Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fanman wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2018, 5:37 am 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?

Note I stated, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to enable the "zombie parasite" to manifest from deep in their brain, so I am not referring to theistic impulses only.

However, to topic, the theistic related "zombie parasite" must be highlighted given evils and committed by SOME theistic believers, e.g.



to the extent even innocent goody-two-shoes are subliminally compelled to sacrifice their lives for an illusory God just like how zombie-infected-ants are driven to the 'sacrificial altar' for the interest of the parasites.

Frankly your refusal to acknowledge this fact of this empirical cause and effect is very immoral on your part and thus you are indirectly complicit to the continual torrent of evil and violence committed by those evil prone Muslims.

As for objectivity, in the near future we will be able to link the specific sets of neurons to the terrible evils and violence committed by religionists who are inspired by the evil elements in the holy texts as a divine duty.

I won't go into the details as it would be a waste of time in me having to start from the bottom with neuroscience, IT and artificial intelligence.

Clue:
To date scientists have been able to track many responses, e.g. rage to specific parts of the brain. It is a matter of time they will be more specific and refined to the exact sets of neurons and sub-connectivity.

Prof Lin added: "Our research provides what we believe is the first evidence the lateral septum directly 'turns the volume up or down' in aggression in male mice, and it establishes the first ties between this region and the other key brain regions involved in violent behaviour."

The researchers next plan to investigate which specific brain cells in the LS control male aggression, and under what conditions they are activated to promote or halt the behaviour.

The long term goal aim is to find out whether drugs can be found to control aggression without compromising other social and cognitive functions.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/he ... rage-brain

As I had mentioned before, I keep up to date with the latest developments within Science, especially those related to the neurosciences and are relevant to spirituality.

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?

The above negatives you provided above are indirect and secondary.

What I am presenting is like the case of a solid 'alibi' in a murder case where it is 'absolutely' impossible for a suspect to be charged for the murder. It is an absolute non-starter.

The looser form of proving a negative [did not murder] is where the jury upon hearing various subjective evidence and arrive at a verdict [subjective], the person did not murder the victim. Often in such cases there will be two camps who are not too sure of what really happened. In some cases, those acquitted of murder [proven negative] are subsequently charged for murder upon new evidences.

What I have presented re God is impossible is analogically like 'a solid alibi in a murder case' i.e. it is 'absolutely' impossible for a God to exists as real.

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.

Regardless of whether it is suited for psychology or neuro-psychological, what is critical to trace the problem to the proximate root causes.

Note when someone commit religious evils and violence, there are elements of hatred, rage and anger which are emotions.
When religionists killed non-believers without provocations from others, there must be deeper impulses that trigger these rages and anger. These deeper impulses are from the religious "zombie parasite."

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?

How can scientists study evidences if they did not find or look for the evidences?

My thesis is easily falsifiable if you can produce God to be verified scientifically. Then in this case we can request God to prove God did it and not the 'zombie parasite'.
The other alternative is to prove the driver for religion is due to the modern brain totally and not the existential elements within the basement [reptillian and mammal] of the brain.

My my argument, the very primitive religions emerged 300,000 years ago during the paleolithic age.

Note the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes;

Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an interdisciplinary approach, drawing data from many different fields.[3] Jaynes asserted that, until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today.
Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods"—commands which were recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

The above indicated as early as 3,000 years ago, the the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness was not developed and thus most of the human activities were driven from the lower brain dominated by the 'zombie parasite.

Yes, my approach is eclectic and I have relied [evidently] on philosophy [Western, Eastern, etc.], science [various], psychology [neuro and various], medical science/neurology, effective problem solving skills, logic, rational & critical thinking and whatever is necessary to prove my point.

Spectrum,

Frankly your refusal to acknowledge this fact of this empirical cause and effect is very immoral on your part and thus you are indirectly complicit to the continual torrent of evil and violence committed by those evil prone Muslims.

Interesting. Why are you making character evaluations based upon whether people agree with a theory you on your own have invented? IMV, there is no such thing as a “zombie parasite” related to theism, so from my perspective you're propounding a nonsense - I don't agree with your theory (which doesn't mean that you're wrong). I don't understand why you think that my opinion about this has moral implications? So much so, that you would claim the above. Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

Spectrum wrote: ↑June 4th, 2018, 4:04 am Frankly your refusal to acknowledge this fact of this empirical cause and effect is very immoral on your part and thus you are indirectly complicit to the continual torrent of evil and violence committed by those evil prone Muslims.

So if it turns out that geoeconomic and post-colonial/neo-con policies turn out to be the cause of violence in Muslims, will you have then been immoral and complicit in Muslim crimes?

Do you think it is a good thing in arguments of hypothesis regarding the causes of crime or violence to say that people who disagree with you are supporting the crimes? Does this lead to free discussion? Isn't this similar to how religions have tried to inhibit the discussion of certain things by making even the discussion itself for some people?

As for objectivity, in the near future we will be able to link the specific sets of neurons to the terrible evils and violence committed by religionists who are inspired by the evil elements in the holy texts as a divine duty.

Proofs that you think will happen in the future and not evidence of anything now.

I won't go into the details as it would be a waste of time in me having to start from the bottom with neuroscience, IT and artificial intelligence.

You can't go into the details of what will happen, not because of the size of the task or limited time, but because you cannot know. You can of course speculate.



[/quote]
My thesis is easily falsifiable if you can produce God to be verified scientifically.



Then in this case we can request God to prove God did it and not the 'zombie parasite'.[/quote]That makes no sense. In fact this would be a false dichotomy.

The other alternative is to prove the driver for religion is due to the modern brain totally and not the existential elements within the basement [reptillian and mammal] of the brain.

There is no human activity that is driven only by the, as you call it, 'modern brain'. None.

The above indicated as early as 3,000 years ago, the the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness was not developed and thus most of the human activities were driven from the lower brain dominated by the 'zombie parasite.

Yes, my approach is eclectic and I have relied [evidently] on philosophy [Western, Eastern, etc.], science [various], psychology [neuro and various], medical science/neurology, effective problem solving skills, logic, rational & critical thinking and whatever is necessary to prove my point.

To argue your point.

Fanman wrote: ↑June 4th, 2018, 10:02 am Spectrum,

Frankly your refusal to acknowledge this fact of this empirical cause and effect is very immoral on your part and thus you are indirectly complicit to the continual torrent of evil and violence committed by those evil prone Muslims.

Interesting. Why are you making character evaluations based upon whether people agree with a theory you on your own have invented? IMV, there is no such thing as a “zombie parasite” related to theism, so from my perspective you're propounding a nonsense - I don't agree with your theory (which doesn't mean that you're wrong). I don't understand why you think that my opinion about this has moral implications? So much so, that you would claim the above. Perhaps you could explain in more detail?

I am not accusing you directly. Note I stated "indirectly complicit" just like the Rotherham Cases of Child Molestation by Pakistani Gangs with Islam in the background.

Many [politicians, social workers, public, police] who were informed, told, complained to, and aware of what happened in the Rotherham Cases did nothing and many pretended it never happened. At present only the perpetrators are charged but in this case those who were in the know and did nothing [not charged in court] are in a way indirectly complicit to such terrible evils committed on innocent children.

Even at present many still do not accept this specific case involving Pakistani men has anything to do with Islam in any way because they insist [ignorantly] Islam is a religion of peace. The point is when the 1400 years old root cause is not resolved, it will happen again somewhere else when the attention /awareness to it die off in time.


Similarly I noted you agree with me re the relation between Islamic-based evils and Islam but you cannot accept it has anything to do with primal impulses beyond the 'higher brain' and the emotions. I can understand why you disagree, i.e. because you don't have the knowledge to understand it, but nevertheless that sort of impulsive resistance [my views are nonsense] you express without any intention of doing further research on it, is a case of being 'indirect complicit' to the continual evils and terrors committed by SOME evil prone Muslims.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑June 4th, 2018, 11:09 am

The other alternative is to prove the driver for religion is due to the modern brain totally and not the existential elements within the basement [reptillian and mammal] of the brain.

There is no human activity that is driven only by the, as you call it, 'modern brain'. None.

There is no absolute 'modern brain.'
However the term 'modern brain' is a valid one when we provide the specific context.

Googling the term 'modern brain' produce 675 million hits, e.g.

Modern human brain organization emerged only recently
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-modern-hu ... erged.html

Modern Brain Shape Linked to Parietal Lobes and Cerebellum
Bulging of the cerebellum and parietal lobes made our brains more globe-shaped.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... cerebellum

No activity driven by the 'modern brain'??
Note;

It [neocortex] is the top layer of the cerebral hemispheres, 2-4 mm thick, and made up of six layers, labelled I to VI (with VI being the innermost and I being the outermost).
The neocortex is part of the cerebral cortex (along with the archicortex and paleocortex - which are cortical parts of the limbic system).
It is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought, and in humans, language.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑June 4th, 2018, 11:09 am

Spectrum wrote: ↑June 4th, 2018, 4:04 am Frankly your refusal to acknowledge this fact of this empirical cause and effect is very immoral on your part and thus you are indirectly complicit to the continual torrent of evil and violence committed by those evil prone Muslims.

So if it turns out that geoeconomic and post-colonial/neo-con policies turn out to be the cause of violence in Muslims, will you have then been immoral and complicit in Muslim crimes?

Do you think it is a good thing in arguments of hypothesis regarding the causes of crime or violence to say that people who disagree with you are supporting the crimes? Does this lead to free discussion? Isn't this similar to how religions have tried to inhibit the discussion of certain things by making even the discussion itself for some people?

Note my explanation re 'indirect complicit' in my post to Fanman above.

I am not shutting up discussions rather I am opening up minds, i.e. I am challenging others to do more research rather than discussing from a narrow and shallow base centered on merely mouthing of views [e.g. just saying no, no, no, nonsense, silly, bullsh1t, etc.] instead of producing reasonable justifiable arguments and references.

Spectrum,

Similarly I noted you agree with me re the relation between Islamic-based evils and Islam but you cannot accept it has anything to do with primal impulses beyond the 'higher brain' and the emotions. I can understand why you disagree, i.e. because you don't have the knowledge to understand it, but nevertheless that sort of impulsive resistance [my views are nonsense] you express without any intention of doing further research on it, is a case of being 'indirect complicit' to the continual evils and terrors committed by SOME evil prone Muslims.

I didn't state that your views are nonsense. I stated that, re your “zombie parasite” theory, from my perspective you're propounding a nonsense. I can understand it as an analogy (as I've stated), but as a theory I don't think that you're correct. I also stated that my disagreement doesn't mean that you're wrong, so you're way off base. The point is, if someone disagrees with you on this point it doesn't have any moral implications or intellectual ones, it just means that they don't think you're correct and that your claim is not substantiated'valid - which is well within their rights. How the brain relates to the mind is not fully understood, so making claims about things like an active/inactive "zombie parasite" is at best speculative. I don't understand why you'd think otherwise?

The fact that you encounter disagreement doesn't give you the right to judge people morally or otherwise. You are not an arbitrator or judge of character and/or ability on this forum, you're a forum user trying to have open-ended discussion like the rest of us; judging people is clearly antithetical to that process and derails productive discussion. Critiquing an argument is the nature of philosophy, but critiquing a person's character is not. Yet you do it as though, because of your beliefs, you occupy some kind of moral high ground. How is that any different from the religions that you regularly attack?

You're claiming that if someone disagrees with your “zombie parasite” theory, it is because they don't have the necessary knowledge to understand it, and for some reason you believe that someone who disagrees with you on this point is indirectly complicit to evil and terrorism. I can't understand why you'd think that is reasonable, but you do and I've no doubt that you'll stick to that conclusion. Your theory is clearly very speculative, which means that there is the real possibility that you could be wrong and the “zombie parasite” does not actually exist. Why should someone accept speculation as something that is substantiated?

Fanman wrote: ↑June 5th, 2018, 3:59 am The fact that you encounter disagreement doesn't give you the right to judge people morally or otherwise. You are not an arbitrator or judge of character and/or ability on this forum, you're a forum user trying to have open-ended discussion like the rest of us; judging people is clearly antithetical to that process and derails productive discussion. Critiquing an argument is the nature of philosophy, but critiquing a person's character is not. Yet you do it as though, because of your beliefs, you occupy some kind of moral high ground. How is that any different from the religions that you regularly attack?

Note I believe I have the right to express my views based on what I believed and I have provided justifications and explanations. The point is at least I have expressed my views rather than shutting up.

Note what happened in Rotherham and many other places in the UK re child molestations when the authorities and people in the know shut up.
Obviously you are also entitled to give your views [as you have done] if you think I am wrong. Even if you disagree at least the issue is kept open rather than being closed for good.

Spectrum,

Note I believe I have the right to express my views based on what I believed and I have provided justifications and explanations. The point is at least I have expressed my views rather than shutting up.

It is the nature of philosophy that you will encounter disagreement and critique of your arguments. No one here is calling you stupid or saying that you should shut up. Quite the contrary, you've been asked to expand upon your views. You have the right to express your views, but if you can't accept that they're going to be critiqued, sometimes harshly, then perhaps a philosophy forum is not the correct place to air them as that is the nature of the beast. You're not new to this, so I would expect you to have thicker skin and not to react in such a personal and scathing manner.

Note what happened in Rotherham and many other places in the UK re child molestations when the authorities and people in the know shut up.

I don't really see how this relates to our discussion? Disagreeing with an unproven theory does not amount to being indirectly complicit with evil and terrorism. Even if your theory is right and I disagree with you, I would be wrong, not indirectly complicit with anything. The issue would be cognitive not moral – there are no stakes involved here, we're just having a discussion.

Obviously you are also entitled to give your views [as you have done] if you think I am wrong. Even if you disagree at least the issue is kept open rather than being closed for good.

I wasn't saying that you should “shut up”, quite the opposite. I have asked you to substantiate your theory (even though I don't think that is currently possible, I am open to being proven wrong). You have attempted to, but I don't agree that your references support your theory adequately enough to give your theory veracity. It works as an analogy, I won't dispute that, but that is as far as I'm currently willing to agree with you.

By all means continue to discuss your theory, but because it is speculative, expect to be challenged.

Fanman wrote: ↑June 5th, 2018, 7:24 am Spectrum,

Note I believe I have the right to express my views based on what I believed and I have provided justifications and explanations. The point is at least I have expressed my views rather than shutting up.

It is the nature of philosophy that you will encounter disagreement and critique of your arguments. No one here is calling you stupid or saying that you should shut up. Quite the contrary, you've been asked to expand upon your views. You have the right to express your views, but if you can't accept that they're going to be critiqued, sometimes harshly, then perhaps a philosophy forum is not the correct place to air them as that is the nature of the beast. You're not new to this, so I would expect you to have thicker skin and not to react in such a personal and scathing manner.

Note what happened in Rotherham and many other places in the UK re child molestations when the authorities and people in the know shut up.

I don't really see how this relates to our discussion? Disagreeing with an unproven theory does not amount to being indirectly complicit with evil and terrorism. Even if your theory is right and I disagree with you, I would be wrong, not indirectly complicit with anything. The issue would be cognitive not moral – there are no stakes involved here, we're just having a discussion.

Obviously you are also entitled to give your views [as you have done] if you think I am wrong. Even if you disagree at least the issue is kept open rather than being closed for good.

Noted your points. Btw, I welcome disagreements, the more the better but I would expect disagreements that are supported by reasonable substantiated arguments and evidence.

I wasn't saying that you should “shut up”, quite the opposite. I have asked you to substantiate your theory (even though I don't think that is currently possible, I am open to being proven wrong). You have attempted to, but I don't agree that your references support your theory adequately enough to give your theory veracity. It works as an analogy, I won't dispute that, but that is as far as I'm currently willing to agree with you.

By all means continue to discuss your theory, but because it is speculative, expect to be challenged.

I have provided the correlation of
1. the zombie parasites in ants driving to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the zombie parasite rather than for the ants' colony,
to,
2. Religious believers sacrificing their lives as a divine duty to their God as suicide bombers.

The above sacrificing oneself as a suicide bomber is one extreme of being driven as a 'zombie'.
Within religiously driven actions there is a whole range of believers doing things/acts that are zombie-liked as driven by the 'zombie parasite' within. Many believers will go to lengths to do whatever the they think it will please their god to ensure they have a secured passage to heaven or whatever. This may be extremely good [altrustic] or evil.
Such 'zombie-liked' states are also exploited by those higher ups [preachers, priests, clergy] for the personal interests [e.g. pedophile priests, making raking tele-evangelists, etc.]

The activeness of the 'zombie parasite' in the majority of believers is of average degree while it very active in followers of cults and extreme in like suicide bombers.

In the secular perspective, it is often stated by many they have 'demons' in the mind that drive them to do things they would not do rationally. Such 'demons' are like the religious 'zombie parasites' [existential] which are more primal and deeper within the brain and psyche.

I am not going into the details of how these 'zombie parasites' are formed but my point is to demonstrate with analogies and examples that such similar thing do exist in the brain and psyche of religious believers [and others] and driving them to do things irrationally.

Take your case when you were a theist and note you the religious acts were doing then as theist which you would not do at the present. Reflecting back, you will note you were then driven by something [it is that active 'zombie parasite] in your brain to do something you thought was 'right' and felt good then but would not do the same at present. What was driving you to do those theistic religious acts was an very active 'zombie parasite' which you have been able to suppress to a great degree [but not fully] at present.

Spectrum,

I have provided the correlation of 
1. the zombie parasites in ants driving to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the zombie parasite rather than for the ants' colony,
to,
2. Religious believers sacrificing their lives as a divine duty to their God as suicide bombers.

Correlation in the sense that the case with the ants can be used as an analogy as you have done. Complexity is an issue here. Ants are driven by simple biological directives to carry out certain activities. Human beings are on a basic level driven similarly driven, but we have complex brains and minds. One of the ways this manifests, is that we attribute purpose to our lives. If we don't feel that we have a purpose it can lead to our lives feeling unfulfilled and lead to cognitive dissonance. Religious beliefs can cause people to feel as though they have a purpose and it can also have the effect of relieving existential anxieties, So a religious person can feel fulfilled and as you say feel comfort in the notion that their life will continue in paradise after they die.

Religion can also strengthen the social aspects of people's lives, because religious people can become part of a community or sub-culture. So it can also aid the psycho-social aspects of people's lives. As religion and having religious beliefs can do these things for a person(s), it is understandable why many people have religious beliefs. If religion can provide a benefit or enhance quality of life, as it does in many cases, even though it is based upon something that cannot be proven empirically, and is substantiated through experiential accounts and testimonies, it can again be understood why people are religious/have religious beliefs. The notion of an active “zombie parasite” being the cause of religious beliefs ignores all of the complex psychological and social aspects of religious belief that I've mentioned (and those that I haven't), and also reduces and/or regresses human behavioural psychology so far as to making human behaviour synonymous with ants which are far less complex. You can't just ignore that fact in terms of your inquiry.

I don't think that we need to cover the negative spectrum of religion as we're both aware of what those effects are, such as you've stated. As we're aware, religious beliefs can be manipulated in order to cause people to do things that are both extreme and evil in nature, because the belief can override the other aspects of a person's psyche. However, even if the belief permeates to the root of an individual, it is still a complex cognitive process; as the person believes, due to their thought processes and feelings, that they're doing what is right.

Whether the person has been manipulated into belief or they have beliefs that they've surmised due to there experiences/observations, a complex mental process has taken place. The existence of an active “zombie parasite” in theists infers that something is controlling the person, something existent within the person that overrides their sensibilities or overrides what they're originally, biologically intended to do, as with the ants. I suppose you could argue that human beings are hard-wired to survive and procreate, but human beings have the cognitive (complex) ability to ignore those instincts, there's no necessity for a “zombie parasite” to be present in order for that to occur.

The above sacrificing oneself as a suicide bomber is one extreme of being driven as a 'zombie'. 
Within religiously driven actions there is a whole range of believers doing things/acts that are zombie-liked as driven by the 'zombie parasite' within. Many believers will go to lengths to do whatever the they think it will please their god to ensure they have a secured passage to heaven or whatever. This may be extremely good [altrustic] or evil.
Such 'zombie-liked' states are also exploited by those higher ups [preachers, priests, clergy] for the personal interests [e.g. pedophile priests, making raking tele-evangelists, etc.]

There need not be a “zombie parasite” present in believers for this to be the case. When people are brave is there a “lion parasite” causing it? When people are scared is there a “mouse parasite” causing it? When people are intelligent is there an “dolphin parasite” causing it? These behavioural archetypes (such as zombies) work as analogies or in descriptive language, but they're not generally posited as actual entities. Belief in the religion is the reason people are able to be manipulated into doing these types of things. So as I stated before, if you're looking for a “zombie parasite” IMV, belief itself is what you're identifying, because it is belief and manipulation of belief that causes people to behave in these ways.

The activeness of the 'zombie parasite' in the majority of believers is of average degree while it very active in followers of cults and extreme in like suicide bombers.

With this statement “zombie parasite” can be replaced by “level of belief” and still convey the exact same meaning.

In the secular perspective, it is often stated by many they have 'demons' in the mind that drive them to do things they would not do rationally. Such 'demons' are like the religious 'zombie parasites' [existential] which are more primal and deeper within the brain and psyche.

Again, with this statement “zombie parasites” can simply be replaced by “beliefs”. I don't agree that there are “zombie parasites” which are more primal and deeper within the brain and psyche. There are other more accepted causes/reasons for the type of behaviour you're describing.

I am not going into the details of how these 'zombie parasites' are formed but my point is to demonstrate with analogies and examples that such similar thing do exist in the brain and psyche of religious believers [and others] and driving them to do things irrationally.

Then your comments on your theory are going to continue to appear as speculation and supposition, with a few analogical (I wouldn't go as far as to call them correlating) references/referenced statements added for emphasis.

Take your case when you were a theist and note you the religious acts were doing then as theist which you would not do at the present. Reflecting back, you will note you were then driven by something [it is that active 'zombie parasite] in your brain to do something you thought was 'right' and felt good then but would not do the same at present. What was driving you to do those theistic religious acts was an very active 'zombie parasite' which you have been able to suppress to a great degree [but not fully] at present.

The problem here is that if I disagree you (which I do), you will say that it was subliminal, and that I wasn't aware of it consciously. I'm certainly not going to argue along those lines with you on a personal basis.

Fanman wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 12:51 am Spectrum,

I have provided the correlation of 
1. the zombie parasites in ants driving to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the zombie parasite rather than for the ants' colony,
to,
2. Religious believers sacrificing their lives as a divine duty to their God as suicide bombers.

Correlation in the sense that the case with the ants can be used as an analogy as you have done. Complexity is an issue here. Ants are driven by simple biological directives to carry out certain activities. Human beings are on a basic level driven similarly driven, but we have complex brains and minds. One of the ways this manifests, is that we attribute purpose to our lives. If we don't feel that we have a purpose it can lead to our lives feeling unfulfilled and lead to cognitive dissonance. Religious beliefs can cause people to feel as though they have a purpose and it can also have the effect of relieving existential anxieties, So a religious person can feel fulfilled and as you say feel comfort in the notion that their life will continue in paradise after they die.

Religion can also strengthen the social aspects of people's lives, because religious people can become part of a community or sub-culture. So it can also aid the psycho-social aspects of people's lives. As religion and having religious beliefs can do these things for a person(s), it is understandable why many people have religious beliefs. If religion can provide a benefit or enhance quality of life, as it does in many cases, even though it is based upon something that cannot be proven empirically, and is substantiated through experiential accounts and testimonies, it can again be understood why people are religious/have religious beliefs. The notion of an active “zombie parasite” being the cause of religious beliefs ignores all of the complex psychological and social aspects of religious belief that I've mentioned (and those that I haven't), and also reduces and/or regresses human behavioural psychology so far as to making human behaviour synonymous with ants which are far less complex. You can't just ignore that fact in terms of your inquiry.

I don't think that we need to cover the negative spectrum of religion as we're both aware of what those effects are, such as you've stated. As we're aware, religious beliefs can be manipulated in order to cause people to do things that are both extreme and evil in nature, because the belief can override the other aspects of a person's psyche. However, even if the belief permeates to the root of an individual, it is still a complex cognitive process; as the person believes, due to their thought processes and feelings, that they're doing what is right.

Whether the person has been manipulated into belief or they have beliefs that they've surmised due to there experiences/observations, a complex mental process has taken place. The existence of an active “zombie parasite” in theists infers that something is controlling the person, something existent within the person that overrides their sensibilities or overrides what they're originally, biologically intended to do, as with the ants. I suppose you could argue that human beings are hard-wired to survive and procreate, but human beings have the cognitive (complex) ability to ignore those instincts, there's no necessity for a “zombie parasite” to be present in order for that to occur.

Ability to ignore Instincts?? Nah.. not all the time. When an innocent religious believer became a suicide bomber and kill himself by blowing himself to pieces, that is a fact that he has ignored and overcome his instinct to survive.
This is exactly the same as a zombie ant which is driven by the 'zombie parasite' to override its instinct to commit suicide.

Obvious humans are more complex than ants, but the fundamental drive that override the instinct to survive is the same in this case is the same.
Take the complexity of the digestive systems of humans in contrast to that of ants, but the fundamental principle and basic pathways are the same, i.e. the production of nutrition for the physical self.

In the case of zombie ants and 'zombie parasites' in humans it involve the loosening of impulse controls re survival instinct in both cases plus the religious existential elements for humans.

I'll say again, what drives me to try to understand the proximate root cause of religion is this critical and significant threat;


and the whole range of evils and violence from SOME evil prone believers.

There must be something 'X' that drive SOME evil prone to kill innocent non-believer as a divine duty to please their God.
Call that "X" whatever you like, but I believe labeling it effectively is critical [i.e. as zombie parasite] to drive actions to resolve the problem.

The above sacrificing oneself as a suicide bomber is one extreme of being driven as a 'zombie'. 
Within religiously driven actions there is a whole range of believers doing things/acts that are zombie-liked as driven by the 'zombie parasite' within. Many believers will go to lengths to do whatever the they think it will please their god to ensure they have a secured passage to heaven or whatever. This may be extremely good [altrustic] or evil.
Such 'zombie-liked' states are also exploited by those higher ups [preachers, priests, clergy] for the personal interests [e.g. pedophile priests, making raking tele-evangelists, etc.]

There need not be a “zombie parasite” present in believers for this to be the case. When people are brave is there a “lion parasite” causing it? When people are scared is there a “mouse parasite” causing it? When people are intelligent is there an “dolphin parasite” causing it? These behavioural archetypes (such as zombies) work as analogies or in descriptive language, but they're not generally posited as actual entities. Belief in the religion is the reason people are able to be manipulated into doing these types of things. So as I stated before, if you're looking for a “zombie parasite” IMV, belief itself is what you're identifying, because it is belief and manipulation of belief that causes people to behave in these ways.

Why not?
When people are brave, they are labelled 'lionhearted.' Obviously the heart did not play a big role but rather there must be a specific set of neurons that enable a person to be brave. For acts that are good we use favorable labels but for acts of evil we use negative labels and zombie parasite is relevant.

The activeness of the 'zombie parasite' in the majority of believers is of average degree while it very active in followers of cults and extreme in like suicide bombers.

With this statement “zombie parasite” can be replaced by “level of belief” and still convey the exact same meaning.

As I had stated we must use the correct 'metaphor' to drive home the point so that effective actions can be taken.
Note the current phrase, all religion are peace, therefore Islam as a religion is peaceful.
This is blinded the majority to the root cause of Islamic-based evil.
When we use the term 'parasite' it naturally trigger the average person to hunt for it [the root cause] and then to get rid of it.

In the secular perspective, it is often stated by many they have 'demons' in the mind that drive them to do things they would not do rationally. Such 'demons' are like the religious 'zombie parasites' [existential] which are more primal and deeper within the brain and psyche.

Again, with this statement “zombie parasites” can simply be replaced by “beliefs”. I don't agree that there are “zombie parasites” which are more primal and deeper within the brain and psyche. There are other more accepted causes/reasons for the type of behaviour you're describing.

Note 'beliefs' are formed in the 'higher' parts of brain -cortical but the what drive the evils acts by religious believers are way below the limbic/emotional parts of the brain in the brain stem.

I am not going into the details of how these 'zombie parasites' are formed but my point is to demonstrate with analogies and examples that such similar thing do exist in the brain and psyche of religious believers [and others] and driving them to do things irrationally.

Then your comments on your theory are going to continue to appear as speculation and supposition, with a few analogical (I wouldn't go as far as to call them correlating) references/referenced statements added for emphasis.

Whatever it is, that evil force by the evil prone religious believers inspired by evil laden elements in religious texts must come from the brain.
Since it is not from the cortical nor the limbic system, it has to be from the lower primal parts of the brain. Where else? You tell me?
You may not like the term 'zombie parasite' but my analogy demonstrated it is the most appropriate and effective.
Note human actions are heavily influenced by the subconscious mind, thus we must look deep for that 'zombie parasite.'

Zombie parasite may not be the best analogy. The parasite is likely messing with the functionality of the brain in a different way than a mind virus does - we're really dealing with a mind virus where the nearest equivalent is a computer virus. People can be infected by false beliefs which spread like a virus and may be driven by this to behave in highly irrational ways by running instructions that are part of the virus. The virus is software: rules. People are programmable, and some people run better anti-virus than others.

Spectrum,

Ability to ignore Instincts?? Nah.. not all the time. When an innocent religious believer became a suicide bomber and kill himself by blowing himself to pieces, that is a fact that he has ignored and overcome his instinct to survive.
This is exactly the same as a zombie ant which is driven by the 'zombie parasite' to override its instinct to commit suicide.

So you infer, but that is not necessarily the case. I think that your certainty is misplaced.

Obvious humans are more complex than ants, but the fundamental drive that override the instinct to survive is the same in this case is the same.
Take the complexity of the digestive systems of humans in contrast to that of ants, but the fundamental principle and basic pathways are the same, i.e. the production of nutrition for the physical self.

That doesn't mean it follows that human beings have a “zombie parasite” within our minds. You're seeing causation where there is barely (if any) correlation on anything more than a superficial level.

In the case of zombie ants and 'zombie parasites' in humans it involve the loosening of impulse controls re survival instinct in both cases plus the religious existential elements for humans.

How do you know this? Based upon what evidence? Not referenced "correlative" statements or referenced analogous statements, but actual facts which substantiate your claims.

There must be something 'X' that drive SOME evil prone to kill innocent non-believer as a divine duty to please their God.
Call that "X" whatever you like, but I believe labeling it effectively is critical [i.e. as zombie parasite] to drive actions to resolve the problem.

It is clear to me that “X” is belief or to be more specific, the nature and degree of beliefs. Why do we need to label something we can be sure of as something different, something that it may not be?

Why not?
When people are brave, they are labelled 'lionhearted.' Obviously the heart did not play a big role but rather there must be a specific set of neurons that enable a person to be brave. For acts that are good we use favorable labels but for acts of evil we use negative labels and zombie parasite is relevant.

It makes sense as an analogy even though it is derogatory, but I don't see how it could be as relevant as you think it is, unless you can prove that such a thing actually exists in humans outside of your thinking.

As I had stated we must use the correct 'metaphor' to drive home the point so that effective actions can be taken.
Note the current phrase, all religion are peace, therefore Islam as a religion is peaceful.
This is blinded the majority to the root cause of Islamic-based evil.
When we use the term 'parasite' it naturally trigger the average person to hunt for it [the root cause] and then to get rid of it.

Using metaphors to describe things in a derogatory way, that we know will affect how people view and interpret those things is rhetoric and/or a technique that is used in poetry and politics. If we're looking at this from a scientific perspective, we have to dispense of the metaphors like “zombie parasite”, because we know for a fact that religious beliefs are the cause of these actions in people. Clearly, "zombie parasite" is an unsubstantiated claim.

Note 'beliefs' are formed in the 'higher' parts of brain -cortical but the what drive the evils acts by religious believers are way below the limbic/emotional parts of the brain in the brain stem.
Since it is not from the cortical nor the limbic system, it has to be from the lower primal parts of the brain. Where else? You tell me?

Even if that is the case, it says nothing pointing to the existence of a “zombie parasite” in the human brain. I don't claim to know, and I'd rather not speculate to be honest.

You may not like the term 'zombie parasite' but my analogy demonstrated it is the most appropriate and effective.
Note human actions are heavily influenced by the subconscious mind, thus we must look deep for that 'zombie parasite.'

My dislike of the term is not relevant, I don't think that it is anything other than an analogy. By all means look deep for the “zombie parasite”, let me know when you catch up with Alice and Cheshire cat .

Spectrum wrote: ↑June 5th, 2018, 9:03 pm What was driving you to do those theistic religious acts was an very active 'zombie parasite' which you have been able to suppress to a great degree [but not fully] at present.

It's nothing like a zombie parasite.
Any warrior or person that consciously puts himself in danger of death has over come his protective instinct with reason, and will power.
In the same way a paedophile who controls his instinctive attraction to children, or a celibate choses not to have sex. These are evidence of the human will overcoming base instincts.

Your prejudice is making you think poorly on this matter.