Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Suave on November 13, 2004, 07:25:30 AM
-
Interesting.
Further support for a neural basis for religion comes from the fact that there are atheogenic as well as entheogenic drugs. In at least some psychoses characterized by extreme religious delusions, antipsychotic drugs can dispel the religious delirium. Can anyone doubt that, in exorcising the gods from such patients, the drugs are acting on particular neuronal receptors and affecting neuronal firing? Is it too much to hope that someday that a drug cure will be available for religious addiction? Won’t it be a great world when a doctor can say, “Take two Thorazines and call me in a month if you still feel the urge to tithe.”
We must remember too that temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) is often accompanied by hyperreligiosity, and it is likely that St. Paul - arguably the creator of Christianity - suffered from epilepsy of some kind. Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, has studied TLE patients and has found that their Galvanic Skin Responses are disproportionately aroused by presentation of religious words. The word Jesus will make their palms sweat as much as those of normal people do when presented by sexual terms. Once again it appears that brain processes (and pathological ones at that!) are the cause of religious experience. For good measure, the argument would seem to be settled by recent experiments that demonstrate that “religious experiences,” “numinous perceptions,” and the like can be triggered by electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain.
-
It would be a much better world if every religious idiot was forced to take anti-religious pills. :lol
But then I'm biased since I think religion is useless. :D
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
It would be a much better world if every religious idiot was forced to take anti-religious pills. :lol
But then I'm biased since I think religion is useless. :D
Very rude. Intelligence is not a factor in being disposed to religiosity.
-
not sure what the point was supposed to be. so they have drugs that can 'cure' you of your religious beliefs? there are also many drugs and other compounds that can 'cure' you of your sight, your sense of touch, pretty much any function we have can be 'cured' and shut down.
For good measure, the argument would seem to be settled by recent experiments that demonstrate that “religious experiences,” “numinous perceptions,” and the like can be triggered by electrical stimulation of certain parts of the brain.
electrical impulses can also trigger muscle movement separate from your own reflex or desire. it can also stimulate false readings in most any of your senses if the right current is applied to the right spot. this doesn't make your natural movements or sensations any less real.
all any of this really proves is that, like all of your other natural body functions, we can tweak the system if we try.
-
There are drugs that can supress the sex drive or incapacitate the smallest agressiveness or even ambition. Perhaps we should all be freed from all of our base instincts?
What capt apathy said.
-
Religiosity is a product of brain dysfunction!?
Bwaahahahahahahahahahaha! Ohhh Myyy! What Rubbish!
While the article states that extreme forms of psychoses are often accompanied by religious delusions, which can be treated by antipsychotic drugs, dispelling the religious DELIRIUM, the rest of its conclusions are spurious at best.
Aren't you rather cavalierly dismissing much of humanity as "psychotic" because they are "religious" and presenting non-religious people, such as yourself, as being the only "sane" members of society?
-
Shuckings I asume you're responding to me, but if you'll look carefully you'll notice that what you are responding to is actually a quote from an article copied from a different web address. Not something that I wrote.
Religiosity in temporal lobe epileptics is a fact. And now people are able to replicate this with temporal lobe disruption. I find it very fascinating, particularly Dr.Ramachandran's work. Don't you want to know what causes religion?
-
I'd be very interested to know what "causes religiosity". That article is far from revealing it though. Consider also that if there is an aspect to humans that is not purely physical, a study of only the physical nature will be unlikely to observe it.
-
Suave,
When you post such an article the reader can only assume that you agree with it.
I interpret the article as an attempt by some scientists to explain religion as a mental aberration.
It appears to me that they had the answer and went looking for the question...if you get my drift.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Suave, very intreresting article!
It explains a lot. I know many people who suddenly became religious after serious stress or some tragic accidents. Looks like it's a result of a nervous disease...
Soviet high education system included "scientific atheism", that was really taken seriously in places that supplied most of highly-proffesional young fundamental sciences, like Phys-Tech institute or MSU Mech-Math department. It was noticed that people who study there turn to religion much more often then others. Hard studies can damage your brain...
Russian proverb says: "Make a fool pray - and he'll break his forehead".
Shukins, what's wrong? Yes, some of the religious people are sick, and religious fanatism is a symptome of their disease. It doesn't say that all religious people are ill. I think that some fanatic atheists share the same disease.
Sounds very religious: denying scientific facts when they are found offencive or contradict with faith...
-
wait, so does this cure the leader,ned flanders, or marge?
-
You guys are sick! Talk about fascism! This whole thread screams of it. Why not just re-enact the "final solution" why your at it. :mad:
-
>>Is it too much to hope that someday that a drug cure will be available for religious addiction? <<
This is a grand example of junk science. Yes there is a neuro basis for religion, and duh, a neuro basis for inteligence. What there isn't, is evidence of religious addiction (I guess that just kinda slipped in unproven eh?).
-
Originally posted by Suave
Very rude. Intelligence is not a factor in being disposed to religiosity.
How is it rude to say it would be nice to get rid of people who justify horrible things with religion? :confused:
I never said all religious people were dumb.
Just take a deep breath and relax. :aok
-
Wow such objective responses :rolleyes:
I've allways been fascinated by fanatacism of all kinds, because I don't understand it. It is a species specific trait. Here's some more "junk science"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/textindex.html
The show was fascinating, it showed how phantom limb pain can be cured instantly with mirrors. It showed a man who suffered head trauma and as a result he remains convinced that his parents are exact look alike imposters when ever he sees them, although when he talks with them on the phone he knows it's them. Some part of his visual/emotional associative part of his brain was damaged. It also discussed the phenomenon called blindsight. And it also showed some epileptics falling in love with god. Also compared various imagery exams of religious peoples temporal lobe activity campared to irreligous. I'm very tempted to buy Dr. Ramachandran book.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
How is it rude to say it would be nice to get rid of people who justify horrible things with religion? :confused:
I never said all religious people were dumb.
Just take a deep breath and relax. :aok
Whether or not you meant to, you implied that religious people are idiots. At least that's the impression I got, but ok.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
wait, so does this cure the leader,ned flanders, or marge?
The leader is good. The leader is great. We surrender our will, as of this date. :)
Yeah, that episode was a great commentary on religion.
-
What does science have to fear from religion that they want to supress or eliminate it? I have a big problem with the presentation of science as the only truth. Are we to ignore the spiritual part of mankind altogether? Dismiss it as a mental abberation?
Where does philosophy and the humanities fit in? I'm reasonably certain the man who wrote that article has some kind of artwork in his house... maybe even some books dealing with literature and philosophy. Perhaps a radio that plays music. Those products are the result of spiritual guidance, and I say that science would not exist without them (the humanities) as a foundation to build on.
It's kinda ironic that a scientist would want to squelch the very mindspring from which all real science draws. Without religiosity, there would be no science, except the junk science Tweety mentioned.
Les
-
Suave do you mean to say that... we have an organ in our heads that controls what we think and believe? And this organ is subject to maladies and irregularities like any other organ? SHOCKING!!! YOU NAZI!!!
-
Philosopy is science, it's rational deduction. Religion of course is abandonment of rationality. I think the reason to fear fanatacism, which is what religion is, is that most of the worlds suffering can be traced back to it. I'm in agreement with the constitutional authors when it comes to religion-"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
But I don't think anybody is seriously deluded enough to think that they can suppress or eradicate religion. Understanding the cause however is something I find fascinating. Don't confuse spirituality with religion, if that is even possible to confuse the two.
People in general seem to have a need for dogma and religion. Take for example buddhism, a worldview based on scientific principle which can be demonstrated and observed. It's since been corruped by mankind with idolatry and ceremony and dogma.
I don't think the budha meant that karma was a supernatural force. Or that our concious continues to another creature when we are reincarnated. For these things are not observable or demonstratable.
When I related to a friend what I thought the budha meant he replied jokingly. "Yeah but where's the fun in that". Perhaps that's part of the puzzle, people want to believe in the fantastic.
It seems that human beings have this unreasonable, intrinsic need for idol worship, ceremony, shamanism, and a belief in supernatural. This fascinates me, and any research into this field interests me very much.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Philosopy is science, it's rational deduction. Religion of course is abandonment of rationality.
You're taking a really big leap of faith there. Many religions are based on historical evidence of the supernatural. Sure, neither of us was there to observe the resurrection of Christ for example but that does not mean it didn't happen. How many things do you take on faith, evidence unseen?
-
Please don't try to rationalize your belief in the god magic. You'll just waste our time.
-
I believe the sky is green. Aside from that, I like Arthur C Clarke.
A theme throughout Clarke's novels is the internal evolution of the human spirit and man's innate desire to expand his reach. But he doesn't see religion as the answer. He calls religion a "disease of infancy," and in _3001: The Final Odyssey_, it has become taboo, a product of man's early ignorance that provoked hatred and bloodshed.
"One of my objections to religion is that it prevents the search for god, if there is one," he says. "I have an open mind on the subject, if there's anything behind the universe. And I'm quite sympathetic with the views that there could be."
-
Originally posted by Suave
Religion of course is abandonment of rationality.
I'm not so sure...
I think religion tries to cling to rationality, and tries to apply that rationality to their beliefs....
Much like AKIron said right after your post: "Many religions are based on historical evidence of the supernatural."
To me, that is just off. I don't think anything needs to be proven. I think trying to prove spirituality makes those involved just look silly.
Religion is a way of giving spirituality credibility. Of trying to formalize it. Making it into something digestible. Even something usable. And even.... a means to pit one's interpretation of spirituality against another's.
Why the charade?
Religion may be "the abandonment of rationality."
But screw religion....
Spirituality, faith, good works... This weathers any attack along the lines of "abandoning rationality". For truly, it acknowledges that abandonment of rationality. Embraces it comfortably.
-
If this "religiosity" is a physical condition arent atheists and the like really the abberant mentally ill ones consiering that some high figure like 90% of the worlds population is religious?
-
The first mutation occurence of a superior species is "deviant" by nature, yeah.
//
"rational" and "irrational".
Religion falls in the second one, have fun debating nonsense.
-
Well, less than 10% of the population suffer from religiosity. Most fanatics are believers because people they trusted the most in the universe told them it was true. In other words it doesn't come from influences within, ie. hallucinations, it is a product of social influences. Nobody is born a stalinist or a catholic, but we now think that the hard wiring in our brains is there to facilitate it.
But, just to illustrate the flaw in your logic in reference to disease and disorders.If 90% of the world had aids would the ones without it be the unhealthy ones? No. Disease isn't determined by frequency or prevalence.
We allready know that we're born with the physiolgy and brain mapping for irrational activity, emotions and love. But the necesity for these social functions is obvious.
The question is, why are humans equiped with the brain paths for religion? What purpose does this irrational activity serve? Population control? Tribal and territorial purposes? Is it really species specific to homo sapiens sapiens?
-
Originally posted by AKIron You're taking a really big leap of faith there.
oops! :D
-
Originally posted by Suave
We allready know that we're born with the physiolgy and brain mapping for irrational activity, emotions and love. But the necesity for these social functions is obvious.
The question is, why are humans equiped with the brain paths for religion?
Quit using the word religion. You're trying to marginalize the whole thing, and you know it.
The word is spirituality. Or faith.
So, it turns out our brain is wired for such "irrational" things, as you say.... love and emotion.
It also turns out that it is wired for spirituality.
But you accept the first two, and question the third as if it were some kind of tumor?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm not so sure...
I think religion tries to cling to rationality, and tries to apply that rationality to their beliefs....
Much like AKIron said right after your post: "Many religions are based on historical evidence of the supernatural."
To me, that is just off. I don't think anything needs to be proven. I think trying to prove spirituality makes those involved just look silly.
Religion is a way of giving spirituality credibility. Of trying to formalize it. Making it into something digestible. Even something usable. And even.... a means to pit one's interpretation of spirituality against another's.
Why the charade?
Religion may be "the abandonment of rationality."
But screw religion....
Spirituality, faith, good works... This weathers any attack along the lines of "abandoning rationality". For truly, it acknowledges that abandonment of rationality. Embraces it comfortably.
I disagree. If Christ was not resurrected there is no point to Christianity.
-
I'd say it was just an efficient and fairly foolproof way for the species to survive. We don't need instincts anymore either.
Basta excess baggage.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I disagree. If Christ was not resurrected there is no point to Christianity.
Right.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Quit using the word religion. You're trying to marginalize the whole thing, and you know it.
The word is spirituality. Or faith.
So, it turns out our brain is wired for such "irrational" things, as you say.... love and emotion.
It also turns out that it is wired for spirituality.
But you accept the first two, and question the third as if it were some kind of tumor?
Love is emotion. Is spirituality. The extreme cases are where you start to have non-negligible unwanted consequences.
-
Careful Suave. You're on a slippery slope.
If emotions and love are necessary social functions how can they be irrational activities?
I have no problem with the theory that our brains have neuron paths that seem to be wired for religion. My faith provides an answer to the question of "Why" it is configured that way. Religion is just as necessary a social function, and just as irrational, as love and all other human emotions.
Your purely rational, "scientific" approach seems to have been unable to provide you with an answer.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Well, less than 10% of the population suffer from religiosity. Most fanatics are believers because people they trusted the most in the universe told them it was true. In other words it doesn't come from influences within, ie. hallucinations, it is a product of social influences. Nobody is born a stalinist or a catholic, but we now think that the hard wiring in our brains is there to facilitate it.
But, just to illustrate the flaw in your logic in reference to disease and disorders.If 90% of the world had aids would the ones without it be the unhealthy ones? No. Disease isn't determined by frequency or prevalence.
We allready know that we're born with the physiolgy and brain mapping for irrational activity, emotions and love. But the necesity for these social functions is obvious.
The question is, why are humans equiped with the brain paths for religion? What purpose does this irrational activity serve? Population control? Tribal and territorial purposes? Is it really species specific to homo sapiens sapiens?
90+% are religious. 90+% of the people have sight. 90% of humans can walk.. I guess those are diseases too, and the few blind ones are the normal people. Your AIDS anolgy is riduculus...
As for your humans questions, well humans are the only species on earth to do many things... Why? Well that depends on who you ask and what their viewpoint is...
Now go take a pill and cure your atheism disease, hopefully they will be able to correct yoiur abnormal brain functions... Because one of the definitions of disease is an abnormal state of your body, which is directly related to the genetic prevalalence of of traits in a human poulation. Like the 90% of people who have the brain functions for religion. If you lack that brain function then something is certainly wrong with yur bidy, just as much as if you were born without eyes or legs.. Maybe its not a disease, maybe its just a disability.. But hey, at least yiu can now get the better parking spaces...
Also before ou get all hurt and start insulting me as some unenlightend religious type or whatever just know I'm not any sort of churchie too.
But I will call you out on your ridiculus idea that somehow religious though is an abberant disease when religion is as common and normal as sight in humans...
:rofl
You enlightened tollerant progressive folks are amzing...
-
My tendancy wouldn't be to ask why faith seems to be an arbitrary wiring in the brain alongside other seemingly irrational things such as emotion and love...
I would instead ask why it's even wired there in the first place...
If I was without faith, that question would give me pause...
It wouldn't lead me to ponder on how to eradicate it.
-
See GH, you're on your ad hominem high again.
You're playing with words, or you didn't understand what Suave's saying.
It's the fanatical symbolismic extremism, not just believing in a black-box system for anything you've no explanation for.
You should read it again.
-
Originally posted by moot
See GH, you're on your ad hominem high again.
You're playing with words, or you didn't understand what Suave's saying.
It's the fanatical symbolismic extremism, not just believing in a black-box system for anything you've no explanation for.
You should read it again.
He is trying to introduce the idea that religios though is a disease of the mind.
I'm giving him a reality check...
-
Y'all please quit with the "religion" crap.
It doesn't really apply here. When we're talking about... appearently..... an area of the brain receptive to this stuff, well that area knows no religion.
Think of religions as being different languages trying to talk about the same thing.
Religion can bite my arse. The ends do not justify the means if the means run counter to the ends.
-
Sorry Nash...
...but HE started it! :D
-
Nash think about it like this, for a moment:
Rational thought, and irrational thought.
Logic, causality etc for the first, poetry, emotion and all derivatives in the second.
If you take two systems and give each different operating systems, you most likely won't get indentical outputs from them, and if you did, it wouldn't prove they are the same ( we know this, we defined them as such).
So if any two people are not the same down to each atom, they can't have the same lives or points of view or taste etc. This lets you deduce they won't have anything further up the fundamental scale in common. So if you are from one tribe and meet someone from another that's across the planet in a completely different climate, you most likely won't "get" what the other is saying.
Like in almost every conflict so far, Irak-US, Ireland/UK, Christianity/Islam, Koreans/Japanese, your neighbour/you, alpha male/subordinate male, whatever.
None of this is new and is probably taught in any introductory philosphy class, but it's the basis for IRRATIONALITY not being a viable system of civility.
Which doesn't mean it must be erradicated. It's flawed for the purposes in question and shouldn't be ignored as such, depending on the level of tolerance for error/conflict/whatever.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Y'all please quit with the "religion" crap.
It doesn't really apply here. When we're talking about... appearently..... an area of the brain receptive to this stuff, well that area knows no religion.
Think of religions as being different languages trying to talk about the same thing.
Religion can bite my arse. The ends do not justify the means if the means run counter to the ends.
For our discussion religion and spiriituality are identical as we are talking about brain functions that predispose people to such beliefs. The organizational, bureocratic, institutional, ritual and societal aspects of religious practice or observance are not relevant here.
-
yeah, it's not the machine that's the subject, it's the "spiritual concept", chill :D
GH, the way I see it, that's not what he's saying.
He's meaning that there is a certain amount of reliance on irrationality that is past a certain disfunctionality tolerance threshold, just like you aren't "sick" at the moment, yet harbouring a sizeable amount of non-symbiotic organisms.
He's not revolutionizing anything about the day to day coexistence between rational thought and religious values.
-
That's the thing tho, Shuckins....
Religious folks tend to reel in horror over what Suave posted.
Me? I get jazzed about it....
There's an area of the brain wired for spirituality? Cool!
Christians or whatever, will freak out 'cuz maybe it goes against something in the bible. Scientists will.... well I don't know. Atheists, it proves something to them perhaps....
Now you could make the case for any number of positions. One would be "there's a cure for it". How lame is that?
Give me a syringe and I'll show you a cure for love.
So no... All I see here is an acknowledgement by science saying tha our brains are not only wired for emotion and love, but also wired for faith.
How folks respond to that is their own business..
Me... I just say to myself "hmmm.... science just acknowledged something I already felt to be true."
-
No no no.... Grun...
Even for purposes of discussion I will never equate spirituality with religion.
-
And if I decide you're my idol, can't I make your spirituality my religion?
-
Grunherz, you are an agumentative person. You don't care about the truth, you care about appearing right.
You're deliberately misconsruing the definitions of disease. You know my aids analogy was apt at illustrating the irrelevance of prevelant state of a population as difinitive of biological malfunctioning, aka disease.
And you're trying to make it appear that I'm aserting that fanatacism is a disorder, soley for the purpose of appearing to be the one to disprove it.
Now before you get all hurt, I'm not an atheist, and you're the one being insulting. If I am the enlightened one, then why am I the one questioning and you're the one telling me that my questions are wrong?
Did you come to this thread to discuss? Or did you come resolved to defend an agenda?
-
Originally posted by moot
And if I decide you're my idol, can't I make your spirituality my religion?
You could, but that would be tragic.... and utterly human, sadly.
-
Originally posted by moot
yeah, it's not the machine that's the subject, it's the "spiritual concept", chill :D
GH, the way I see it, that's not what he's saying.
He's meaning that there is a certain amount of reliance on irrationality that is past a certain disfunctionality tolerance threshold, just like you aren't "sick" at the moment, yet harbouring a sizeable amount of non-symbiotic organisms.
He's not revolutionizing anything about the day to day coexistence between rational thought and religious values.
I would give him the benefit of the doubt except that Suave has said before that he belives religious people are anti social or criminals moreso than than people without faith. So basically this thread clearly continues his theme that religios people are somehow abberant...
-
n/m
-
I'd need clarification on whether he said that, and what he meant by a few of those words before saying anything more.
-
Suave no need to argue with semantics. Disease, disability, disfunction, disporder, syndrome etc call it whatever you want as long as you acknowlege that those 10% who are not religious are missing an normal brain function shared by 90% of all humans across the clobe, across all nations, ethnic groups etc..
BTW I love the irony of yoiu saying that others are pushing an agenda..
Comedy gold Suave, comedy gold!
:aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I would give him the benefit of the doubt except that Suave has said before that he belives religious people are anti social or criminals moreso than than people without faith. So basically this thread clearly continues his theme that religios people are somehow abberant...
Now you're a Lia. Somebody said that morality and religion go hand in hand. To which I replied that the religious part of the population has allways had a higher percentage of antisocials (immorality) than the irreligious population does. Thus disproving the implication that morality was invented by religion.
The thing is, Grunherz knows that is what I meant, but again he is misconstruing what I said in his characteristic way for the purposes of satisfying his inner bully.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/655_1100410363_nicepost.gif)
Grun,
Hate it when folks attack the messenger....
If you can't stick to talking about the issue, and not the person, then stay the shreck out.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Suave no need to argue with semantics. Disease, disability, disfunction, disporder, syndrome etc call it whatever you want as long as you acknowlege that those 10% who are not religious are missing an normal brain function shared by 90% of all humans across the clobe, across all nations, ethnic groups etc..
BTW I love the irony of yoiu saying that others are pushing an agenda..
Comedy gold Suave, comedy gold!
:aok
Your contention is that because they are not fanatics of any kind that their brains are physically different from those that are fanatics?
Is this what you want people to believe that I'm postulating?
-
Originally posted by Suave
To which I replied that the religious part of the population has allways had a higher percentage of antisocials (immorality) than the irreligious population does.
There we go, he belives religios people are more antisocial etc than non religious people...
Was thsi post meant to prove I said anything innacurate about yiur views?
:rofl :aok
BTW Suave I agree that morality does not come from religion. But the rest of your post is bunk considering that 90% of the world is religious, your 10% of abberants are not significant...
I hate those peronal attacks too Nash, too bad Suave had to call me a liar when I exposed his "agenda."
-
Suave, I'm just not buying your benign pretense for this tread bsaed on yoiur views about religion in other discussions... You clearly stated your belief that religius people are more antisocial than non religious people. Now you bring in a vague article abour religious thoughts being some chemical or functional brain disorder and one saying that one of christiasnity's main early proponents was mentally ill.
Give me a break...
-
This isn't the first time religious-morphic predisposition was reported.
-
Not only is there a greater percentage of criminals in the religious population. I would say that the immorality perpetuated in the religious population surpasses that perpetuated by the irreligous in terms of quality as well.
Are you saying that this isn't true?
And yes by implying that I said that religious people are more antisocial than irreligious people, you are lying.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Suave, I'm just not buying your benign pretense ...
So freaking WHAT if that's his opinion?
I feel my faith deeply... and I didn't get bothered by his post. I thought it was damned interesting. In fact, I thought it was great.
What the shreck is so wrong with someone having a different idea than you?
I can live with it....
You?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Not only is there a greater percentage of criminals in the religious population. I would say that the immorality perpetuated in the religious population surpasses that perpetuated by the irreligous in terms of quality as well.
Are you saying that this isn't true?
And yes by implying that I said that religious people are more antisocial than irreligious people, you are lying.
So if you now belive that religious people do not tend to be more antisiocial than non religious people who do you propose in your theory is doing all those extra antisocial criminal acts in religious communities... Their dogs? Pet Birds perhaps?
:rofl
-
I don't think anyone is "freaking out" here and I won't take offense if someone sneers at my "superstitious" beliefs. However, I believe my faith to be based on my rational belief in both historical and personal events. One of the greatest things about America is that everyone is free to believe or not believe as they choose.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So freaking WHAT if that's his opinion?
I feel my faith deeply... and I didn't get bothered by his post. I thought it was damned interesting. In fact, I thought it was great.
What the shreck is so wrong with someone having a different idea than you?
I can live with it....
You?
I'm fine with his diffrent opinion. I'm just expressing mine... Should I not? Are you not now in the post I quotedexpressing disagreement with what I said or the mptives or pretenses of how and why I said it?
Where does this concept come from in some of you left leaning guys that somehow its inappropriate to disagree or express contrary arguments and criticisms? We see that pon this BBS a lot every time some whacky hollowood celeb says something stupid and we express our disagrerement qwith it, suddenly all you lefty guys jump in and cry thaty we vilate thir first amemend or somethinng..
Funny stuff.. :)
-
GH you need to edit you 10:58 post, it doesn't make sense.
Or you misread Suave's post.
Or you're doing it on purpose for appearance.
ciao
m.
-
Quote the psost our times are different so 10:58 does not make sense.
-
forget it...
-
Originally posted by Suave
Not only is there a greater percentage of criminals in the religious population.
I would say that those people are, for the most, part not truly religious. Unless their religion supports criminal acts.
I would say that the immorality perpetuated in the religious population surpasses that perpetuated by the irreligous in terms of quality as well.
I would say that those people are, for the most, part not truly religious. Unless their religion supports immoral acts.
Are you saying that this isn't true?
And yes by implying that I said that religious people are more antisocial than irreligious people, you are lying.
Originally posted by Suave
To which I replied that the religious part of the population has allways had a higher percentage of antisocials (immorality) than the irreligious population does.
umm....
And by the way, antisocial does not equate immoral.
-
Originally posted by Nash
forget it...
Why?
Do you give up your views? Or give up trying to convince me of them?
-
Suave...come on...fess up...you voted for Kerry didn't ya!?
Nash...you're coming down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. Read what Suave said again. He's stated that religious groups have a greater percentage of crimininals, and are more immoral, than the non-religious population. That alone brings into question his motives for starting this thread.
What facts, if any, do you base these statements on Suave? What did you mean when you said these things before you didn't say them?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Suave...come on...fess up...you voted for Kerry didn't ya!?
Nash...you're coming down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. Read what Suave said again. He's stated that religious groups have a greater percentage of crimininals, and are more immoral, than the non-religious population. That alone brings into question his motives for starting this thread.
What facts, if any, do you base these statements on Suave? What did you mean when you said these things before you didn't say them?
Prepare to be called a liar!
Here is Suaves position on the issue..
There are more antisocial criminal peope in religious communities than non religious, but religious people are not more likely to be criminals than non religious people.
As for me I'm guessing their dogs are comminting the crimes while these people are away at church!
-
Grunherz I can no longer believe that your misunderstanding isn't fiegned for the purpose of finding an argument. It's pointless to keep explaining things to you.
You will just misconstrue it so that you can bend it into a challange for the sake of prolonging an argument. You came to this thread as you often do as a provocature. Maybe there are threads that you participate in, in which you aren't arguing with someone, but I can't think of any. But then I'm only interested in my agenda.
There's a saying among politicians when they're dealing with the press. "Don't answere the question you were asked, answer the question you wish you were asked."
What we see here is a case of don't argue against his postulation, argue against what you wish he pustulated.
-
I voted for Badnarik.
BTW, why is the discussion now about what motivates me?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nash...you're coming down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue. Read what Suave said again. He's stated that religious groups have a greater percentage of crimininals, and are more immoral, than the non-religious population. That alone brings into question his motives for starting this thread.
I dunno....
I just tend to read the posts, and respond to 'em...
Some are cool, some funny, some interesting, some inflammitory.... and some, like Drippy's, a waste of bandwidth.
The only thing I'm getting here is that I feel very connected, spiritualy, and I am in no sense religious.
And I'm quite content with what Suave posted.
It's curious to me why the religious folks are up in arms about it... but, it's kinda like that deal where you make your own bed...
If yer truly at peace with yourself, have awareness, and trust in God, then these sorts of interpretations should only fascinate you.
If your faith is not in God, but in words on paper, then I could see why any challenge to them would be upsetting.
It's understandable.
-
Lazerus can you think of something that is immoral that is not antisocial and vice versa?
Basically immorality as I see it is doing something that hurts others, yourself, or society.
And you might say that they are not truely religious, but what matters is that they identify themselves as religious. Barring any deliberate imposters, would you accept this definition of religious ?
-
Your basic argument is flawed. You cant say that greater precentage of religius are anticosial immoral criminals than non religious but then suggest that you dont belive that religious people are more likely to be criminals or are more criminal, antisocial immoral etc.
For asrguments sake if 50% of group A people have commited crimes and only 30% of group B have commited crimes then simple math and probabilty shows that group A people are more likely to be criminals.
And also since crimes are not random events, meaning they are motiviated by human thought you also cant say that yoiu dont belive religious people on average have more prevelance of antisocial criminal tendencies.
There is no misunderstanding. Your views are perfectly clear to everyone, yoiu belive that religious people commit more crimes and are more criminal, immoral, antisocial etc on average than non religius peole.
So thats why I question your motives when you introduce articles that suggest reloigious thought could be linked to a menbtal illness or other abberation...
-
I'm not an attention craving type of person. But notice how when one angle wasn't working for him, GH switched tracks and tried to make this a thread about me. Should I be flattered ? Nah, he would've done the same with anybody.
-
Thats a good dodge of the question Suave, ironically in a post about you critizing others for apparently changinfg subjects..
-
Suave,
Your statements have called your motives into question. You have no one to blame but yourself...
"Religion is of course the abandonment of rationality. The reason to fear fanaticism, which is what religion is, is that most of the world's suffering can be traced back to it."
These statements can be interpreted as either inflammatory or subjective.
Nash...I found the scientific report amusing...not offensive...because to me it represented a form of junk science. As I said earlier, some of its conclusions were spurious at best.
Glad you're in touch with your spiritual side:D
-
Originally posted by Suave
Shuckings I asume you're responding to me, but if you'll look carefully you'll notice that what you are responding to is actually a quote from an article copied from a different web address. Not something that I wrote.
Religiosity in temporal lobe epileptics is a fact. And now people are able to replicate this with temporal lobe disruption. I find it very fascinating, particularly Dr.Ramachandran's work. Don't you want to know what causes religion?
And here in the last line you hint at your motives for this thread. Linking widespread human trait of religion to a study of mental illness..
To put into plain terms:
Suave belives that we will find the cause of religious beliefs in 90% of the human population by studying the tiny proportion of peope suffering from mental illness.
-
Originally posted by Suave
But notice how when one angle wasn't working for him, GH switched tracks and tried to make this a thread about me.
Oh... I saw that the very second it happened. I'm personally, uhm... well lets just say that I've seen it a few times before.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nash...I found the scientific report amusing...not offensive...because to me it represented a form of junk science.
I'm by no means the scientific type. I suck at science. I did like what this particular experiment produced. To me, it was an affirmation.
But... What was wrong with the science of it? (I'd never be able to figure it out).
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh... I saw that the very second it happened. I'm personally, uhm... well lets just say that I've seen it a few times before.
I disagree, his wider beliefs and statements on the sublect are valid discussion topics.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm by no means the scientific type. I suck at science. I did like what this particular experiment produced. To me, it was an affirmation.
But... What was wrong with the science of it? (I'd never be able to figure it out).
Wanna know one problem?
This study focuses on mentally ill people who are obssesd with religion and then draws wider conclusions about the orgiins of religion in general, note the rumor mongering about St Paul baing mentally ill. From there, for the willing, its but a short jump to clonclude that his experience meeting the risen jesus on the road to damascus was but an epileptic fit...
But I ask what of thev mentally ill people who obssess about or react strongly in phyically measurable way about other things? Like dogs, or cars, or loud noises, certain images etc.. Why the curious focus on just the mentally ill obessed with religion..
-
Isn't almost everything you say for the sake of argument?
My basic argument? I don't have one, this isn't a contest. I know you want to start one, but I think you should find a healthier outlet for you anger. One that doesn't repulse people from serious conversation with you.
You're not my patient Grun, and I'm not getting paid to listen to you. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but you really went out of your way, so I have to believe that on some level it's what you wanted.
And yes, as I've allready clearly stated in this thread, I believe like the founding fathers of this country, that religion is the source of a great many of the evils that plague mankind. However I would expand on that and state that fanatacism period, not just religion is the source. Am I extraordinary because I have never understood or felt the seduction of fanatacism? Possibly, but I doubt it.
-
Nash,
It was the statement made in the report that since certain types of epilepsy are accompanied by hyperreligiosity St. Paul must have been an epileptic.
That statement has no basis in provable fact, since St. Paul is not available for medical examination. One has to wonder at the motives of a scientist who would make such a statement in a supposedly "objective" scientific report.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Nash,
It was the statement made in the report that since certain types of epilepsy are accompanied by hyperreligiosity St. Paul must have been an epileptic.
That statement has no basis in provable fact, since St. Paul is not available for medical examination. One has to wonder at the motives of a scientist who would make such a statement in a supposedly "objective" scientific report.
Yep excatly what i said.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Lazerus can you think of something that is immoral that is not antisocial and vice versa?
I sit in my chair in front of my computer and don't talk to anybody. That's antisocial.
I sit in my chair in front of my computer and upload child pornography to distribute throughout the world. That's immoral.
Basically immorality as I see it is doing something that hurts others, yourself, or society.
Exactly. Immorality and antisocialism do not equate.
And you might say that they are not truely religious, but what matters is that they identify themselves as religious.
I can identify myself as anything I want to, it does make that identification true.
It appears to me that you have a bigotry towards religion in general.
Of course, I could be wrong, but that's the impression that two pages of posts from you on this subject has left me with.
-
As fascinating as all this is, I gotta go to bed now. Have to teach Sunday School in the morning. ;)
Take Care, Nash and Grun and Suave
-
Originally posted by Suave
My basic argument? I don't have one
FOLLOWED BY, YOU GUESSED IT, AN ARGUMENT:
And yes, as I've allready clearly stated in this thread, I believe like the founding fathers of this country, that religion is the source of a great many of the evils that plague mankind. However I would expand on that and state that fanatacism period, not just religion is the source. Am I extraordinary because I have never understood or felt the seduction of fanatacism? Possibly, but I doubt it.
Definition of "argument" from here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=argument
1. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
2. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
3. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
Why the silly semantics suave?
BTW I looove the rest of your post, yiu have a great tendancy to suggest people who dont share your religious or other views are somehow mentally abnormal!
Awesome!
:aok
-
Well since you have some geniune questions about the topic. People with temporal lobe epilepsy aren't mentally ill. But it was realised that one thing they all had in common was emotional regligiousity, peaking imidietly post siezure. We know that different parts of the brain are responsible for different things anger, maternal love etc. Anyway, they are able to reproduce emotional religious experiences in people who don't have TLE by tinkering with that particular part of the brain.
-
OK thats a good post thanks.
Now have you read my concernas about the math in your religion/crime statements? How couyld you answer that?
-
Originally posted by Suave
religion is the source of a great many of the evils that plague mankind.
Positions of power in organized churches have produced a great many evils, just as positions of power anywhere have. It is not the religion that is the source of evil, but the greed that is inherent in man.
-
Naaah lazerus, those atheist communists really got rid of all the evils caused by religion... Well thats not really true, some people surely still parcuted their faiths hiddein in their basements at night - I'm sure it was their actions that caused all the immoarity and evils of communist state gulags etc.
:D
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I sit in my chair in front of my computer and don't talk to anybody. That's antisocial.
I sit in my chair in front of my computer and upload child pornography to distribute throughout the world. That's immoral.
Exactly. Immorality and antisocialism do not equate.
I can identify myself as anything I want to, it does make that identification true.
It appears to me that you have a bigotry towards religion in general.
Of course, I could be wrong, but that's the impression that two pages of posts from you on this subject has left me with.
You might be thinking that antisocial means a person who is not very socially interactive. Antisocial means hostile and hurtfull to society. Distributing child porn is definitely antisocial.
I am not a bigot. My distaste for religion is based on logic and rational deduction. That is the opposite of prejudice.
-
Now grunherz wants people to believe that I think people who don't share my religious views are abnormal :rolleyes:
pathetic
-
Originally posted by Suave
I am not a bigot. My distaste for religion is based on logic and rational deduction. That is the opposite of prejudice.
Are you serious? Good lord that just crazy...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Naaah lazerus, those atheist communists really got rid of all the evils caused by religion... Well thats not really true, some people surely still parcuted their faiths hiddein in their basements at night - I'm sure it was their actions that caused all the immoarity and evils of communist state gulags etc.
:D
We agree, I consider stalinism a fanatacism. There was only room for one religion in USSR, and Lenin was it's prophet.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Now grunherz wants people to believe that I think people who don't share my religious views are abnormal :rolleyes:
pathetic
People can beliver whatever they want, I'm merely poiunt out a tendancy in your posts. You allready said that religius people are more criminal and antisocial on average. You are clearly trying to suggest that study of mentally ill people will lead to discovering the cause of religion in normal people. And then you all but called me crazy for arguing against your views...
You like dong that!
-
You're not arguing against my views. You're arguing against what you want my views to be.
-
Your views are explicit and clear, they are:
Religious people on average are more likely to be criminals and engage in anti social acts than non religious people.
You belive that religion is the cause of many of the worlds great problems.
You belive that study of abberant mentally ill or otherwise abnormaly functioning people may lead to finding the cause of religion in normal humans. (Some 90% of whom are religious.)
What else? Or am I lying again about your views?
But mostl now just I'm stunned by your statemt excusing your prejudice against religion... That kind of mindset is genaerlly quite troubling, though in retrospect, not surprising.
-
Originally posted by Suave
You might be thinking that antisocial means a person who is not very socially interactive. Antisocial means hostile and hurtfull to society. Distributing child porn is definitely antisocial.
an·ti·so·cial Audio pronunciation of "antisocial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-sshl, nt-)
adj.
1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.
The primary meaning of the word appears to fit my definition. The secondary meaning fits yours.
I am not a bigot. My distaste for religion is based on logic and rational deduction. That is the opposite of prejudice.
I understand where your logic and percieved rational deduction come from, and have spent many hours pondering the subject. If there was a definitive answer I would agree with you. Because there isn't, your position, as you have posted it to be, is bigoted.
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable.
-
GH dislike does not mean prejudiced.
Prejudice is a compound word, pre meaning before and judice meaning judicial, or judge. Meaning to pass judgement and draw an opinion based on irrationalities or emotional reaction, before having knowledge of the subject.
My opinion I have about religion has been formed by my understanding of religion and my unemotional analysis. Thus it is actually the opposite of a prejudiced.
I know that you allready understand this, even though you feign ignorance. But I'm writing it for the benefit of more sincere readers.
I believe that fanatacism, which includes religion has been a source of great suffering to mankind.
And yes I believe there appears to be physiology and a reason behind all social behavior patterns. Including subscription to fanatacism and religion.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I understand where your logic and percieved rational deduction come from, and have spent many hours pondering the subject. If there was a definitive answer I would agree with you. Because there isn't, your position, as you have posted it to be, is bigoted.
So by that line of reasoning, if I liked religion I would also be a bigot.
I also disagree that the second definition fitsme. I welcome questions of my religious views. Conversely when I question popular views I'm labeled a bigot. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by moot
I'd say it was just an efficient and fairly foolproof way for the species to survive. We don't need instincts anymore either.
Basta excess baggage.
LOL, you've never been saved by your instincts? you don't think the urge to get laid helps perpetuate the survival of the species? how long do you think a baby would survive it it wasn't for the instincts in the mother that cause her to find that noisy, filthy, demanding little beast cute?
our instincts are necessary, thats why God put them there.
-
Originally posted by Suave
So by that line of reasoning, if I liked religion I would also be a bigot.
:D
Only if you felt that you were unquestionably right and the beliefs of others were unreasonable.
I don't have a problem with your position on the validity of religion. The problem comes with your classification of those that believe differently than you do.
-
OK another good post, still I must disagree.
You dislike religion because you see data that religion is harmful or that religious people commit more crimes on average or whatver factual basis you have. You analyze that and broadly say I dislike religion.
This is no diffeerent, an no less wrong, than somebody saying they dislike black people because they see American murder statistics and conclude broadly that black people are bad.
Both are very broad categories to "dislike" and in both cases the person holding either of those preconceived biases will view their future interactions with religion or black people with that bias in mind. This is one of the common definitions of prejudice, coming into an interaction with a preconcieved idea about the other party. If total ignorance or lack of previous interaction were requirements of prejudice, racism or more broadly bigotry then no white southerner could ever be considered racist aginst blacks due to their centuries of very close contact, but we know this is certainly not the case.
So in all fairness, whether you like it or not, I must say that you are clearly prejudiced against religion.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I also disagree that the second definition fits me.
1: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
OK, so I'm trying to make a point too :D
Very rude. Intelligence is not a factor in being disposed to religiosity.
Face saving quote. Of course, recognition of the possibility of intelligence does not suppose tolerance.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
If total ignorance or lack of previous interaction were requirements of prejudice, racism or more broadly bigotry then no white southerner could ever be considered racist aginst blacks due to their centuries of very close contact,
The prejudice comes from judging the individual based on appearance, with no prior knowledge of that individuals character.
-
I'll show you how you're wrong. I could use the exact same arguments against you to show that you are prejudice dbecause you DONT dislike religion.
Basically you're saying I'm biggoted because I don't agree with a theory. I think it's wrong. I think religion is not the truth. It's a binary thing.
I also believe the world is round, all though I don't know that it is round. But my opinion is that it is. That doesn't make me a bigot.
Saying that all black people are bad because some are criminals is illogical. Therefore bigotry. Not an apt anology, but it does demonstrate that you do, as I have suspected, infact know what prejudice means.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
The prejudice comes from judging the individual based on appearance, with no prior knowledge of that individuals character.
Exactly. But if you come to the interection with the preconceived analysis that you "dislike" blacks then that will taint your interaction with that person and yiur analysis of them.
And that is my concern with Suave's dislike of religion and is why I have critioized his views and arguments and doubted motives as I have.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
OK, so I'm trying to make a point too :D
Very rude. Intelligence is not a factor in being disposed to religiosity.
Face saving quote. Of course, recognition of the possibility of intelligence does not suppose tolerance. [/B]
I don't like the term tolerance, it implies that one party is doing something wrong, something that would require the other party to use self restraint. But I know what you mean.
I have friends, family who are religious, many of them smarter than me. I think it's irrational, and I tell them so. And I pretty much leave it at that. I'm not going to change anybodies mind. And frankly it's really uncooth to belittle somebodies worldview.
-
I assume that you are replying to GH. If not, then I'll be happy to respond when you show me how I'm wrong.
-
.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Exactly. But if you come to the interection with the preconceived analysis that you "dislike" blacks then that will taint your interaction with that person and yiur analysis of them.
And that is my concern with Suave's dislike of religion and is why I have critioized his views and arguments and doubted motives as I have.
So would you say that you are prejudiced toward me because of my opinions about religion? Critisizing my views and all.
-
Originally posted by Suave
And frankly it's really uncooth to belittle somebodies worldview.
Would proposing that a persons world view was based on a chemical imbalance, when the theory is very controversial, be considered belittling?
-
Originally posted by Suave
I'll show you how you're wrong. I could use the exact same arguments against you to show that you are prejudice dbecause you DONT dislike religion.
Basically you're saying I'm biggoted because I don't agree with a theory. I think it's wrong. I think religion is not the truth. It's a binary thing.
I also believe the world is round, all though I don't know that it is round. But my opinion is that it is. That doesn't make me a bigot.
Saying that all black people are bad because some are criminals is illogical. Therefore bigotry. Not an apt anology, but it does demonstrate that you do, as I have suspected, infact know what prejudice means.
You broadly say that religion is bad.
What do you base this on? Is it the action of a majority of religious people?
You say that boraly "religion" is bad because of some bad aspects of religion.
Religion as a broad concept is no different certain bad aspects or religiuous practice or thought than the broad black race is to certain blacks who may commit crimes.
Also let me ask you this, do you automatically forget your stated thourougly analyzed dislike of religion when you come accros religios topics?
I doubt it...
-
No I don't think bringing attention to an article about research of the part of the brain attributed with religion is belittling.
I found it very interesting. I find any theorys about the origins of religion interesting. As long as the theorys don't involve a god using magic.
-
Originally posted by Suave
So would you say that you are prejudiced toward me because of my opinions about religion? Critisizing my views and all.
Thats an intersting argument to look at.
Knowledge of your specific statements and attitudes towards religion definitely influenmced my responses to you in this thread on the same subject. You as a specific individual.
If I took my experiences with you and broadly generalized your views and turned them against all non religious people that would be wrong. But I didnt do that.
For example, I merely stated that I saw you steal an apple.
I did not say that all "Suavians" ;) are apple thives and thus I dont like them because I saw you take one.
In some way you do that by saying that you broadly "dislike" religion. Thats your prejudice.
-
Originally posted by Suave
No I don't think bringing attention to an article about research of the part of the brain attributed with religion is belittling.
I found it very interesting. I find any theorys about the origins of religion interesting. As long as the theorys don't involve a god using magic.
Origins of religion? Are you denying then any validity to the claimed historical basis for some of the world's religions? Are you saying that it was epilepsy that caused Moses to imagine he talked with the burning bush? Or that Jesus raising the dead is a lie? Maybe you're just comfortable dealing with the abstract?
-
Suave how can you say that you are not an atheist when you say in that quote that you refuse to consider "god magic" as a source of religions?
If you dont consider a god as source of religion arent you clearly saying that all god religions are false, and this that their gods or other higher or othrewise sacred powers do not exist. Thus are you not an atheist?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Suave,
Your statements have called your motives into question. You have no one to blame but yourself...
"Religion is of course the abandonment of rationality. The reason to fear fanaticism, which is what religion is, is that most of the world's suffering can be traced back to it."
These statements can be interpreted as either inflammatory or subjective.
I don't think it's subjective, religion, like love, requires a leap of faith, a type of blind devotion. And any attempt to explain religion using reason will fail, religion is beyond reason. You've seen people go 'round and 'round about this and ultimately allways comes back down to one thing. Faith. Usually faith in majic. Fanaticism is a devotion without regard to rational reasoning.
Inflammatory? Well that depends on the objectivity of the reader, and I have no control over that.
-
Originally posted by Suave
No I don't think bringing attention to an article about research of the part of the brain attributed with religion is belittling.
That's the problem. It's about a part of the brain that is theorized to have a link to a physiological disorder that the obviously biased author links to religion as an institution, not as the cause for the subjects fanatical attachment to an ideal. The study is fundamentaly flawed. Your dissemination of this study, with no critique, leads to the logical conclusion that you believe that the information is correct and that you hold true that those that believe various religious ideals are inherently suffering from a physiological disorder. Therefore, you are pre-disposed to judge those that claim any religion as mentally flawed.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Inflammatory? Well that depends on the objectivity of the reader, and I have no control over that.
Thats rather arrogant - isnt it - beliveing that people who disagree with your views or are offended by them are automatically unobjective or perhaps unresonable?
Thats not a particularly open minded or respecttful approach to dissenting views...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Origins of religion? Are you denying then any validity to the claimed historical basis for some of the world's religions? Are you saying that it was epilepsy that caused Moses to imagine he talked with the burning bush? Or that Jesus raising the dead is a lie? Maybe you're just comfortable dealing with the abstract?
Yes I think it is a lie, a myth, not dissimilar from greek mythology, in fact in some ways it is very similar. I don't believe in magic. No I'm not saying it was epilepsy that caused Moses to talk to the bush, lol.
If I had to label myself, I'd say I was the same as our founding fathers, a diest, a naturalist and a humanist. Life is a gift, I can't believe that there is no reason for the existance of existance.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I can't believe that there is no reason for the existance of existance.
Why not?
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
That's the problem. It's about a part of the brain that is theorized to have a link to a physiological disorder that the obviously biased author links to religion as an institution, not as the cause for the subjects fanatical attachment to an ideal. The study is fundamentaly flawed. Your dissemination of this study, with no critique, leads to the logical conclusion that you believe that the information is correct and that you hold true that those that believe various religious ideals are inherently suffering from a physiological disorder. Therefore, you are pre-disposed to judge those that claim any religion as mentally flawed.
I'm not sure you noticed but that article is from an editorial and is not written by an MD.
I wouldn't call it mentally flawed, I would call it a personality flaw. Like Jessie Ventura said. If I had to chose a foxhole buddy a religious guy wouldn't be my first choice. It's not that I question his integrity or honor, I would just feel uneasy about relying on a guy who uses shamanism and belief in majic as a coping mechanism. Ever notice some people describe any opinion voiced that they don't agree with as offensive.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I wouldn't call it mentally flawed
I didn't. I called it fundamentally flawed.
The rest of your post is just someone elses feelings on the subject and does nothing to answer anything in my last post.
I would just feel uneasy about relying on a guy who uses shamanism and belief in majic as a coping mechanism.
I think I'm done after that one. Keep an eye out for the warning track out there in left field.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I wouldn't call it mentally flawed, I would call it a personality flaw.
Phew, thanks for clearing that up Suave. All this time I thought you belived that religious people (90% of the worlds pouplation) were suffering from a mental disorder. How wrong I was, now I know you only think they only suffer from mere a personality disorder...
Originally posted by Suave
I would just feel uneasy about relying on a guy who uses shamanism and belief in majic as a coping mechanism.
And that one pretty much clears up any confusion regarding your broad overwhelming prejudicial attitudes towards individuals of faith...
You know, if you hadnt cleared all that up I might have left this thread thinking you were an arrogant, elitist, bigoted, prejudiced and all around smug superior type of person...
In the end it seems the individual with the big personality flaw is you, you and your cold arrogance in broadly consigning whole swathes of the human race into some sort of inferior flawed status..
-
You may want to check the facts about your statement that 90% of the world is religious, GRUNHERZ. There are more secular/agnostics/atheists than those who believe in Islam (with over a billion followers), for example.
Buddhism, confucianism and many others are philosophies without the encumbrances of a 'religion.'
-
Yea I'm not sure about that number, 90% is just one figure I heard a few years ago. But whatver it is, it's an overwhelming majority of all humans and I think its arrogant of Suva to dismiss them all as having personality defects just because they have faith.
As for buddhism I have heard it from buddhists that even some of them worship buddha as god. Still even "god" is not neccesrary for a religion so i'll more easily consider buddhism a religion. From what I know about confuconism I guess thsat one is more debatable as to whether its a philosophy or a religion.
-
The fact that 90% of world population are members of a religious groups doesn't make them religious. I used to be a member too, and the rest of my family still is. I would never characterize myself or any of them religious.
-
there is no religion that tells to place bombs or kill eachother for it.
Its just the stupid people who make it like that.
I work every day with muslims and christians. They are just people like u and me.
I´m not a believer but everybody should have his freedom to do so.
I think as long as i follow my heart nothin is wrong.
-
Suave, perhaps you're misinterpreting the data from the experiments.
The experiments with TLE suggest there is neurological reason why religion has been a huge influence throughout human history. It proves there is a "God center" of the brain. No one would attempt to explain why that part of the brain exists.
It would be just as abnormal to be a true atheist as to have have overactive religious delusions, as being a true atheist shows that portion of the brain (responsible for some of the most primitive brain functions) is not functioning as it does in most humans.
Pointing only to the overactive "God center" and ignoring the inactive "God center" suggests preconceptions of the value of religion.
As I've stated in an earlier post, the way the data was used in the text you quoted, is junk science. The data only proves there is such a center in the brain, and in no way suggests its value or that some pill should be created to fix it. There is an assumption in the text that less is better, but that is not suggested by the data. Hence it deviates from science and is basicaly, crap.
-
Originally posted by mora
The fact that 90% of world population are members of a religious groups doesn't make them religious. I used to be a member too, and the rest of my family still is. I would never characterize myself or any of them religious.
I don't mean to derail the main argument here but I gotta ask-
why would you be a member of a group if you don't believe in the core values of that group? especially when it's a group who's whole existence is based on those values.
I've known a lot of others who didn't really seem to believe but still attended or were members of a church. but I've never met anyone who actually admitted they were that person.
-
In here people are mostly members beause of tradition. Also the fact that church and state are not separated plays a part. Most people I know are members of the church, but I don't know anyone who goes there(or admits it). It appears to be easy for people to admit they are members but don't believe(I find this strange). OTOH I know people who believe but don't attend, possibly because they are afraid of the stigma.