parasite” of DOOM like the biological parasite that control the will of zombie ants.

As mentioned below, the question and task is 'what is the nature of that parasite zombie?'

I agree, but you've given yourself a lot of work to do, given that you first have to establish if such a thing exists.

I have already done my homework except I have not got into the details publicly.

When did I ever state I do not believe in cause and effect? What I stated is I don't believe in an absolute 'first cause'.

You previously argued, if I recall correctly, that cause and effect is illusory as according to Kant. I could find the exact posts, but it would take time to search.

Actually it is Hume [due to constant conjunction, customs, habit] and Kant agreed but that is on absolute cause and effect. Hume and Kant accept 'cause and effect' provided it is conditionally and qualified.

It is a matter of who will win with justified arguments. I agree so far my presentations are not that convincing but it will prevail in time. If I were you I will stretch my mind further and deeper to find out more to either prove the thesis true or false. If false, you will still learn something.

Why does it have to involve winning ? Not everyone may agree that the justifications posited on either side of the argument are valid. Its difficult to justify who is right or wrong in this case because your hypothesis is a matter of perspective and perhaps not fact. How would you prove that people with religious beliefs are infected with a cognitive “zombie parasite” when the existence of such a thing can only be demonstrated by behaviours analogous to ants. I mean, how would you define which behaviours were the result of the parasite and which are not? Where does the parasite begin and where does it end? What causes it? How can you tell when it's active? And I'm sure that there are many more questions where you would find answers difficult to justify.

The inference back to the "zombie parasite" is traceable to the blind acts [of concern are the very evil ones] of theists based on blind faith.
Note, there are mothers who are willing their sons to be suicide bombers in the name of religion and God. There are much empirical evidence to support the weird thing theists go at length to commit. It will take 1000s of pages to list all these weird and perverted acts by theists and some non-theists religionists.

I want to correct and clarify the above in more details.
I have written previously, DNA [and RNA] wise ALL humans are already infected with a "parasite zombie of DOOM" where it remain dormant in some [atheists and others].
Re DNA, I do not meant genes but it is the RNA activities that enable the "parasite" to emerge.

Isn't this your views about existential crisis reformatted and expanded upon? I can't agree with this, as to me it seems very speculative and if I'm honest, vague. We all have existential anxieties/questions due to the nature of our impermanence, and this may manifest more strongly in some than others, but that doesn't mean there's some type of “parasite” present within our DNA/RNA, or that religious people have more or less existential anxiety than others.

The existential element generate turbulences like how a hurricane and tornado is formed to create real destructions.
Note the lesser equivalent of such resultant in terms of addiction to substances, obsessive compulsive disorders, psychopathy, sexual lusts, gluttony and the likes that takes over the mind of a person.

The is based on the fact, millions neurons atrophized from day of birth and continue to do so throughout one's life time.
Where the "parasite zombie of DOOM" is dormant re theism, it is suppressed by rather flimsy inhibiting neurons, like a temporary dam holding back the terrible forces of a thundering river.
With age, these inhibiting neurons atrophizes and when the threshold is broken, the person will turn / cling to theism naturally.

Many people would disagree with you. IMV, theism cannot be reduced to one single cause. It doesn't seem to be something that is so linear to me. There are in my view multiple causes for theism, some more generic than others, but there being a single cause doesn't seem right to me.

All sexual activities, normal and abnormal sex are related to one single cause, i.e. the drive to procreation in terms of sexual reproduction as driven by the ultimate survival instinct.
It is the same with all variations of religious/theistic forms and activities,i.e. the fundamental root cause is the existential-religio drive at the basement of the brain as with [and much deeper than] the sex, food, security, water, near to breathing drives within the brain.

[Fanman]

Spectrum,

My thesis is substantiated with substantiated facts and sound but I did not claim my conclusion have been proven empirically.

I disagree. I don't understand why you think that is the case? From my perspective, its just idea.

I would accept my thesis [theoretical] is proven empirically as an empirical fact when we have traced the sets of neurons responsible for religiosity and theism. From there we can find the cause and effect link between this set of neurons to the conjuring of the idea of God and all other religious issues. Then we will have to find corrective steps [foolproof] to wean off the impulse for a God.

What about people's liberty to have beliefs? How would you manage the influence of external religious material on the mind?

It has to be deliberately derogatory to have an impact due to this consequences below and its future threat to humanity.

You think that being deliberately derogatory towards a specific group of people is going to have a positive effect?

The most a theist claim is all their actions are driven by the Will of God. 
However, I have demonstrated God is an Impossibility.
So no matter how theists claim their God driven acts are 'normal' ultimately it cannot be 'normal' but perverted by an illusory God, i.e. God ask me to go to church, God command me to kill infidels, God command this and that. How can you claim this is normal?

I agree that there are theists who will claim that their actions are driven by the will of God. That may not be normal from your perspective, but it is normal as according to their beliefs. You have to accept that, even if you disagree with their thinking. I don't think you've demonstrated that God is an impossibility, and we've discussed that topic at length. The only aspect of religious belief I claimed was normal was praying, and I did say that was normal from a theist's perspective.

Taking an objective stance and reviewing the acts of theist acting upon an illusory God, it is obvious there is something in the mind that is controlling those behaviors that rational and wise people would not do.
We can conclude it must be some sort of “zombie parasite” of DOOM like the biological parasite that control the will of zombie ants.

I don't agree. People have a choice. Theist's actions are so far removed from your perception of rationality that you see their actions as demonstrating that they're being controlled by a “zombie parasite of DOOM”. The one thing we can be sure of that operates in the minds of theists is belief in God, which obviously has an effect on their behaviour. I don't liken belief to a zombie parasite, but given what you've stated, belief seems to be the “zombie parasite” that you're looking for.

All sexual activities, normal and abnormal sex are related to one single cause, i.e. the drive to procreation in terms of sexual reproduction as driven by the ultimate survival instinct.
It is the same with all variations of religious/theistic forms and activities,i.e. the fundamental root cause is the existential-religio drive at the basement of the brain as with [and much deeper than] the sex, food, security, water, near to breathing drives within the brain.

I disagree. What about people who want to have sex purely for pleasure, but not produce children? What about people who believe that God exists because they surmise that God exists based upon what they observe? What is the “existential-religio drive at the basement of the brain”??? Another thesis?

[Spectrum]

Spectrum,

My thesis is substantiated with substantiated facts and sound but I did not claim my conclusion have been proven empirically.

I disagree. I don't understand why you think that is the case? From my perspective, its just idea.

You have to define what is idea from your perspective.
According to Kant, an idea is not a concept nor a theory because it has no empirical basis, thus illusory. Examples of idea are God, Soul [survive physical death], the Complete Universe.
Another perspective is that of an

• 1. opinion [100% subjective],
  2. belief, theoretical [100% conviction with some degree of objectivity] and
  3. Knowledge which is 100% conviction with 99% empirical proof - e.g. a proven Scientific theory

My proposition is not yet knowledge (3) and it is not an opinion, rather is somewhat a belief which is supported by other empirical knowledge and sound logic.

I would accept my thesis [theoretical] is proven empirically as an empirical fact when we have traced the sets of neurons responsible for religiosity and theism. From there we can find the cause and effect link between this set of neurons to the conjuring of the idea of God and all other religious issues. Then we will have to find corrective steps [foolproof] to wean off the impulse for a God.

What about people's liberty to have beliefs? How would you manage the influence of external religious material on the mind?

Everyone is entitle to opinions and beliefs but if one insist to impose their beliefs on others, then they have to provide justifiable and acceptable proofs.

I am striving to establish my current theoretical thesis as knowledge where anyone can test it scientifically and objectively [no faith at all] to convince themselves of the truth of it.

It has to be deliberately derogatory to have an impact due to this consequences below and its future threat to humanity.

You think that being deliberately derogatory towards a specific group of people is going to have a positive effect?

When we have statistics like below, this particular ideology [not the believers per se] deserve the derogatory treatment like what we are doing to Nazism at present.



So why not?

I agree condemnation is not likely to be productive especially to hardcore fundamentalist religionists. The ultimate solution is to prove beyond all doubts how religion arise within the basements of the mind and evil laden religions contribute directly to the above evil acts.

The most a theist claim is all their actions are driven by the Will of God. 
However, I have demonstrated God is an Impossibility.
So no matter how theists claim their God driven acts are 'normal' ultimately it cannot be 'normal' but perverted by an illusory God, i.e. God ask me to go to church, God command me to kill infidels, God command this and that. How can you claim this is normal?

I agree that there are theists who will claim that their actions are driven by the will of God. That may not be normal from your perspective, but it is normal as according to their beliefs. You have to accept that, even if you disagree with their thinking. I don't think you've demonstrated that God is an impossibility, and we've discussed that topic at length. The only aspect of religious belief I claimed was normal was praying, and I did say that was normal from a theist's perspective.

As I had stated above, I will have to prove scientifically and objectively beyond all doubts how the idea of a god arise from the basement of the mind. By then the majority will voluntarily give up believing in an illusory god and adopt foolproof and net-positive spiritual methods to vaccinate and send that inherent and unavoidable "zombie parasite" into dormancy.

Taking an objective stance and reviewing the acts of theist acting upon an illusory God, it is obvious there is something in the mind that is controlling those behaviors that rational and wise people would not do.
We can conclude it must be some sort of “zombie parasite” of DOOM like the biological parasite that control the will of zombie ants.

I don't agree. People have a choice. Theist's actions are so far removed from your perception of rationality that you see their actions as demonstrating that they're being controlled by a “zombie parasite of DOOM”. The one thing we can be sure of that operates in the minds of theists is belief in God, which obviously has an effect on their behaviour. I don't liken belief to a zombie parasite, but given what you've stated, belief seems to be the “zombie parasite” that you're looking for.

Note the analogy of the "zombie parasite" is a very effective one to support the very evident evil and violent consequences of those evil prone believers.
The next task is to trace and nail this "zombie parasite" scientifically which is not impossible given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Note my often mentioned Human Genome Project, the Connectome Project [complete mapping of all neural connectivities to their functions].

All sexual activities, normal and abnormal sex are related to one single cause, i.e. the drive to procreation in terms of sexual reproduction as driven by the ultimate survival instinct.
It is the same with all variations of religious/theistic forms and activities,i.e. the fundamental root cause is the existential-religio drive at the basement of the brain as with [and much deeper than] the sex, food, security, water, near to breathing drives within the brain.

I disagree. What about people who want to have sex purely for pleasure, but not produce children? What about people who believe that God exists because they surmise that God exists based upon what they observe? What is the “existential-religio drive at the basement of the brain”??? Another thesis?

The fundamental sexual drive with its related physical elements toward procreation via sexual reproduction are fundamental to all human beings. Sex for pleasure, homosexuality, asexuality are merely deviations and modifications of the fundamentals which exist no matter what.

Note the fundamental drive [supported by the digestive system] for nutrition and food in all human beings. That people eat for pleasure or eat themselves to death do not obviate that fundamental drive in principle that is for nutrition necessary for survival.

The existential-religio drive to compel the majority toward religion is the same as the above fundamental sex and hunger drives.

The existential-religio drive and compulsion is a force generated by that 'zombie-parasite' to act religiously to serve its purpose.

Note this 'zombie-parasite' also compel the others [non religious and religious] into drug addiction and other secular evils.

Just think, if religion is not from a deep-seated set of neurons i.e. the 'zombie-parasite' where do you think religious actives are motivated from?
Is it the higher cortical regions of reason? Note theist is more faith than reason!
I wrote elsewhere the rise of religion within humans is traceable to 300,000 years ago during the paleolithic age where reason is not a dominant function in the brain of humans. Even the the more refined limbic system is not that active.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

[Fanman]

Spectrum,

You have to define what is idea from your perspective.

Something that you've thought of .

Everyone is entitle to opinions and beliefs but if one insist to impose their beliefs on others, then they have to provide justifiable and acceptable proofs.

Fair enough, but the point is, in your opinion, people's religious beliefs cannot be justified. And since you've concluded (proven in your opinion) that it is impossible for God to exist, you're therefore, literally asking for the impossible. You've set a standard that by your reasoning cannot be achieved - like asking someone to produce water from a stone.

Just think, if religion is not from a deep-seated set of neurons i.e. the 'zombie-parasite' where do you think religious actives are motivated from?

From human being's interpretations of reality, which may explain why there are so many different Gods and religions, and why different cultures share the same belief systems - that differ greatly from other culture's belief systems. Also existential reasons, experiential reasons and a lack of scientific knowledge. I think there may be collective aspects of the human psyche that contribute towards people having religious beliefs, but I don't think there's a "zombie parasite", linked to a deep-seated set of neurons. I've never heard that claimed before.

IMO, you've identified these factors based upon your reasoning and philosophical understanding of the theistic psyche, you're then seeking to demonstrate that those factors exist empirically, but because you're looking for things that confirm your idea/hypothesis, anything you find which (you believe) is analogous to a "zombie parasite" you will interpret as supporting your theory, rather than being the generic behaviour of people with beliefs or simply being different than the behaviour of atheists or agnostics - as such, your idea/hypothesis amounts to a diagnosis of theists. In order to show that a "zombie parasite" is active the minds of people with religious beliefs, you must also be able to show that the same "zombie parasite" not active in the minds of people without theistic beliefs, and that can only be demonstrated by observed behaviour. So what is your objective standard?

[Spectrum]

Spectrum,

You have to define what is idea from your perspective.

Something that you've thought of .

That is too shallow because every normal action [other than reflex actions] is influenced by 'thoughts.'
The thesis /proposition I have presented is not merely thoughts but based on justified arguments.
My thesis is very sound theoretically and I understand it is only complete when I can present objective empirical results to support the conclusions. I am optimistic this can be done in the near future, given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [IT and artificial intelligence].

Everyone is entitle to opinions and beliefs but if one insist to impose their beliefs on others, then they have to provide justifiable and acceptable proofs.

Fair enough, but the point is, in your opinion, people's religious beliefs cannot be justified. And since you've concluded (proven in your opinion) that it is impossible for God to exist, you're therefore, literally asking for the impossible. You've set a standard that by your reasoning cannot be achieved - like asking someone to produce water from a stone.

My argument 'God is an impossibility' is based on sound logical syllogism [theoretical] not something based on faith nor opinion.
No! I am not trying to prove a positive nor a negative.
My argument is to set a limitation [non-starter] in principle, i.e. impossibility against the possibility of the existence of a God.

Just think, if religion is not from a deep-seated set of neurons i.e. the 'zombie-parasite' where do you think religious actives are motivated from?

From human being's interpretations of reality, which may explain why there are so many different Gods and religions, and why different cultures share the same belief systems - that differ greatly from other culture's belief systems. Also existential reasons, experiential reasons and a lack of scientific knowledge. I think there may be collective aspects of the human psyche that contribute towards people having religious beliefs, but I don't think there's a "zombie parasite", linked to a deep-seated set of neurons. I've never heard that claimed before.

What collective aspects? You meant a 'top down' thing, e.g. individual person[s] are influenced by mass brainwashing to act. e.g. advertising. Nah, this is too shallow.

Even in advertising, mass propaganda, brainwashing and the likes to influence the masses, the critical element is triggering that relevant deep-seated set of neurons. The most effective advertising are those that subliminally trigger the deep sexual drive, the existential drive related to security, health, and the likes to avoid premature death.
The medical and health industries promote their sales by invoking the fear of death or premature death.
Religions do the same, i.e. remind people of inevitable death and promising solution to mortality or deal with mortality.

The above are sufficient clues to indicate the proximate cause are deep in the brain.

I had used the "zombie parasite" analogy because once it is active one's religious activity is beyond one's normal control where one has to surrender to a God or own primal impulses. Look at how the majority of believers of religion are like a flock of sheep and culminate in evils like below;

IMO, you've identified these factors based upon your reasoning and philosophical understanding of the theistic psyche, you're then seeking to demonstrate that those factors exist empirically, but because you're looking for things that confirm your idea/hypothesis, anything you find which (you believe) is analogous to a "zombie parasite" you will interpret as supporting your theory, rather than being the generic behaviour of people with beliefs or simply being different than the behaviour of atheists or agnostics - as such, your idea/hypothesis amounts to a diagnosis of theists. In order to show that a "zombie parasite" is active the minds of people with religious beliefs, you must also be able to show that the same "zombie parasite" not active in the minds of people without theistic beliefs, and that can only be demonstrated by observed behaviour. So what is your objective standard?

It is very normal most scientists do that, the default is to find likely evidence that support one's hypothesis but one must have the intellectual integrity to ensure the evidences and knowledge used are relevant and one must continually scrutinize and refine the argument.

The "zombie parasite" re theism is not active and suppressed in non-theists.
Because the "zombie parasite" is merely dormant and not active, it can be activated whenever the circumstance weaken the inhibitions.

Note I have quoted this many times;

Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.

When one ages the neurons atrophize in greater quantities and the inhibition to suppressed the "zombie parasite" re theism weakens in degrees and one's belief in God increase.

Since the inhibiting neurons also atrophize in non-theists, some non-theists will turn to God in the later stage of their life when the theistic "zombie parasite" is made active.
Note the regular example I have mentioned re Anthony Flew the one time most notable atheist who turn to God [deism].

In other cases the theistic "zombie parasite" can be activated out of the blue, note St. Paul on the road to Damascus and other sudden conversions to theism.

[Fanman]

Spectrum,

That is too shallow because every normal action [other than reflex actions] is influenced by 'thoughts.'
The thesis /proposition I have presented is not merely thoughts but based on justified arguments.

Perhaps I have been following the discussion inadequately, what are the justified arguments?

My thesis is very sound theoretically and I understand it is only complete when I can present objective empirical results to support the conclusions. I am optimistic this can be done in the near future, given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [IT and artificial intelligence].

It doesn't seem like a sound thesis to me, that's why I call it an idea, which is at best a derogatory analogy that describes theistic thinking. However, since you're presenting it as a theory I can work with that . What type of objective evidence are you expecting to present and why would it support your conclusions? How are IT and artificial intelligence are going to influence and help you to do that?

My argument 'God is an impossibility' is based on sound logical syllogism [theoretical] not something based on faith nor opinion.
No! I am not trying to prove a positive nor a negative.
My argument is to set a limitation [non-starter] in principle, i.e. impossibility against the possibility of the existence of a God.

IMV, if God doesn't exist, and you were to prove that it is impossible for God to exist. How is that not proving a negative? Proving that God doesn't exist would be implied in “impossibility”. There is no possibility of God existing if it doesn't exist.

If your argument proved that God was an impossibility I think it would follow that:

1. God does not exist.
2. That God never existed.
3. That God cannot exist.
4. That you've proven that.
5. That you've proven the negative.

Please explain why you think it would mean something different?

What collective aspects? You meant a 'top down' thing, e.g. individual person[s] are influenced by mass brainwashing to act. e.g. advertising. Nah, this is too shallow.

I don't know specifically. I mean that there are different aspects of the psyche working together that influence or contribute to people having religious beliefs. Like psycho-social, cognitive, interpretive and experiential aspects. If you're talking about the science of belief, I don't believe that neuroscience has reached the point where it can tell us specifically why people have religious beliefs. I think that presently that area is best suited to psychology.

It is very normal most scientists do that, the default is to find likely evidence that support one's hypothesis but one must have the intellectual integrity to ensure the evidences and knowledge used are relevant and one must continually scrutinize and refine the argument.

Really? IMV scientist don't look for evidence that supports their theory. They study the evidence pertaining to their theory objectively and ascertain whether or not the evidence fits the theory they're working on, and (I think) any scientific theory has to be falsifiable. As you know, finding correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there's causation, and how would you falsify your idea/theory? You appear to diagnosing theists as having a “zombie parasite”. You've seemingly started with the diagnosis “zombie parasite” and are looking to confirm that diagnosis by finding behavioural “symptoms” that correlate with what you perceive as a “zombie parasite”, which seems biased to me. From my perspective (I may be wrong), it seems as though you're combining philosophy, science, psychology and medical science/neurology. So in order to demonstrate that your idea/theory is sound, it must be sound in all of those areas you're appealing to, which I don't think it is. I ask again, what is your objective standard?

[David Cooper]

It is fully possible to prove some negatives, so claiming that it's impossible to prove a negative is plain wrong. If something that by definition cannot exist, it can be proved from its definition that it cannot exist. In the case of God, his definition doesn't directly state that he cannot exist, but the requirements in his definition are impossible for him to meet, so he is disproved. People don't necessarily believe in him because of any religious gene(s) though - it's more likely just a matter of them being irrational; unable to compute his impossibility or to recognise the validity of a proof that he can't exist, and there's no simple genetic cure for someone lacking sufficient intelligence to complete the computation. Even people at the higher end of intelligence can be lacking in sufficient computation power to be able to be fully rational, as is clear when you look at Einstein's Special Relativity which generates contradictions that invalidate it.