Faith is a mental defect...

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Faith is a mental defect...

Faith is a mental defect made into a virtue by those with an agenda to fleece the gullible. Faith isn't sloppy reasoning, it's no reasoning at all by simple definition. There is a lot of equivocation about the word, other than 'spirit' I can think of no other word more horribly abused from a semantic standpoint. Faith is belief without evidence. If you have evidence, you don't have faith you have a reasoned belief. How hard is that to grasp?
Yet, there are those that claim faith is a good thing, that believing without any real evidence makes you somehow more moral than those of us who rely on the mundane notions of facts and proofs...
If your god loves you better because you are basically a moron, what does that say about your god?

I'm waiting for the storm of half witted equivocation...

LC  >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10525
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Maybe you scared them. > >

Maybe you scared them. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Faith to me is not as much a

Faith to me is not as much a mental defect as much as it is a flaw in our evolution. We seek patterns but in evolution we tend to default to guesses first rather than test to insure quality of data.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Don't know if this is a cool idea or stupid -

Maybe both.  Anyway, here goes..

 

If you walked into a psychiatrist and said you had an imaginary friend you talk to every day.  Who gave you things and answered your questions.  Who gave you a reason for living.  First, they would reach for the prescription pad and ask what color pills you would like.  Then, they would start talking about reintegrating you with reality.

What else is faith and religion but your delusion of an imaginary friend?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I am so glad to

 I am so glad to have Louis Cypher posting here.  Just wanted to say that.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Faith to me is

Brian37 wrote:

Faith to me is not as much a mental defect as much as it is a flaw in our evolution. We seek patterns but in evolution we tend to default to guesses first rather than test to insure quality of data.

 

 

 

Bingo


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Maybe both. 

cj wrote:

Maybe both.  Anyway, here goes..

 

If you walked into a psychiatrist and said you had an imaginary friend you talk to every day.  Who gave you things and answered your questions.  Who gave you a reason for living.  First, they would reach for the prescription pad and ask what color pills you would like.  Then, they would start talking about reintegrating you with reality.

What else is faith and religion but your delusion of an imaginary friend?

 

True, but I'd like to think humanity..............are we that screwed? Uggggg.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10525
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Technically, a mental defect

Technically, a mental defect would be a flaw in evolution, if evolution can be said to have flaws.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Technically, a

Vastet wrote:
Technically, a mental defect would be a flaw in evolution, if evolution can be said to have flaws.

The theory does not have any fatal  flaws as an applied science. But reality in this context evolution is not a utopia seeking perfection.

If evolution operated like religion we'd all be kissing a god's ass, pick one.

Evolution is merely about reaching reproduction. Sometimes luck and stupidity in this reality gets life to the point of reproduction.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
I cannot see faith as a bad

I cannot see faith as a bad thing. Sure it can be, but it is also 100% necessary to normal human functioning. There are appropriate times to have faith and there are inapropriate times. Believing in god for me would be an inappropriate time. When a beggar is begging for money to feed his family, you have no evidence that money is not going to drugs and such things, yet I believe it is right to have faith that the man will use the money to feed his family and give him what you can spare, I believe others will do the right thing even though I have no proof they will. Yes it is better to rely on proof  but that is not always avaliable to us so we use faith. I don't see that as a defect we couldn't function as normal humans without it. Yeah it has loop holes and people can exploit and take advantage of others but thats not all it is. Could you really have proper relasionship with any human without faith? There are just appropriate times and inapropriate times.

 

On a different level, defect means a deviation from what something is meant to be, what are your standards for saying humans are meant to not have faith? Were we created  and the creator intended something different? Is faith a diviation from a norm or are you saying it would be better if humans did not rely on faith? Because if you are saying it would be better.. then that is not a defect, thats just not being perfect.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Faith in faith

Believing without evidence... no reason to believe...believing in anything just because it 'feels' good, by any standard is defective reasoning. I'm not back peddling on this one, I  strongly believe that the enemy is faith itself. That the human species NEEDS to grow past dependence on blind faith.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Technically, a

Vastet wrote:
Technically, a mental defect would be a flaw in evolution, if evolution can be said to have flaws.

 

That is the entire point of the argument against creationism!  Evolution is chock full of flaws and inefficiencies.  There is no perfection any where in our natural world.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Believing without evidence... no reason to believe...believing in anything just because it 'feels' good, by any standard is defective reasoning. I'm not back peddling on this one, I  strongly believe that the enemy is faith itself. That the human species NEEDS to grow past dependence on blind faith.

LC >;-}>

 

Well -- maybe -- sometimes.

For example, when I read that some one found the oldest evidence of stone tools, I take it on faith.  I do not go research the literature for myself.  I do not reproduce all the the experimentation that lead scientists to the ability to determine stone tool use as opposed to predator's teeth.  Or the research that lead to Ar-Ar dating.  Or thermoluminescence.  Or any other of the fancier dating techniques.  It is enough for me to know it is in peer reviewed literature.

We can not examine each little piece of evidence for ourselves.  Some of it, we have to take on ---- faith.

There just isn't enough time in anyone's life time to do that amount of experimentation over.  We collectively know too much. 

I do agree that claims that appear to go against the body of scientific knowledge need to be torn apart ruthlessly.  If not by me personally, then by an expert in the disputed field.  And when the claims are refuted - as religion, as many conspiracy theories, as many "paranormal" or "supernatural" claims are - then taking them on faith is a fool's position.  And delusional.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I cannot see

Tapey wrote:

I cannot see faith as a bad thing. Sure it can be, but it is also 100% necessary to normal human functioning. There are appropriate times to have faith and there are inapropriate times. Believing in god for me would be an inappropriate time. When a beggar is begging for money to feed his family, you have no evidence that money is not going to drugs and such things, yet I believe it is right to have faith that the man will use the money to feed his family and give him what you can spare, I believe others will do the right thing even though I have no proof they will. Yes it is better to rely on proof  but that is not always avaliable to us so we use faith. I don't see that as a defect we couldn't function as normal humans without it. Yeah it has loop holes and people can exploit and take advantage of others but thats not all it is. Could you really have proper relasionship with any human without faith? There are just appropriate times and inapropriate times.

 

On a different level, defect means a deviation from what something is meant to be, what are your standards for saying humans are meant to not have faith? Were we created  and the creator intended something different? Is faith a diviation from a norm or are you saying it would be better if humans did not rely on faith? Because if you are saying it would be better.. then that is not a defect, thats just not being perfect.

It is only good as an evolutionary placebo. Much like the Egyptians were successful for 3.000 years centering their success around the false belief that the sun was a god. That placebo while having that positive affect of getting them to the point of reproduction, had the horrible side affect of keeping them ignorant about what the sun actually was.

If faith were treated like a mere pass time like a sport or fictional movie, it would be far more harmless. But since it infects global politics and education, whatever good it tangentially does comes at the cost of maintaining ignorance AND maintains human division.

Now again, to the theists reading this "ignorance" merely means lack of information or hanging on to bad information.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It does not require 'faith'

It does not require 'faith' to justify giving to a beggar without proof they really are in need and will benefit from what you give them.

First, using the term 'proof' is a strawman extreme term, as wrong as when Theists say we can't prove God doesn't exist.

All we need is knowledge that such needy people really do exist, and there is a good chance that your donation will help someone in genuine need, and the occasionally case where that isn't true is not enough to stop you giving. 

No 'faith' required, certainly not in the way the word is used in a religious context.

Everyday usage is more to express a strong trust in someone, where you do not have adequate evidentiary reason to justify it. Usually though, there will be some general reasons to support such trust as a good default position to adopt, such as to help encourage a generally positive attitude to others in society. To some degree, positive actions encourage positive responses and attitudes.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Just sayin'

Quote:

For example, when I read that some one found the oldest evidence of stone tools, I take it on faith.  I do not go research the literature for myself.  I do not reproduce all the the experimentation that lead scientists to the ability to determine stone tool use as opposed to predator's teeth.  Or the research that lead to Ar-Ar dating.  Or thermoluminescence.  Or any other of the fancier dating techniques.  It is enough for me to know it is in peer reviewed literature.

We can not examine each little piece of evidence for ourselves.  Some of it, we have to take on ---- faith.

 

I agree... but then, I'm not basing my world view on some interesting trivia, whether I accept it or not is of no consequence.
I read an article this morning that assured me that 'scientists' had found Noah's Ark (yes, again) on Mt Ararat... I just don't buy it...

My point is that I'm not going to vote for someone based on my 'faith' in some trivial bit of knowledge. I'm not going to send my kids to war, or call for someone's beheading because of some flint tools...

Not the kind of 'faith' I was talking about...

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Believing

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Believing without evidence... no reason to believe...believing in anything just because it 'feels' good, by any standard is defective reasoning. I'm not back peddling on this one, I  strongly believe that the enemy is faith itself. That the human species NEEDS to grow past dependence on blind faith.

LC >;-}>

Most decisions are based on imperfect knowledge or incomplete information.  Those types of decisions are all based on some sort of "faith".  "Faith", in the pure sense, is essential to human existence on a day to day basis.  I think this is something Brian37 points out on a regular basis -- we have evolved in a way that we can handle gaps in what we "know".

Where faith becomes more of a mental defect is where unquestioned mythology begins to surround "faith" and turns it into "religion".  If you look at the evolution of our knowledge about the solar system, it started out fairly simply -- the earth is in the middle, everything else goes around it.  But when observations started to make that model less workable, all manner of new explanations were piled on top, and Ptolemy's system involved spheres inside spheres and all manner of "adjustments", all of which were bundled around the mythology that the earth was at the center of the universe.  The same exists within Christianity where various discrepancies between Jewish Law and Christian doctrine needed to be glossed over, followed by a number of failed Christian prophecies needed to be re-arranged, followed by the whole-clothe invention of the divinity of Jesus, and so on.  THAT is "Religion".

The Classical Deist knows only that G-d exists, and nothing more -- there is no creed, no sacred texts, only what they perceive as the self-evident fact that G-d exists.  With the singular exception of "G-d exists", the Atheist and the Deist are closest in beliefs.  Since the proof of G-d's existence or non-existence is outside the abilities of Science, either position requires about the same amount of "Faith".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Most decisions are

Quote:
Most decisions are based on imperfect knowledge or incomplete information.

When you are in a lab, and when you have blind control groups. When you have your findings kicked around and verified by people with no horse in the race, you have a higher degree of keeping those imperfections from fucking up your data.

God claims and religion are not claims studied in labs they are naked assertions in the form of wishful thinking. That way of thought process is a mental tsunami asking for disaster to happen. God claims and religion are imperfection on steroids.

With scientific method you have a quality control filter that should be used properly to minimize bias and imperfections. God claims and religion do not require that high standard.

The Jewish god and the Muslim god and the Hindu god and Apollo and the Egyptian gods ARE NOT tools of logic, they are the irrational imaginations of humans as a placebo gap filler.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: we have evolved in a

Quote:
we have evolved in a way that we can handle gaps in what we "know".

No shit. Which is why we no longer believe the earth to be flat. Now since you know when your holy book was written and you know they did not have the modern scientific tools to know what they guessed at, then that gap that was once filled with your god, should rightfully be discarded because it was a bad guess. Clinging to it is an act of desperation out of the fear of loss of a fictional security blanket.

Sticking in an old myth we know is bunk does not help us fill in those gaps we have yet to fill. Otherwise we can stick in any naked assertion we want when we hit a gap.

"Little green men put us here"

"A pink unicorn put us here"

" The flying spaghetti monster put us here"

"Thor makes lightening"

"I can fart a Lamgorhini out of my ass"

All because we don't know what happened before the big bang. Those would make as much sense since we don't know and "anything goes" because we don't know.

A WHAT is what is going on in the universe. Anon cognitive what. A "who" is not needed to explain the cause of what we don't know. And since consciousness does not happen outside evolution, your god claim is bunk like all the rest in human history.

The processes that lead to the big bang were not shaped like a human brain, and did not function like a human brain and considering the entire mass of the universe was in a space smaller than a human brain there is no room for ANY kind of consciousness to fit in as even a natural cause.

You merely like the idea of a super hero protecting you. It is a flaw in evolution that causes you to fill in the gap with human like qualities. It is nothing more than mentally, like a moth, mistaking the light bulb for the moonlight. (Dawkins moth)

NO amount of modern science is going to prop up an old myth, not yours, not any.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"I can fart a

Brian37 wrote:
"I can fart a Lamgorhini out of my ass"

DO NOT tease me that way.

The last time I was single, and had more dollars than sense, I came =this= close to buying a Ferrari.  If you could fart a Lamborghini, you would be my bestest friend EVER!

But back to the Scientific Method.

Using the Scientific Method, and laboratory control groups, please prove that dog people are all a bunch of idiots and that cat people truly =do= rule the world.

That or just prove that you love your mother.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Observation.

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
"I can fart a Lamgorhini out of my ass"

DO NOT tease me that way.

The last time I was single, and had more dollars than sense, I came =this= close to buying a Ferrari.  If you could fart a Lamborghini, you would be my bestest friend EVER!

But back to the Scientific Method.

Using the Scientific Method, and laboratory control groups, please prove that dog people are all a bunch of idiots and that cat people truly =do= rule the world.

That or just prove that you love your mother.

I'd say your expectation that the Scientific Method can be used to prove a desired result, rather than to look for the truth, amply displays how little you understand it.

Perhaps a benefit analysis would be more in order, showing the benefit for human/animal relationships... what does the human get from the relationship and what does the animal get. You could quantify it that way.

In the second case, one would have to analyze 'love' from all rational standpoints, as an interpretation of chemical stimuli in the brain, a psychological phenomena, establish markers to show when the state interpreted as love occurs and apply it to the mother child relationship.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
"I can fart a Lamgorhini out of my ass"

DO NOT tease me that way.

The last time I was single, and had more dollars than sense, I came =this= close to buying a Ferrari.  If you could fart a Lamborghini, you would be my bestest friend EVER!

But back to the Scientific Method.

Using the Scientific Method, and laboratory control groups, please prove that dog people are all a bunch of idiots and that cat people truly =do= rule the world.

That or just prove that you love your mother.

I'd say your expectation that the Scientific Method can be used to prove a desired result, rather than to look for the truth, amply displays how little you understand it.

Perhaps a benefit analysis would be more in order, showing the benefit for human/animal relationships... what does the human get from the relationship and what does the animal get. You could quantify it that way.

In the second case, one would have to analyze 'love' from all rational standpoints, as an interpretation of chemical stimuli in the brain, a psychological phenomena, establish markers to show when the state interpreted as love occurs and apply it to the mother child relationship.

LC >;-}>

 

Believers far to often treat abstractions, since they are not material things, as a reason to jump the gap to fictional super heros.

1+1=2 are a language, not physical things. But when we take 1 object and add it to another, we get 2 objects, which is observable. The word "love" is merely an abstract word that describes our observations of real events which we can observe.

"Love" also can be many different types of things too. Love of a sport. Love of a pet. Love of a friend. Love of a food. Love of a spouse or kid. But "love" as an abstraction is still observable and is still ultimately an observable action that results merely from evolution and brain activity due to stimuli.

Just like 1+1=2 can be 1 orange + 1 orange = 2 oranges. Or 1 apple + 1 banana = 2 fruits, or 1 cow + 1 hammer = 2 items.

Just like thoughts are not things, but a result of material processes.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FCH wrote:The Classical

FCH wrote:

The Classical Deist knows only that G-d exists, and nothing more 

Wrong. The Classical Deist believes only that G-d exists.

IOW, knows nothing.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I'd say

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'd say your expectation that the Scientific Method can be used to prove a desired result, rather than to look for the truth, amply displays how little you understand it.

I don't believe the Scientific Method can be used for anything of the sort.  That so many here try to use the Scientific Method to provide their religious claims isn't my problem -- but I do enjoy asking people to prove they love their Mother using the Scientific Method!


 

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'd say your expectation that the Scientific Method can be used to prove a desired result, rather than to look for the truth, amply displays how little you understand it.

I don't believe the Scientific Method can be used for anything of the sort.  That so many here try to use the Scientific Method to provide their religious claims isn't my problem -- but I do enjoy asking people to prove they love their Mother using the Scientific Method!

 

 

Why? It's a pointless question and as I alluded, it 'could' be answered with the proper methodology and groundwork...

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'd say your expectation that the Scientific Method can be used to prove a desired result, rather than to look for the truth, amply displays how little you understand it.

I don't believe the Scientific Method can be used for anything of the sort.  That so many here try to use the Scientific Method to provide their religious claims isn't my problem -- but I do enjoy asking people to prove they love their Mother using the Scientific Method!

Why? It's a pointless question and as I alluded, it 'could' be answered with the proper methodology and groundwork...

Do you =seriously= believe that your "proper methodology and groundwork" could =actually= work?  Because there is a difference between could and 'could'.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Yes

Quote:
Do you =seriously= believe that your "proper methodology and groundwork" could =actually= work?  Because there is a difference between could and 'could'.

 

Brain scan, photo array of similar women one happens to be your mother, note which picture makes the 'pleasure' center's light up.
This isn't new, nor is it exactly rocket science... Remember, you simply asked how it could be done, I have given you a sound idea... you don't have to like it.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Quote:Do

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Do you =seriously= believe that your "proper methodology and groundwork" could =actually= work?  Because there is a difference between could and 'could'.

Brain scan, photo array of similar women one happens to be your mother, note which picture makes the 'pleasure' center's light up.
This isn't new, nor is it exactly rocket science... Remember, you simply asked how it could be done, I have given you a sound idea... you don't have to like it.

You do (no, you actually don't, but I have to pretend you do because you obviously don't ...) understand that such things have very serious limitations?  For starters, I only have one mother.  And being a big scarey lesbian doesn't help -- maybe, for all you know, I have some kind of weird sexual thing going on for her (she wasn't my type -- I like women who are more like teenaged boys than Angelina Jolie (Hi, Brian!!!))?  Or maybe my brain isn't wired like the rest of the people?  Or your "controls" are lying, so you can't actually tell what "maternal love" even looks like?

Functional MRIs, PET and other such scans are NOT magic.  But it sure is fun to pretend they are!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Do you =seriously= believe that your "proper methodology and groundwork" could =actually= work?  Because there is a difference between could and 'could'.

Brain scan, photo array of similar women one happens to be your mother, note which picture makes the 'pleasure' center's light up.
This isn't new, nor is it exactly rocket science... Remember, you simply asked how it could be done, I have given you a sound idea... you don't have to like it.

You do (no, you actually don't, but I have to pretend you do because you obviously don't ...) understand that such things have very serious limitations?  For starters, I only have one mother.  And being a big scarey lesbian doesn't help -- maybe, for all you know, I have some kind of weird sexual thing going on for her (she wasn't my type -- I like women who are more like teenaged boys than Angelina Jolie (Hi, Brian!!!))?  Or maybe my brain isn't wired like the rest of the people?  Or your "controls" are lying, so you can't actually tell what "maternal love" even looks like?

Functional MRIs, PET and other such scans are NOT magic.  But it sure is fun to pretend they are!

 

For pity's sake -- love doesn't need to be pleasant to be love.  In fact, love often isn't pleasant as you do or say things you would rather not, just because of your feelings of connectedness with and concern and caring for that person. 

There are other ways to determine feelings as well as fMRI, etc.  Blood levels of hormones, significant actions (see above statement), and so on.  All of which can be quantified.  Does this demean, devalue, dehumanize the feeling?   I don't think so.  As I once stated and I still feel - if my husband started talking about how his serotonin and dopamine levels rise in my presence, I'd probably jump his bones on the spot. 

As for bad scary lesbian, give me a break.  My mother was emotionally abusive.  To the point I don't trust other women and have darn few women friends.  Yet I was there every weekend while mother was in the nursing home - a 3 hour drive from my home.  Her death was a release from constant pain.  And I am relieved I don't have to make the drive, that she isn't in pain anymore, that she is dead and I don't have to listen to her constant criticisms anymore.  Her picture would trigger those chemical responses - and I would still feel love for her.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Quote:
Do you =seriously= believe that your "proper methodology and groundwork" could =actually= work?  Because there is a difference between could and 'could'.

Brain scan, photo array of similar women one happens to be your mother, note which picture makes the 'pleasure' center's light up.
This isn't new, nor is it exactly rocket science... Remember, you simply asked how it could be done, I have given you a sound idea... you don't have to like it.

You do (no, you actually don't, but I have to pretend you do because you obviously don't ...) understand that such things have very serious limitations?  For starters, I only have one mother.  And being a big scarey lesbian doesn't help -- maybe, for all you know, I have some kind of weird sexual thing going on for her (she wasn't my type -- I like women who are more like teenaged boys than Angelina Jolie (Hi, Brian!!!))?  Or maybe my brain isn't wired like the rest of the people?  Or your "controls" are lying, so you can't actually tell what "maternal love" even looks like?

Functional MRIs, PET and other such scans are NOT magic.  But it sure is fun to pretend they are!

 

I understand you have a neurotic compulsion to be 'right' no matter how much you have to shift the goalposts to accomplish it. Cool.  Being a 'big scary lesbian' doesn't impress me much. I've been married three times, all to bisexual women. Further, I didn't love my mother, she was an abusive alcoholic who dumped me as a baby on my grandmother. She called me the night she died, I was polite, but I didn't go to her funeral. Thus, I wouldn't be a good test subject, although one could argue I'd be a prime candidate for the control group.
However, you originally set a simple challenge, that one could not show love for a mother by science. I demonstrated a method by which one could. And no matter how much of a little girly tantrum you throw, I still succeeded.

Have a nice day.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I understand you have a neurotic compulsion to be 'right' no matter how much you have to shift the goalposts to accomplish it. Cool.  Being a 'big scary lesbian' doesn't impress me much. I've been married three times, all to bisexual women. Further, I didn't love my mother, she was an abusive alcoholic who dumped me as a baby on my grandmother. She called me the night she died, I was polite, but I didn't go to her funeral. Thus, I wouldn't be a good test subject, although one could argue I'd be a prime candidate for the control group.


However, you originally set a simple challenge, that one could not show love for a mother by science. I demonstrated a method by which one could. And no matter how much of a little girly tantrum you throw, I still succeeded.

No, I didn't set a 'simple challenge'.  I set one that I knew was impossible because specific emotions, with very few exceptions (fear being one) cannot be measured scientifically.

Science has limitations and too many of you treat it like it's magic.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I understand you have a neurotic compulsion to be 'right' no matter how much you have to shift the goalposts to accomplish it. Cool.  Being a 'big scary lesbian' doesn't impress me much. I've been married three times, all to bisexual women. Further, I didn't love my mother, she was an abusive alcoholic who dumped me as a baby on my grandmother. She called me the night she died, I was polite, but I didn't go to her funeral. Thus, I wouldn't be a good test subject, although one could argue I'd be a prime candidate for the control group.

 

However, you originally set a simple challenge, that one could not show love for a mother by science. I demonstrated a method by which one could. And no matter how much of a little girly tantrum you throw, I still succeeded.

No, I didn't set a 'simple challenge'.  I set one that I knew was impossible because specific emotions, with very few exceptions (fear being one) cannot be measured scientifically.

Science has limitations and too many of you treat it like it's magic.

Don't those goal posts get heavy after a while?

You didn't say a god damned thing about MEASURING emotions. You said that one couldn't show that one loved ones mother.
I'm saying that one can show emotional response that co-relates with love. I described (crudely, but it's a chat forum, not a peer reviewed journal) how it could be done. You really do have control issues, perhaps you should get that checked?

I don't think science is magic, but I don't think that you should be talking out your ass either, leave that to Baalum.

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I cannot see

Tapey wrote:

I cannot see faith as a bad thing. Sure it can be, but it is also 100% necessary to normal human functioning. There are appropriate times to have faith and there are inapropriate times. Believing in god for me would be an inappropriate time. When a beggar is begging for money to feed his family, you have no evidence that money is not going to drugs and such things, yet I believe it is right to have faith that the man will use the money to feed his family and give him what you can spare, I believe others will do the right thing even though I have no proof they will. Yes it is better to rely on proof  but that is not always avaliable to us so we use faith. I don't see that as a defect we couldn't function as normal humans without it. Yeah it has loop holes and people can exploit and take advantage of others but thats not all it is. Could you really have proper relasionship with any human without faith? There are just appropriate times and inapropriate times.

 

On a different level, defect means a deviation from what something is meant to be, what are your standards for saying humans are meant to not have faith? Were we created  and the creator intended something different? Is faith a diviation from a norm or are you saying it would be better if humans did not rely on faith? Because if you are saying it would be better.. then that is not a defect, thats just not being perfect.

You are talking about trust, even expectation, but not faith. You are trusting this person with your money, your gut meeting the person builds some kind of trust.

Faith is on a different level. Faith is turning your life and will over to someone. Faith is unquestioning allegiance. It is total commitment regardless of what you are asked. Think of Abraham willing to slice his son Isaac's throat for God.  You will bend all evidence to fit whatever this God tells you. You will reject anything contrary to what this God has told you. You will become intellectually dishonest, the whole cognitive dissonance thing. Because you fear or love this God you will double your efforts whenever you doubt. It is a psychological defect.

Faith will cause you to fly a plane into a building. Trust will not.

Trust but verify. I will not violate my conscience to honor anyone or to prove my love for them.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5093
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Given our

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I'd say your expectation that the Scientific Method can be used to prove a desired result, rather than to look for the truth, amply displays how little you understand it.

I don't believe the Scientific Method can be used for anything of the sort.  That so many here try to use the Scientific Method to provide their religious claims isn't my problem -- but I do enjoy asking people to prove they love their Mother using the Scientific Method!

 

 

 

serious study of neuroscience is only a couple of decades old, this has to be an appeal to complexity. Love is definitely a product of the human brain and body. It's never been observed floating around outside living organisms. I agree with cj that breaking feelings down to their chemical constituents doesn't devalue the feelings themselves. And those feelings change shape with age, too. The feelings of young brains are far more intense than for grownups. Once upon a time just being in a room with a particular some one used to do my head in. These days I'm largely oblivious. Perhaps the feelings are more mental now. In any case, there's clearly not a consistent objective standard for human feelings. If such feelings were external I'd expect them to retain their consistency. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And yet another good point I

And yet another good point I think atheists don't make enough.

Knowing how something works and taking the "mystery" out of it is horrible argument for the believer to make. It is precisely because we find answers we find solutions.

It is that needless fear theists have that you are taking the "magic" out of life. Yes we are but that doesn't mean our "sense of awe" will go away, it just means we don't assign it to magic and superstition.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I understand you have a neurotic compulsion to be 'right' no matter how much you have to shift the goalposts to accomplish it. Cool.  Being a 'big scary lesbian' doesn't impress me much. I've been married three times, all to bisexual women. Further, I didn't love my mother, she was an abusive alcoholic who dumped me as a baby on my grandmother. She called me the night she died, I was polite, but I didn't go to her funeral. Thus, I wouldn't be a good test subject, although one could argue I'd be a prime candidate for the control group.

However, you originally set a simple challenge, that one could not show love for a mother by science. I demonstrated a method by which one could. And no matter how much of a little girly tantrum you throw, I still succeeded.

No, I didn't set a 'simple challenge'.  I set one that I knew was impossible because specific emotions, with very few exceptions (fear being one) cannot be measured scientifically.

Science has limitations and too many of you treat it like it's magic.

Don't those goal posts get heavy after a while?

You didn't say a god damned thing about MEASURING emotions. You said that one couldn't show that one loved ones mother.
I'm saying that one can show emotional response that co-relates with love. I described (crudely, but it's a chat forum, not a peer reviewed journal) how it could be done. You really do have control issues, perhaps you should get that checked?

I don't think science is magic, but I don't think that you should be talking out your ass either, leave that to Baalum.

 

I'd have to go back and check the original post, but I believe the language was one of requiring =proof= that you loved your mother.  That word "proof" has a pretty high standard in the physical sciences, and what you've proposed is, at best, an educated guess.  Which isn't a "proof".

Now, if I didn't use the word "prove" or "proof" or anything else along the lines of "to prove", I sincerely apologize.  I've presented this challenge countless times and I may have gotten careless.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The theory of a

Quote:
The theory of a biological basis of love has been explored by such biological sciences as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience. Specific chemical substances such as oxytocin are studied in the context of their roles in producing human experiences and behaviors that are associated with love.

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.

Brain scanning techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging have been used to investigate brain regions that seem to be involved in producing the human experience of love.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Quote:The

Watcher wrote:

Quote:
The theory of a biological basis of love has been explored by such biological sciences as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience. Specific chemical substances such as oxytocin are studied in the context of their roles in producing human experiences and behaviors that are associated with love.

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.

Brain scanning techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging have been used to investigate brain regions that seem to be involved in producing the human experience of love.

I'm well aware of the research -- "investigate" is not "prove".  In the actual sciences, "proof" is a very high standard.  I choose that standard whenever I pose this challenge because the normal Atheist approach to G-d is "you can't prove G-d exists", so I ask people to prove something that Science can't currently prove.

Words like "investigate", "seem", "presumed" -- this isn't PROOF.  Phrases like "correlation is not causation" are commonly used to demonstrate that a CORRELATION between certain brain chemicals and a claimed "meaning" (or whatever) are common, and completely valid, refutations of assertions that one thing CAUSES another.  Science is far better at =disproving= things than =proving= things.

Really, this is just Science.  It doesn't care what the subject is, Science has a way of being done.  If you don't like how Science works, don't worship it as a religion.  It's just Science.  Some people get it, some people don't.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I'm

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm well aware of the research -- "investigate" is not "prove".  In the actual sciences, "proof" is a very high standard.  I choose that standard whenever I pose this challenge because the normal Atheist approach to G-d is "you can't prove G-d exists", so I ask people to prove something that Science can't currently prove.

Words like "investigate", "seem", "presumed" -- this isn't PROOF.  Phrases like "correlation is not causation" are commonly used to demonstrate that a CORRELATION between certain brain chemicals and a claimed "meaning" (or whatever) are common, and completely valid, refutations of assertions that one thing CAUSES another.  Science is far better at =disproving= things than =proving= things.

"Scientific proof of true love…

It’s real people! (Not that we needed scientific proof, but for all the haters and skeptics&hellipEye-wink

(CNN) — Love’s first blush fading? Lost that loving feeling? Love is not all around?  Sick of cliches? Take heart, scientists have discovered that people can have a love that lasts a lifetime.

Scientists have used brain scans to study how long love lasts between couples. Using brain scans, researchers at Stony Brook University in New York have discovered a small number of couples respond with as much passion after 20 years together as most people only do during the early throes of romance, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported.

The researchers scanned the brains of couples together for 20 years and compared them with results from new lovers, the Sunday Times said.

About 10 percent of the mature couples had the same chemical reactions when shown photographs of their loved ones as those just starting out.

Previous research has suggested that the first stages of romantic love fade within 15 months and after 10 years it has gone completely, the newspaper said.

“The findings go against the traditional view of romance — that it drops off sharply in the first decade — but we are sure it’s real,” said Arthur Aron, a psychologist at Stony Brook, told the Sunday Times."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/04/true.love.found/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Really, this is just Science.  It doesn't care what the subject is, Science has a way of being done.  If you don't like how Science works, don't worship it as a religion.  It's just Science.  Some people get it, some people don't.

Why you got to go and be all mean to me, Furry? 

I don't worship science.  I don't even capitalize the word in the middle or end of a sentence.

However, I am very impressed with the methodology used in science that has provided us with so many gifts.

And I think I get it.  When you have a way of measuring something, as I pointed out in my first post, you have a way of proofing or disproving a hypothesis.  Anybody who "gets it" knows that.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Quote:The

Watcher wrote:

Quote:
The theory of a biological basis of love has been explored by such biological sciences as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience. Specific chemical substances such as oxytocin are studied in the context of their roles in producing human experiences and behaviors that are associated with love.

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.

Brain scanning techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging have been used to investigate brain regions that seem to be involved in producing the human experience of love.

Good Quote, btw...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are getting down to exact meanings, then one does not 'prove' anything via the scientific method, one proves things via mathematics. Proof is a mathematical concept. (I've been chastised a number of times myself for using the concepts of evidence/proof interchangeably)

I've shown a way by which the scientific method can be used to demonstrate love for ones mother. You may not like it, and you may not even agree with it, but I'm satisfied that I did meet the challenge.

Now, I DO understand how you feel, I've clung to a few arguments and cute little tropes that I smugly assumed were 'gotchas'...
One of my favorites is the old "You can't prove a negative."... I'd whip that sucker out to shut down any burden of proof shifting thesitically impaired type out there. Until a good friend of mine sat me down and patiently schooled me in logic and showed me clearly that one can EASILY 'prove a negation'...  what can't be done logically is to prove a 'universal' assertion, negative or positive. Live and learn.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Watcher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Quote:
The theory of a biological basis of love has been explored by such biological sciences as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience. Specific chemical substances such as oxytocin are studied in the context of their roles in producing human experiences and behaviors that are associated with love.

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.

Brain scanning techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging have been used to investigate brain regions that seem to be involved in producing the human experience of love.

Good Quote, btw...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are getting down to exact meanings, then one does not 'prove' anything via the scientific method, one proves things via mathematics. Proof is a mathematical concept. (I've been chastised a number of times myself for using the concepts of evidence/proof interchangeably)

I've shown a way by which the scientific method can be used to demonstrate love for ones mother. You may not like it, and you may not even agree with it, but I'm satisfied that I did meet the challenge.

Now, I DO understand how you feel, I've clung to a few arguments and cute little tropes that I smugly assumed were 'gotchas'...
One of my favorites is the old "You can't prove a negative."... I'd whip that sucker out to shut down any burden of proof shifting thesitically impaired type out there. Until a good friend of mine sat me down and patiently schooled me in logic and showed me clearly that one can EASILY 'prove a negation'...  what can't be done logically is to prove a 'universal' assertion, negative or positive. Live and learn.

LC >;-}>

Science mostly disproves things because a "universal" proof of something is just about impossible.

"Demonstrating love for ones mother" is going to have some false positives and false negatives in any scientifically constructed test.  This is pretty boring information, but it's critically important to what Science =is=.  Those "confidence intervals" =mean= something.

And "You can't prove a negative!" isn't cheating or anything.  It's just the way proofs are done and "You can't prove G-d exists, therefore G-d doesn't exist!" is about as valid as writing "One Dollar Bill" in crayon on a lunch bag is valid for money.  Which is to say, it isn't.

Now, you might not like my little "gotchas", but I do this because much of the "G-d can't be proven, so neener-neener!" nonsense is far more juvenile than "You can't prove you love your mother".

ANYWAY, wrestling with a client today over payment.  Joy of all joys ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Science mostly

Quote:
Science mostly disproves things because a "universal" proof of something is just about impossible.

Huh, so what you and I type on are snarfwidgets or pink unicorns and not computers?

Scientists are not the method itself. Thats like accusing the hammer of building the house. You know damned well method is not a human, it is a TOOL humans use.

GOOD METHOD IS NOT USED WITH THE FOLLOWING MENTALITY

Science=gap=whatever I want to insert into that gap

Scientific method STARTS with proven data and established method and then IT does not rule out, it COMPAIRES with control groups and blind tests to either INCLUDE "CONFIRM" or discards bad data then it says those findings on top of the study should be handed to peer review so that your own mistakes and biasas can be filtered out if they have crept in. Something IS universal when it gets the shit kicked out of it and still gets independently verified. Computers ARE an example of universal science being applied otherwise computers wouldn't have been invented.

  It is merely the concept of observation, testing and peer review  to insure quality of data.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Quote:
The theory of a biological basis of love has been explored by such biological sciences as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience. Specific chemical substances such as oxytocin are studied in the context of their roles in producing human experiences and behaviors that are associated with love.

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.

The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.

Brain scanning techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging have been used to investigate brain regions that seem to be involved in producing the human experience of love.

Good Quote, btw...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are getting down to exact meanings, then one does not 'prove' anything via the scientific method, one proves things via mathematics. Proof is a mathematical concept. (I've been chastised a number of times myself for using the concepts of evidence/proof interchangeably)

I've shown a way by which the scientific method can be used to demonstrate love for ones mother. You may not like it, and you may not even agree with it, but I'm satisfied that I did meet the challenge.

Now, I DO understand how you feel, I've clung to a few arguments and cute little tropes that I smugly assumed were 'gotchas'...
One of my favorites is the old "You can't prove a negative."... I'd whip that sucker out to shut down any burden of proof shifting thesitically impaired type out there. Until a good friend of mine sat me down and patiently schooled me in logic and showed me clearly that one can EASILY 'prove a negation'...  what can't be done logically is to prove a 'universal' assertion, negative or positive. Live and learn.

LC >;-}>

Science mostly disproves things because a "universal" proof of something is just about impossible.

"Demonstrating love for ones mother" is going to have some false positives and false negatives in any scientifically constructed test.  This is pretty boring information, but it's critically important to what Science =is=.  Those "confidence intervals" =mean= something.

And "You can't prove a negative!" isn't cheating or anything.  It's just the way proofs are done and "You can't prove G-d exists, therefore G-d doesn't exist!" is about as valid as writing "One Dollar Bill" in crayon on a lunch bag is valid for money.  Which is to say, it isn't.

Now, you might not like my little "gotchas", but I do this because much of the "G-d can't be proven, so neener-neener!" nonsense is far more juvenile than "You can't prove you love your mother".

ANYWAY, wrestling with a client today over payment.  Joy of all joys ...

Can I prove that I love my mom mathematically (Mathematics being the only place where proofs are useful)? No.

Do I have sufficient evidence that my mom and I love each other within the standards of evidence that hold sway in reality? Yes.

That you claim to have sufficient evidence for the existence of your God only shows that your standards of evidence are lower than mine. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:Science

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Science mostly disproves things because a "universal" proof of something is just about impossible.

Huh, so what you and I type on are snarfwidgets or pink unicorns and not computers?

Scientists are not the method itself. Thats like accusing the hammer of building the house. You know damned well method is not a human, it is a TOOL humans use.

GOOD METHOD IS NOT USED WITH THE FOLLOWING MENTALITY

Science=gap=whatever I want to insert into that gap

Scientific method STARTS with proven data and established method and then IT does not rule out, it COMPAIRES with control groups and blind tests to either INCLUDE "CONFIRM" or discards bad data then it says those findings on top of the study should be handed to peer review so that your own mistakes and biasas can be filtered out if they have crept in. Something IS universal when it gets the shit kicked out of it and still gets independently verified. Computers ARE an example of universal science being applied otherwise computers wouldn't have been invented.

  It is merely the concept of observation, testing and peer review  to insure quality of data.

Uh, no.  Something isn't "Universal" just because it's been subject to scrutiny and butt-kicking.  That's not at all what Science does or how Science works.

And saying "snarfwidgets" is stupid.  Something like "Only a computer can be used to type on the Interwebs" would be disproven by posting on ones phone or tablet.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
Science mostly disproves things because a "universal" proof of something is just about impossible.

Huh, so what you and I type on are snarfwidgets or pink unicorns and not computers?

Scientists are not the method itself. Thats like accusing the hammer of building the house. You know damned well method is not a human, it is a TOOL humans use.

GOOD METHOD IS NOT USED WITH THE FOLLOWING MENTALITY

Science=gap=whatever I want to insert into that gap

Scientific method STARTS with proven data and established method and then IT does not rule out, it COMPAIRES with control groups and blind tests to either INCLUDE "CONFIRM" or discards bad data then it says those findings on top of the study should be handed to peer review so that your own mistakes and biasas can be filtered out if they have crept in. Something IS universal when it gets the shit kicked out of it and still gets independently verified. Computers ARE an example of universal science being applied otherwise computers wouldn't have been invented.

  It is merely the concept of observation, testing and peer review  to insure quality of data.

Uh, no.  Something isn't "Universal" just because it's been subject to scrutiny and butt-kicking.  That's not at all what Science does or how Science works.

And saying "snarfwidgets" is stupid.  Something like "Only a computer can be used to type on the Interwebs" would be disproven by posting on ones phone or tablet.

Which have computers in them so you haven't disproved anything.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Uh, no.  Something isn't "Universal" just because it's been subject to scrutiny and butt-kicking.  That's not at all what Science does or how Science works.

And saying "snarfwidgets" is stupid.  Something like "Only a computer can be used to type on the Interwebs" would be disproven by posting on ones phone or tablet.

Which have computers in them so you haven't disproved anything.

Well ... I think that's cheating.  Yes, they have "computers" in them, but so does my car.  That doesn't mean I can run OpenOffice on my car ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Uh, no.  Something isn't "Universal" just because it's been subject to scrutiny and butt-kicking.  That's not at all what Science does or how Science works.

And saying "snarfwidgets" is stupid.  Something like "Only a computer can be used to type on the Interwebs" would be disproven by posting on ones phone or tablet.

Which have computers in them so you haven't disproved anything.

Well ... I think that's cheating.  Yes, they have "computers" in them, but so does my car.  That doesn't mean I can run OpenOffice on my car ...

Tablets are more properly called "tablet computers" so if I was cheating it was in response to you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Uh, no.  Something isn't "Universal" just because it's been subject to scrutiny and butt-kicking.  That's not at all what Science does or how Science works.

And saying "snarfwidgets" is stupid.  Something like "Only a computer can be used to type on the Interwebs" would be disproven by posting on ones phone or tablet.

Which have computers in them so you haven't disproved anything.

Well ... I think that's cheating.  Yes, they have "computers" in them, but so does my car.  That doesn't mean I can run OpenOffice on my car ...

Tablets are more properly called "tablet computers" so if I was cheating it was in response to you.

Yeah, but a PHONE isn't called a PHONE COMPUTER.  If it weren't for the giant mega banner ads and sidebar ads (and how the hell do they know which vendors I shop at and which products I buy?!?) I could post here on my almost-completely-stupid phone.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
I have been trained in both

I have been trained in both advanced electronics by the US military from the concepts of basic components on up and educated in Information Technology from US universities and I have zero desire to even get into this discussion.

I like Furry.  We never had an prominently and active resident dissident of the Jewish persuasion back when I practically lived on this forum a few years ago.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Yeah,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yeah, but a PHONE isn't called a PHONE COMPUTER.  If it weren't for the giant mega banner ads and sidebar ads (and how the hell do they know which vendors I shop at and which products I buy?!?) I could post here on my almost-completely-stupid phone.

A computer is a device that stores and processes data.  So a "smart phone" or a phone that has the processing capability to run a browser, is a computer.  In fact, a toaster that has enough processing power to run a browser will be a computer and therefore the initial definition stays.  Furry thinks herself a semantics ninja Smiling.  A vacuum still has no temperature BTW, speaking of semantics Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13522
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:I have been

Watcher wrote:

I have been trained in both advanced electronics by the US military from the concepts of basic components on up and educated in Information Technology from US universities and I have zero desire to even get into this discussion.

I like Furry.  We never had an prominently and active resident dissident of the Jewish persuasion back when I practically lived on this forum a few years ago.

It is rare that we get Jew here. I do wish that even some atheists would learn from her at least one thing. If someone can handle blasphemy and bluntness and cussing and have a sense of humor about it and see it for what it is, a debate and mere bitching, please my well intended lefty friends, RELAX.

Furry and Caposkia and even my woo friend Luminon haven't  run screaming.

I like Furry too, her god claims make me want to pull my hair out just like my family and co-workers, but that is life. If we can get along and bitch without hate, then we'd all be better off.

Now, anyone got a dime I can toss in front of her? (Note to self: Did I think that, or type it)

I don't want to hear it Furry, Jews are cheapskates and atheists are godless commies. Thats the way it goes.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37