LuckyR

If you want to change the subject to why we're morally superior, your theory sounds reasonable, to be honest. But you've lost the previous argument.

Who is the "we"? Well it could be you, do you believe in bacteria? Do you think lightning is caused by angry gods? Do you believe that prisoners of war should be executed? I think you're probably morally superior.

Humans aren't inherently "smarter", but we're currently way more experienced, with a knowledge base orders of magnitude greater in size.

Laundry stripping works quite well. Borax, washing soda and detergent, soak for at least 8 hours, wash as normal.

Well the Old Testament is generally felt to have been written from about 1200 BCE to 165 BCE, which is during the Iron Age (1200 BCE to 539 BCE). Exactly.

"Prevent"?, who said prevent? That's a false choice. We're talking about influence not mind control.

The idea that an Iron Age text contains valuable wisdom that isn't common knowledge in the Modern era, is sentimentality masquerading as logic. One can point to prohibitions on murder in said text, but it's not required. What about not eating pork? Is that important? Not shaving your beard? Important? Would anyone currently use Iron Age medical practices? Or Iron Age marital advice?

Who are these "people"? The vast majority of humans claim to believe in gods that they have spend very little effort analyzing their rationale for existance, instead because they happened to be raised in a household and a local culture that "believed" in said god. It was a given, no thinking required.

Nope, doesn't really "sound like" what I referenced, namely the effect of sugar on the pleasure center of the brain. Are you denying the effectiveness of the advertising industry?

To my understanding faith is belief in the absence of evidence, though this situation can come about because there happens not to currently be evidence, or in the case of gods, because some things (of a supernatural nature) don't exist in a physical way and thus don't create physical evidence. You reference another scenario of faith and that is belief in the face of some contradictory, but not conclusive, evidence.

No carpenter when asked the purpose of his hammer will answer "to hit things", so no, that's not the purpose of a carpenter's hammer (nor the hit man's), though you're right pliers and blow torches also illustrate my point.

Alas, the term "purpose" is subjective, thus requires a perspective from which the "purpose" can be determined. So the purpose of a hammer will differ between a carpenter and a hitman.

Viral illnesses aren't "cured" by technology, they're solved by the immune system, perhaps supported by medical technology or more importantly prevented through vaccination.

Well, you're the one supposing to ascribe Biblical analysis into the area of religious choice, when you acknowledge that cultural/tribal statistics is a much more likely explanation.

Yeah, but psychologically valid. Like most things, it depends on perspective.

This supposes that most Christians (in the OP's example, but it applies to followers of all religions) approached Christianity with an unbiased mindset then used their interpretation of the Bible and other texts to come to the conclusion that of all possible belief systems, Christianity made the most sense, so therefore joined a Christian religion. When in fact most Christians are so, because they were raised in a Christian family (no reading or interpretation required).

I'm still waiting for the OP to share his observations on why MOST theists believe in cloud fairies.

Sure it does. It means: has more money than I have.

Well, it's not the topic of this thread, but in reality the main damage firearms perform is in the suicide stats (not school shootings or murders).

Describing overcomsumption of sugar as a "choice" ignores the main danger of the product, it's effect on the brain.

Nice summary, thus why I supplement with arginine/citrulline (not beets).

I get what you're saying but emotional "competence" is a temporary condition, yet firearms last essentially forever.

The question of "Psychology as science" is usually viewed in contrast to the status of Neurology (which most agree is science). It is my opinion that in the future neuro and psych knowledge/understanding will continue to move closer together and eventually meet. That is at some point psychological tendances and behaviors will be able to be ascribed to particular neurological processes.

Best post in the thread. While there are many factors in why school shootings occur, none of them (except getting rid of all guns) will make much of a difference if implemented and a "gun ban" will never occur in the US. So you have the status quo. Holding parents responsible will reduce a minority of the events and has broad support. That's the only positive I can detect.

What makes for automotive excellence goes far beyond the carbon footprint of it's fuel.