Eh forget it. With the complete failure of Slashdot metamoderation and the increasing blatant intellectual dishonesty of the mods here, Slashdot has become worthless for useful discussion.
You toss a powerful magnet at a brain and you can shut off emotions, shut off senses, distort them and induce them... what makes you think the brain dying is any less traumatic than changing the flow of electricity in one portion?
I made no claim it is less traumatic. What is relevant is the high specificity of the results of the trauma, as quantified by the study. If the perceptions were random, say in the case of LSD, hitting someone in the head repeatedly with a rock, or random magnetic stimulation, I would agree the evidence would be very weak. They are not random. They correlate strongly with exactly what the religion predicts.
1. Your definition of "psychosis" is wrong. Check the DSM, or any actual professional in the field, that is, what science says.
2. There is nothing "obvious" about the notion there is not a God, feel free to share the special insight you have superseding thousands of years of theology, philosophy, and science demonstrating clearly it is not "obvious".
3. Even if it were "obvious", the notion it is therefore "psychosis" is nonsense. Once can name innumerable instances of something being claimed to be "obvious" for which disregarding it is not "psychosis"--say, choosing to drink and drive despite the consequences. Say, buying overpriced products. Say, being Republican or Democrat, viewed from the other side.
In short, you are being irrational. In short, something is indeed wrong here with mental functioning. The person exhibiting this would be you.
It would be called "science" by people like you, who fail to understand that nothing in science is "proven", it is a collection of models that are always provisional and permanently open to revision based on future data.
Still, say, one's preferences in art... do you object that those aren't "proven" and therefore aren't "science"--and what do you conclude from that?
This would be why you make sure you always argue with theists who reject evolution, I'll bet.
Which, for the record, is a minority of them. Unless you mean people who mean by "evolution" the irrational non-sequitur of "evolution is true, therefore there is no God" or other "often, therefore always" notions of evolutionary change.
Happy holidays, do enjoy your pet false dichotomy this festive season.
Such an imaginary construct does indeed fit the definition of psychosis by DSM
No, it doesn't. You are simply making that claim up. At worst, the religion could be incorrect. It could not be a "psychosis". Silly anti-science rhetorical amplification doesn't really add anything to your argument here.
As for your "enabling" claim, to what to you attribute the historical bloodbath existing previous to the presence of any religion, which undeniably according to your model, is the one-and-only reason you exist in the evolved form you do? What do you blame for these moral objections then? And while you're add it, on what basis are you implying such an objection, from -your- model?
Incidentally, maybe you can help me with a discussion with an acquaintance of mine. He has a philosophy he calls "fooism", and though it is suitably undefined and lacking in any actual demographic to compare with, and thus he can point out way more negative things done in the name of theism, he can also point out way more negative things done by atheism than fooism. Seems that when you have no admitted responsible adherents to your philosophy, other ones can be blamed for way more things, relatively. As an atheist, do you have some defense for how many more abhorrent things were done in the name of atheism than fooism? He's waiting.
Again, whether it constitutes "proof" is irrelevant. However, one does have reason to consider as evidence the decidedly non-random nature of the "hallucinations" supposedly caused by brain failure (try to short out your computer and see if you suddenly get presented with a new 3D MMO, for example), which correlate very highly with the religious model's predictions.
Formally, though I understand your statement is a Bare Assertion Fallacy troll, it is factually and scientifically incorrect to claim it is a "psychosis". Formally, per the actual field you clearly have no knowledge of, a position that the majority of a culture subscribes to cannot be a "psychosis", per the DSM. Your use (and Dawkins', who you parrot) is simply scientifically and factually false.
I could go on, but rather I'll leave you with a challenge. Predict the upper-bound of the lifespan of a man for the -next- 2500 years. Let's see how you rate compare to the goat herders.
If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion.
Sure it would. Why would the definition of "religion" change? I mean, the real one, not the Dawkins made-up one.
But, "proof" (clever of you to goalpost-shift this up front to a criteria virtually nothing, including science, can meet, by the way) would be tantamount to worldwide forced conversion. You'd either have to accept it, or go to an asylum for denying basic proven facts. Might you see a reason a God would not want that, particularly in this era of global communication?
That said, to use reasonable epistemological criteria, here's peer-reviewedevidence. As with most domains, -evidence-, not -proof-, is the intellectually-honest expectation.
In its current, immature state, the pilot-wave formulation of quantum mechanics only describes simple interactions between matter and electromagnetic fields, according to David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford in England, and cannot even capture the physics of an ordinary light bulb. "It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics," Wallace said. "In my own view, this is the most severe problem for the theory, though, to be fair, it remains an active research area."
Your statement regarding Protestant Sola Scriptura versus Catholic "scripture and Holy Tradition" is not relevant to this issue. The distinction between these two is always a matter of nuanced interpretation of the precise intent of the prophets and apostles, and this -always- ends up with argument centered around scriptural support. Though you may wish to create a false dichotomy here, it is -never- the case that one can blatantly formulate a position in clear contradiction to, or utterly unsupported by, scripture. Catholicism knows Galatians 1:8 as well as Protestantism does, and I'll happily challenge to provide an example of an introduced doctrine of Catholicism -ever- for which there is -no- corresponding scriptural support. It does not happen, and cannot happen there any more than in Protestantism. A denomination or sect that attempted to make up new doctrine whole-cloth or forward a stance in contradiction to scripture would be simply found invalid, as conceptual coherence demands. You are conflating nuanced distinction in interpretation, i.e. disagreement on application, with outright invention lacking any documentary basis.
That is the situation with vaccines. There is -no- scriptural support, direct, or indirect in a manner that could be seen as applicable, which speaks against vaccines.
You are by verbal shell-game saying Protestants say "scripture" and Catholics say "scripture and Tradition" and then implicitly saying "but it's really just Tradition, and Tradition is free to contradict established scripture". No, no denomination has ever gotten away with that, and Catholicism has never tried. This scenario does not exist as a matter of actuality, and so is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Feel free to discuss with yourself. I already know.
You could go for Round 2 of your stupid escalation though, and similarly assert because you don't know, that means I don't know. I'd suggest trying to learn to distinguish better between yourself and others, as it's disturbingly indicative of mental illness.
You're wandering pretty far afield from what I actually said. I said that people who sociopathically use the mechanisms of control given them by their government positions, and likewise use these positions to make up rules for themselves that extends their control and manipulation of the public and which exempt themselves from any real penalties for any of their actions, fully knowingly and making extensive effort to systematically do precisely that, should be held accountable.
And now you tell me I'm talking about mentally handicapped people and making them accountable. Ah, no. Whoever you think you're talking to, it isn't me.
So, people not being punished forever is a weird fantasy, and really they will, as a matter of what's actually true? You need to review your ideas here for internal coherence.
So again, at the time of that writing, or later in his life, say on his deathbed, when he came very close to recanting the entire Reformation, or now?
But we still need to go back to how I can address your question of "better", so again it would clarify your standards by reference to your worldview. Right now you are saying that my religion is incorrect, which we know by reference to its moral axioms, with the religion as the only source of justification of them we've put on the table.
To summarize, your stance is that my view is untrue, which we know because it is true.
So, again, what is your derivation of the basis of your implied moral criticism? Since context-dropping would be wholly invalid on your part, and Christians killing all the Jews would be fine according to Darwinian naturalism, Jews killing all the Christians would be equally fine according to it, both of them killing all the atheists would be perfectly fine as well, it's simply a matter that some DNA survived and some did not, case closed, what else do you mean by "better"?
You'll have to define your term, because right now you're doing an Argument from a Void.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh forget it. With the complete failure of Slashdot metamoderation and the increasing blatant intellectual dishonesty of the mods here, Slashdot has become worthless for useful discussion.
Merry Christmas, all.
Do I explain "citing primary sources" or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" first?
You toss a powerful magnet at a brain and you can shut off emotions, shut off senses, distort them and induce them... what makes you think the brain dying is any less traumatic than changing the flow of electricity in one portion?
I made no claim it is less traumatic. What is relevant is the high specificity of the results of the trauma, as quantified by the study. If the perceptions were random, say in the case of LSD, hitting someone in the head repeatedly with a rock, or random magnetic stimulation, I would agree the evidence would be very weak. They are not random. They correlate strongly with exactly what the religion predicts.
You are incompetent in literally every field you address. Why are you posting to Slashdot?
1. Your definition of "psychosis" is wrong. Check the DSM, or any actual professional in the field, that is, what science says.
2. There is nothing "obvious" about the notion there is not a God, feel free to share the special insight you have superseding thousands of years of theology, philosophy, and science demonstrating clearly it is not "obvious".
3. Even if it were "obvious", the notion it is therefore "psychosis" is nonsense. Once can name innumerable instances of something being claimed to be "obvious" for which disregarding it is not "psychosis"--say, choosing to drink and drive despite the consequences. Say, buying overpriced products. Say, being Republican or Democrat, viewed from the other side.
In short, you are being irrational. In short, something is indeed wrong here with mental functioning. The person exhibiting this would be you.
But if you truly feel there is a god, then obviously your sense of reality is wrong and this is what psychosis is about.
Back your absolutely nonsensical arbitrary claim here.
It would be called "science" by people like you, who fail to understand that nothing in science is "proven", it is a collection of models that are always provisional and permanently open to revision based on future data.
Still, say, one's preferences in art... do you object that those aren't "proven" and therefore aren't "science"--and what do you conclude from that?
This would be why you make sure you always argue with theists who reject evolution, I'll bet.
Which, for the record, is a minority of them. Unless you mean people who mean by "evolution" the irrational non-sequitur of "evolution is true, therefore there is no God" or other "often, therefore always" notions of evolutionary change.
Happy holidays, do enjoy your pet false dichotomy this festive season.
Such an imaginary construct does indeed fit the definition of psychosis by DSM
No, it doesn't. You are simply making that claim up. At worst, the religion could be incorrect. It could not be a "psychosis". Silly anti-science rhetorical amplification doesn't really add anything to your argument here.
As for your "enabling" claim, to what to you attribute the historical bloodbath existing previous to the presence of any religion, which undeniably according to your model, is the one-and-only reason you exist in the evolved form you do? What do you blame for these moral objections then? And while you're add it, on what basis are you implying such an objection, from -your- model?
Incidentally, maybe you can help me with a discussion with an acquaintance of mine. He has a philosophy he calls "fooism", and though it is suitably undefined and lacking in any actual demographic to compare with, and thus he can point out way more negative things done in the name of theism, he can also point out way more negative things done by atheism than fooism. Seems that when you have no admitted responsible adherents to your philosophy, other ones can be blamed for way more things, relatively. As an atheist, do you have some defense for how many more abhorrent things were done in the name of atheism than fooism? He's waiting.
Again, whether it constitutes "proof" is irrelevant. However, one does have reason to consider as evidence the decidedly non-random nature of the "hallucinations" supposedly caused by brain failure (try to short out your computer and see if you suddenly get presented with a new 3D MMO, for example), which correlate very highly with the religious model's predictions.
Formally, though I understand your statement is a Bare Assertion Fallacy troll, it is factually and scientifically incorrect to claim it is a "psychosis". Formally, per the actual field you clearly have no knowledge of, a position that the majority of a culture subscribes to cannot be a "psychosis", per the DSM. Your use (and Dawkins', who you parrot) is simply scientifically and factually false.
I could go on, but rather I'll leave you with a challenge. Predict the upper-bound of the lifespan of a man for the -next- 2500 years. Let's see how you rate compare to the goat herders.
If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion.
Sure it would. Why would the definition of "religion" change? I mean, the real one, not the Dawkins made-up one.
But, "proof" (clever of you to goalpost-shift this up front to a criteria virtually nothing, including science, can meet, by the way) would be tantamount to worldwide forced conversion. You'd either have to accept it, or go to an asylum for denying basic proven facts. Might you see a reason a God would not want that, particularly in this era of global communication?
That said, to use reasonable epistemological criteria, here's peer-reviewed evidence. As with most domains, -evidence-, not -proof-, is the intellectually-honest expectation.
So, you're refuting religion in general with a principle of a religion Lucas made up, stating as an absolute that only religion deals in absolutes?
Just checking here.
http://www.gamedev.net/
Yes, I see how it works. Sorry that you still don't.
But, that will inevitably be corrected. Just look at your watch, see if you see a trend there.
Just a little something I Know.
Meanwhile, evolution kills 100% of naturalists, and the only thing that actually survives is information.
So, you may at least want to leave a light on for, say, Platonic ideal Forms. Or the robots' software.
In its current, immature state, the pilot-wave formulation of quantum mechanics only describes simple interactions between matter and electromagnetic fields, according to David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford in England, and cannot even capture the physics of an ordinary light bulb. "It is not by itself capable of representing very much physics," Wallace said. "In my own view, this is the most severe problem for the theory, though, to be fair, it remains an active research area."
A little early to "drop it", it seems.
Your statement regarding Protestant Sola Scriptura versus Catholic "scripture and Holy Tradition" is not relevant to this issue. The distinction between these two is always a matter of nuanced interpretation of the precise intent of the prophets and apostles, and this -always- ends up with argument centered around scriptural support. Though you may wish to create a false dichotomy here, it is -never- the case that one can blatantly formulate a position in clear contradiction to, or utterly unsupported by, scripture. Catholicism knows Galatians 1:8 as well as Protestantism does, and I'll happily challenge to provide an example of an introduced doctrine of Catholicism -ever- for which there is -no- corresponding scriptural support. It does not happen, and cannot happen there any more than in Protestantism. A denomination or sect that attempted to make up new doctrine whole-cloth or forward a stance in contradiction to scripture would be simply found invalid, as conceptual coherence demands. You are conflating nuanced distinction in interpretation, i.e. disagreement on application, with outright invention lacking any documentary basis.
That is the situation with vaccines. There is -no- scriptural support, direct, or indirect in a manner that could be seen as applicable, which speaks against vaccines.
You are by verbal shell-game saying Protestants say "scripture" and Catholics say "scripture and Tradition" and then implicitly saying "but it's really just Tradition, and Tradition is free to contradict established scripture". No, no denomination has ever gotten away with that, and Catholicism has never tried. This scenario does not exist as a matter of actuality, and so is irrelevant to the case at hand.
Well you know what they say. He who laughs last.
Most faiths don't do that.
Wrong.
Feel free to discuss with yourself. I already know.
You could go for Round 2 of your stupid escalation though, and similarly assert because you don't know, that means I don't know. I'd suggest trying to learn to distinguish better between yourself and others, as it's disturbingly indicative of mental illness.
Well, yeah, obviously I won't be following Immermanism, for obvious reasons. Foremost being what you've pulled out of your ass here.
I guess you doing it means somebody else is doing it, rather than the obvious fact it's only you doing it, right?
Right, so your irrational grasping for anything to attack religion about doesn't actually work. Sorry.
Correction: -Including- religion, there is no reason to believe that vaccines cause any harm.
Feel free to cite any anti-vaccine scripture. Let me save you some time. It doesn't exist.
You're wandering pretty far afield from what I actually said. I said that people who sociopathically use the mechanisms of control given them by their government positions, and likewise use these positions to make up rules for themselves that extends their control and manipulation of the public and which exempt themselves from any real penalties for any of their actions, fully knowingly and making extensive effort to systematically do precisely that, should be held accountable.
And now you tell me I'm talking about mentally handicapped people and making them accountable. Ah, no. Whoever you think you're talking to, it isn't me.
So, people not being punished forever is a weird fantasy, and really they will, as a matter of what's actually true? You need to review your ideas here for internal coherence.
So again, at the time of that writing, or later in his life, say on his deathbed, when he came very close to recanting the entire Reformation, or now?
But we still need to go back to how I can address your question of "better", so again it would clarify your standards by reference to your worldview. Right now you are saying that my religion is incorrect, which we know by reference to its moral axioms, with the religion as the only source of justification of them we've put on the table.
To summarize, your stance is that my view is untrue, which we know because it is true.
So, again, what is your derivation of the basis of your implied moral criticism? Since context-dropping would be wholly invalid on your part, and Christians killing all the Jews would be fine according to Darwinian naturalism, Jews killing all the Christians would be equally fine according to it, both of them killing all the atheists would be perfectly fine as well, it's simply a matter that some DNA survived and some did not, case closed, what else do you mean by "better"?
You'll have to define your term, because right now you're doing an Argument from a Void.