Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:39 am

Ierrellus wrote:"Anxiety" cells are purely physical. What exactly it is that they react to is highly speculative, especially if it is said that they react to certain types of mental content. Whether it is religion or something else that causes them to react is unknown. One has to be very careful in assigning to the brain what it is supposed to be doing or why certain ideas arise as they do. This is certainly a more complex situation than your thesis allows.


Note I have already provided references that link anxiety with religions.
If you are not convinced you can do further research on that.

If you research on all religions you will note there is a strong link between the death anxiety - existential angst and the doctrines [philosophy] of the religions.

Note I presented this argument earlier [now including some of your points];

    everybody experiences existential angst. It's DNA ordained. (2)
    1. DNA wise, anxiety cells [existential related] drive humans to invent religions/theism.
    2. Religion assuages anxiety [existential related]
    religion is a type of mental illness -non DSMV (8)
    3. Religion causes atrocities (by SOME evil prone believers in Islam)
    the excesses practiced by a minority of Islamic terrorists indicates what religion now is and what its future offers mankind (7)

    4. Anxiety cells discovered in the brain by scientists
    5. Anxiety cells [existential related] are identified
    anxiety cells can be modulated (9)
    6. Anxiety cells [existential related] identified are modulated [future only]
    7. Anxiety driving one to be religious (1) is reduced and/or eliminated - no more religious.
    8. Replaced - religions waned and/or disappeared in the future

From the above, one critical element that stand out is 'anxiety'.
This anxiety is specifically related to the existential crisis.
Then there is the Human Connectome Project [HCP] - this is critical, so that
in the future we can target to modulate the specific neurons related to the existential crisis.
Note I am not saying it is going to easy but there is hope from the HCP.
Once we can modulate the linkage we can reduce or eliminate religiosity and replace it with the right spirituality.
In the future, without religion, there will be NO more religious based evils and violence like the below;

Image
and the whole range of other evil and violent acts via religions.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:20 am

Pris:

So it is not a problem to put numbers on what is already done at present.


I think that doing so encounters problems, which I've already stated.

It is not done but anyone with average intelligence can study all courts sentencing and judgments and come up with some rough comparative percentages, e.g.
to rate the worst possible know evil acts like genocides, mass murders with torture, mass rapes, etc at say 90% and everyday petty evils at 10%. Note the numbers are not the most critical rather it is the reasonable accurate comparative ratings that is critical.


It is not done for a reason. I think that some of the reasons may be that it is arbitrary, speculative and imprecise. What if I disagree wholly with your given percentages? How would you reconcile differences in opinion? Who decides what the right percentages are?

Note my forte is problem-solving techniques.
The problem with yours, phyllo's views [and many others] is there is a lack of sophistication and refinement in addressing problems. When I introduce refinements the immediate reaction is natural instinctual defensiveness. Come on, this is philosophical forum [where refine thinking is a must] not a fish market.


This is clearly a faulty analysis. You assume that because you're disagreed with, the interlocutors lack "sophistication and refinement in addressing problems", without considering the real possibility that your arguments are flawed. Your “psychoanalysis” is also faulty, I'm not being defensive (and I don't think others are either), I'm disagreeing with you because I think that your wrong. Note, if you're going to submit arguments on a philosophy forum, you should expect to be challenged. Psychoanalysing people because they disagree with you, is ridiculous.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:24 pm

Welcome to hell, Fanman!

Fanman wrote:Pris:

It is not done but anyone with average intelligence can study all courts sentencing and judgments and come up with some rough comparative percentages, e.g.
to rate the worst possible know evil acts like genocides, mass murders with torture, mass rapes, etc at say 90% and everyday petty evils at 10%. Note the numbers are not the most critical rather it is the reasonable accurate comparative ratings that is critical.

What if I disagree wholly with your given percentages?

He would say you're wrong, eternally.

How would you reconcile differences in opinion?

There is only one opinion :evilfun:

Who decides what the right percentages are?

The absolutist.

Note my forte is problem-solving techniques.
The problem with yours, phyllo's views [and many others] is there is a lack of sophistication and refinement in addressing problems. When I introduce refinements the immediate reaction is natural instinctual defensiveness. Come on, this is philosophical forum [where refine thinking is a must] not a fish market.

This is clearly a faulty analysis. You assume that because you're disagreed with, the interlocutors lack "sophistication and refinement in addressing problems", without considering the real possibility that your arguments are flawed.

Therein lies the problem: the absolutist cannot be flawed. There is a good and evil because He defines them so and He defines the percentages and He finds unflawed perfection in the analysis because "I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." How can one argue with that? :confusion-shrug:

Your “psychoanalysis” is also faulty, I'm not being defensive (and I don't think others are either), I'm disagreeing with you because I think that your wrong.

This is what you're accomplishing: :angry-banghead:

Note, if you're going to submit arguments on a philosophy forum, you should expect to be challenged.

Yes but one can't be defeated unless he admits it, so just never admit defeat and one can be invincible! We're all invincible here, just like there are no guilty men in prison ;)

Psychoanalysing people because they disagree with you, is ridiculous.

Yes but you see *your problem* is you expect too much :D

I sincerely welcome you and hope you stick around in spite of... everything.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Wed Mar 14, 2018 12:55 pm

Thanks serendipper (and Ierrellus) for your welcomes. I've been on the Online Philosophy Club for years, so I'm used to the territory :) . I know Prismatic as Spectrum, it was he who actually linked me to this site via one of his responses on his "God is an impossibility" thread (yes, there is one there too, with no valid counter arguments... :angry-banghead: ) and I found this site to be very good.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:12 pm

In view of neuroscience, Prism's thesis and its varying "proof's' just don't smell right; neither do his "logical" connections of speculative claims. It may take someone smarter than I to find exactly what is wrong with this thread. But, as Walter Kaufmann noted, "One can smell a rotten egg without being able to lay a fresh one."
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12518
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:17 pm

Fanman wrote:Thanks serendipper (and Ierrellus) for your welcomes. I've been on the Online Philosophy Club for years, so I'm used to the territory :) .

In that case maybe you can give me some pointers :D

I know Prismatic as Spectrum, it was he who actually linked me to this site via one of his responses on his "God is an impossibility" thread (yes, there is one there too, with no valid counter arguments... :angry-banghead: ) and I found this site to be very good.

No counter arguments??? That's impossible ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:18 pm

Ierrellus wrote:as Walter Kaufmann noted, "One can smell a rotten egg without being able to lay a fresh one."

I'll have to write that down. Thanks!
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:15 pm

Ierrellus:

I'm not smarter than you, but I think that one of the problems Pris' arguments encounter (I think there may be a few) is confirmation bias; because he only sources “evidence” that supports his arguments. He makes scientific/psychological/philosophical claims (blending the three) and does not bother to attempt to falsify them, which he should do as he's quite serious about his claims, and considers some of them (or maybe all of them) to be facts.

Rather, he automatically assumes that he's right, because what evidence he has sourced, seems correlate with what he argues or claims, whilst he's well aware that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. I don't want to hammer the guy, but if you read his “God is an impossibility” thread the flaws in his argumentation are highlighted by other users, at the risk of sounding harsh or being wrong, the flaws in his arguments seem generic.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:59 pm

Fanman wrote:Rather, he automatically assumes that he's right, because what evidence he has sourced, seems correlate with what he argues or claims, whilst he's well aware that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. I don't want to hammer the guy, but if you read his “God is an impossibility” thread the flaws in his argumentation are highlighted by other users, at the risk of sounding harsh or being wrong, the flaws in his arguments seem generic.

He's skilled and naturally gifted at finding novel ways around the problem of admitting defeat. Why smart people defend bad ideas.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:07 pm

Serendipper wrote:He's skilled and naturally gifted at finding novel ways around the problem of admitting defeat. Why smart people defend bad ideas.


That he is, I suppose that practice makes perfect, or is that absolutely perfect? :lol: No, wait. Absolute perfection cannot exist so I guess I mean just plain old perfect... Wait, perfection can exist and describes an absolute state, making the term "absolute perfection" redundant (unless used for emphasis) therefore Pris is perfect at finding novel ways around the problem of admitting defeat absolutely? This is all too confusing :doh:

No true Scotsman is coming next 8) .
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:39 am

Fanman wrote:Ierrellus:

I'm not smarter than you, but I think that one of the problems Pris' arguments encounter (I think there may be a few) is confirmation bias; because he only sources “evidence” that supports his arguments. He makes scientific/psychological/philosophical claims (blending the three) and does not bother to attempt to falsify them, which he should do as he's quite serious about his claims, and considers some of them (or maybe all of them) to be facts.
If that is the case, you should be able to find the 'evidence' that do not support my arguments. Frankly I am hoping for that.
It is silly and not having intellectual integrity - for me to ignore evidence that can counter my argument.

Rather, he automatically assumes that he's right, because what evidence he has sourced, seems correlate with what he argues or claims, whilst he's well aware that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. I don't want to hammer the guy, but if you read his “God is an impossibility” thread the flaws in his argumentation are highlighted by other users, at the risk of sounding harsh or being wrong, the flaws in his arguments seem generic.
I know correlation do not imply causation, but correlation is one means that will lead to causation when justified.

Flaws highlighted by other others.
I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity and do not pretend and ignore valid counter arguments.
So far no one has provided any counter argument to my argument. As far as I know I have deflected all counter arguments presented so far. Show me which counter argument I have left unattended?

This is like Science and scientists who will defend their personally justified thesis until the argument can be proven to be wrong. Generally a scientist will hope someone can prove his thesis to be wrong [be happy about as that meant progress for all] but meanwhile will defend it like 'hell.'
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:36 am

Ierrellus wrote:In view of neuroscience, Prism's thesis and its varying "proof's' just don't smell right; neither do his "logical" connections of speculative claims. It may take someone smarter than I to find exactly what is wrong with this thread. But, as Walter Kaufmann noted, "One can smell a rotten egg without being able to lay a fresh one."
Note my arguments and proofs are VERY transparent for all to counter.

Re the neurosciences I am not giving them very heavy weights since neuroscience is still in its 'teenage' [perhaps even 'toddler'] state of maturity. But given the current trend, I am very optimistic neuroscience and other advance knowledge will give us the breakthrough to understand religion and theism thoroughly.

This thread is not that critical to me at present, it merely show there is great hope to facilitate my other critical concerns re 'God is an Impossibility' and The-Religion-of-Peace is inherent Evil.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:46 am

Serendipper wrote:
Fanman wrote:Rather, he automatically assumes that he's right, because what evidence he has sourced, seems correlate with what he argues or claims, whilst he's well aware that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. I don't want to hammer the guy, but if you read his “God is an impossibility” thread the flaws in his argumentation are highlighted by other users, at the risk of sounding harsh or being wrong, the flaws in his arguments seem generic.

He's skilled and naturally gifted at finding novel ways around the problem of admitting defeat. Why smart people defend bad ideas.
It is not a problem of me 'gifted' in resisting admission of defeat.

In the first place, theism is fundamentally based on faith which by default is easily defeated and difficult to defend using reason.
So it is not me being smart or gifted but rather it the theism that is is not based on basic truths.

I am arguing 'God is an Impossibility' [syllogism provided] and the fundamental reason for theism is due to psychological factors [argument and evidence given].
Philosophically it is a default for me to defend my thesis with justified arguments [which I had done so] and the onus is on the others who do not agree to counter my arguments. There is no need to derogate me as 'smart and gifted' in not admitting defeat.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:01 am

Pris,

If that is the case, you should be able to find the 'evidence' that do not support my arguments. Frankly I am hoping for that. 
It is silly and not having intellectual integrity - for me to ignore evidence that can counter my argument.


Re Scientists finding specialised brain cells in mice that appear to control anxiety levels, it is obviously too early to conclude that this will lead to treating anxiety disorders in human-beings. The article you provided a link to doesn't claim anything about "treating" religion, belief in God or existential crisis, these are your assumptions. It is also your opinion / assumption that religion is a form of mental illness which needs to be treated. I don't think there are sufficient grounds to claim there's the correlation you've somehow identified between the findings and your views, so claiming that there's causation seems to me to be a non-starter based upon the current evidence. In this case, there's no need to provide evidence to refute your claim, disagreement is sufficient / reasonable.

I know correlation do not imply causation, but correlation is one means that will lead to causation when justified.


Your arguments don't reflect that though. Where is the justification for causation, that finding anxiety cells in mice means that anxiety cells are influenced by religious thought?

Flaws highlighted by other others.
I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity and do not pretend and ignore valid counter arguments.
So far no one has provided any counter argument to my argument. As far as I know I have deflected all counter arguments presented so far. Show me which counter argument I have left unattended?


In terms of submitting logical arguments, forums like these act as a form of peer review. The consensus is that your arguments are flawed and that you're wrong. Therefore you have to accept the possibility that you're wrong – which is something you refuse to do. You don't seem to understand, it is not a case of you “deflecting” all the counter-arguments, it is that your arguments don't demonstrate what you think they do, no matter how much you attempt to defend them, they're still not correct, that is the consensus. By defending them as you have, it appears to the consensus as though you lack an understanding of logic.

This is like Science and scientists who will defend their personally justified thesis until the argument can be proven to be wrong. Generally a scientist will hope someone can prove his thesis to be wrong [be happy about as that meant progress for all] but meanwhile will defend it like 'hell.'


As stated, the consensus is that your arguments are flawed and that you're wrong. You refuse to accept the views of your “peers”. The problem is, the issue regarding the correctness and incorrectness of your arguments is logic, not empirical facts. So you don't agree with anyone's logic who claims that you're wrong. Since you've claimed that your syllogism re “God is an impossibility” is "perfect", it doesn't seem as though you're going to... Even if the counter-arguments presented that refute your arguments are sound (which IMV they have been) you disagree with them, because you're convinced that you're right. However, you dismiss the consensus all to easily – which isn't to your credit.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:50 am

Fanman wrote:Pris,

If that is the case, you should be able to find the 'evidence' that do not support my arguments. Frankly I am hoping for that. 
It is silly and not having intellectual integrity - for me to ignore evidence that can counter my argument.


Re Scientists finding specialised brain cells in mice that appear to control anxiety levels, it is obviously too early to conclude that this will lead to treating anxiety disorders in human-beings. The article you provided a link to doesn't claim anything about "treating" religion, belief in God or existential crisis, these are your assumptions. It is also your opinion / assumption that religion is a form of mental illness which needs to be treated. I don't think there are sufficient grounds to claim there's the correlation you've somehow identified between the findings and your views, so claiming that there's causation seems to me to be a non-starter based upon the current evidence. In this case, there's no need to provide evidence to refute your claim, disagreement is sufficient / reasonable.

My earlier point re evidence was in general.

As for this thread, note this point;

Prismatic wrote:Re the neurosciences I am not giving them very heavy weights since neuroscience is still in its 'teenage' [perhaps even 'toddler'] state of maturity. But given the current trend, I am very optimistic neuroscience and other advance knowledge will give us the breakthrough to understand religion and theism thoroughly.

This thread is not that critical to me at present, it merely show there is great hope to facilitate my other critical concerns re 'God is an Impossibility' and The-Religion-of-Peace is inherent Evil.


Note if it is 'anxiety cells' obviously it is about 'anxiety' whether it is in rats or humans.
As for religion, I was only speculating as I had stated above and implied in the OP.

I know correlation do not imply causation, but correlation is one mean that will lead to causation when justified.

Your arguments don't reflect that though. Where is the justification for causation, that finding anxiety cells in mice means that anxiety cells are influenced by religious thought?
Again mine is a general point.
I was speculating with optimism based on the advances of the Human Connectome Project.

Flaws highlighted by other others.
I maintain a high degree of intellectual integrity and do not pretend and ignore valid counter arguments.
So far no one has provided any counter argument to my argument. As far as I know I have deflected all counter arguments presented so far. Show me which counter argument I have left unattended?


In terms of submitting logical arguments, forums like these act as a form of peer review. The consensus is that your arguments are flawed and that you're wrong. Therefore you have to accept the possibility that you're wrong – which is something you refuse to do. You don't seem to understand, it is not a case of you “deflecting” all the counter-arguments, it is that your arguments don't demonstrate what you think they do, no matter how much you attempt to defend them, they're still not correct, that is the consensus. By defending them as you have, it appears to the consensus as though you lack an understanding of logic.
It is not a matter of consensus within a group such as this place.
If you are in a forum where 90% of posters are Muslims, the majority will never agree with your non-Muslim views even if your views are true.
So far most of those who do not agree with me are theists or agnostics.
What matter to me or philosophically is the substance of the argument.

This is like Science and scientists who will defend their personally justified thesis until the argument can be proven to be wrong. Generally a scientist will hope someone can prove his thesis to be wrong [be happy about as that meant progress for all] but meanwhile will defend it like 'hell.'


As stated, the consensus is that your arguments are flawed and that you're wrong. You refuse to accept the views of your “peers”. The problem is, the issue regarding the correctness and incorrectness of your arguments is logic, not empirical facts. So you don't agree with anyone's logic who claims that you're wrong. Since you've claimed that your syllogism re “God is an impossibility” is "perfect", it doesn't seem as though you're going to... Even if the counter-arguments presented that refute your arguments are sound (which IMV they have been) you disagree with them, because you're convinced that you're right. However, you dismiss the consensus all to easily – which isn't to your credit.
I never said I agreed the posters here are my "peers." What matters like I say is the substance of the argument.
Note I have not rejected any counter-argument without justifying why they are wrong.

Note in the above Irrelus presented as list of messed up premises that do not follow,

Let's see if I get you correctly__
1. religion can best be described as a range of evil--from less to more, but all evil.
2. everybody experiences existential angst. It's DNA ordained.
3. brain functioning (Homeostasis) is the current psychiatric model of addressing pain with endorphins
4. apparently the brain cannot fathom greater pains than bodily necessities and needs to be apprised of religion-causing pains.
5. so apprised anxiety cells will react to the presence of religion
6. if not scientists must modulate the anxiety cells so that they do not reward religions with feel good juices
7. the excesses practiced by a minority of Islamic terrorists indicates what religion now is and what its future offers mankind
8. religion is a type of mental illness
9. anxiety cells can be modulated
10. scientists are well equipped to philosophize regarding all religious beliefs.
viewtopic.php?p=2695956#p2695956

I countered by providing one argument with a list of premises that follow. You can check my argument and tell me where I am wrong.

Note I presented this argument earlier [now including some of your points];

    everybody experiences existential angst. It's DNA ordained. (2)
    1. DNA wise, anxiety cells [existential related] drive humans to invent religions/theism.
    2. Religion assuages anxiety [existential related]
    religion is a type of mental illness -non DSMV (8)
    3. Religion causes atrocities (by SOME evil prone believers in Islam)
    the excesses practiced by a minority of Islamic terrorists indicates what religion now is and what its future offers mankind (7)

    4. Anxiety cells discovered in the brain by scientists
    5. Anxiety cells [existential related] are identified -in future
    anxiety cells can be modulated (9)
    6. Anxiety cells [existential related] identified are modulated [future only]
    7. Anxiety driving one to be religious (1) is reduced and/or eliminated - no more religious.
    8. Replaced - religions waned and/or disappeared in the future
viewtopic.php?p=2696024#p2696024


I suggest you read through the thread and note I have provided arguments and countered arguments reasonably. Show me where I am wrong?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:57 am

Fanman wrote:
Serendipper wrote:He's skilled and naturally gifted at finding novel ways around the problem of admitting defeat. Why smart people defend bad ideas.


That he is, I suppose that practice makes perfect, or is that absolutely perfect? :lol: No, wait. Absolute perfection cannot exist so I guess I mean just plain old perfect... Wait, perfection can exist and describes an absolute state, making the term "absolute perfection" redundant (unless used for emphasis) therefore Pris is perfect at finding novel ways around the problem of admitting defeat absolutely? This is all too confusing :doh:

You are absolutely right!

No true Scotsman is coming next 8) .

Maybe a few carefully placed red herrings and a pile of dead horses will stop all but the true Scotsman ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:18 am

Prismatic567 wrote:In the first place, theism is fundamentally based on faith which by default is easily defeated and difficult to defend using reason.

That doesn't mean anything. The implementation of "faith" does not = automatically wrong and therefore you cannot draw your conclusion, which is:

So it is not me being smart or gifted but rather it the theism that is is not based on basic truths.

It could be based on faith and coincidentally based on truth. You cannot claim that because something is based on faith that it is necessarily wrong.

I am arguing 'God is an Impossibility' [syllogism provided] and the fundamental reason for theism is due to psychological factors [argument and evidence given].

Your argument, or parts thereof, have been refuted by multitudes of members and yet you refuse to concede any of their points. You dogmatically (ie faith-based) charge forward continuing to believe (faith) that you are right.

Philosophically it is a default for me to defend my thesis with justified arguments [which I had done so] and the onus is on the others who do not agree to counter my arguments.

You stick to your guns even if they are half-cocked, yes, I know.

There is no need to derogate me as 'smart and gifted' in not admitting defeat.

You're not smart and gifted in not admitting defeat, you're smart and gifted at finding ways around admitting defeat, which is a compliment really. But if you can't be wrong, you cannot move forward, so you have to learn when to give up and acknowledge an objection. "You have to know when to hold em and know when to fold em."

All the Greats got hung-up on something they felt strongly about and that's why knowledge progresses one funeral at a time. People have to die and take their hangups with them so that new ground can be plowed.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:24 am

Prismatic567 wrote:So far most of those who do not agree with me are theists or agnostics.
What matter to me or philosophically is the substance of the argument.

Why do I even need to illustrate what is wrong with that?

So far most of those who do not agree with me are (insert demonizing label)
What matters to me is the substance of the argument.


Obviously not. What matters to you is the religion of the person bringing the argument.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:44 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note I have not rejected any counter-argument without justifying why they are wrong.

God must be perfect or he'd have to eat shit from lesser gods.

If god must be perfect, then lesser gods can't exist because they would need to be perfect in order to be a god, and if that is the case, then there is no shit to eat and no reason to have to be perfect. The claim defeats itself.

Your reply is essentially, "nope, you're wrong."

I say "there is no such thing as all-powerful because one cannot be simultaneously big/strong and small/nimble and there is no such thing as perfection in the way you define it."

Your reply is essentially, "nope, you're wrong."

Then you say "If you want to believe in a lesser god, that is fine."

So I say "Deal!"

You say, "No deal."

Wtf? :confusion-shrug:

What it boils down to is you're going to have it your way and no one can convince you otherwise.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Thu Mar 15, 2018 12:49 pm

Pris,

Note if it is 'anxiety cells' obviously it is about 'anxiety' whether it is in rats or humans.


Certain cells react to certain stimuli in the mice they studied and the conclusion is that the mice have anxiety cells. What do mice have to be anxious about? :confusion-shrug: It would certainly be interesting to understand how they interpreted that the mice were anxious. It sounds so tabloid...

As for religion, I was only speculating as I had stated above and implied in the OP.


You think that finding anxiety cells in mice gives you the grounds to speculate about the nature of the mental and physical relationship of religious efficacy in people? That is a huge leap.

It is not a matter of consensus within a group such as this place.
If you are in a forum where 90% of posters are Muslims, the majority will never agree with your non-Muslim views even if your views are true.
So far most of those who do not agree with me are theists or agnostics.
What matter to me or philosophically is the substance of the argument.


That is a put-down, as if theists and agnostics aren't qualified to refute your argument(s), because their views limit their scope. Why submit your arguments where you know they are only going to be disagreed with? If you don't believe in the intellectual ability of the forum users, why bother? Why not just keep your arguments to yourself? If you were to subject yourself to the same type of "psychoanalysis" you do others, what would you say about that kind of behaviour I wonder? IMV, the refutations of your arguments are not based upon people's beliefs or biases. It is patently the logic of your argument that has been dissected and refuted. Yet you continue to claim that you've proven something.

I never said I agreed the posters here are my "peers." What matters like I say is the substance of the argument.
Note I have not rejected any counter-argument without justifying why they are wrong.


I never said you agreed, you don't have to. You're submitting philosophical arguments to a group of people who enjoy philosophy (you included) and discussing them with us, hence we are your “peers” just not in the strictest or formal sense. The consensus is that the substance of your argument(s) is flawed as are your justifications. You don't have to agree, but you can't keep claiming that you've proven something on a forum where the consensus is that you're wrong and haven't proven anything. It only makes you seem silly and adamant.

Note in the above Irrelus presented as list of messed up premises that do not follow,
I countered by providing one argument with a list of premises that follow. You can check my argument and tell me where I am wrong.


I think Ierrellus' list was based upon a collation of what you've argued. Maybe I'll attempt to complete the task you ask later.

Note, As I think Serendipper eludes to, people are fallible. Therefore being wrong about things is a normal part of being human. I think It is normal, healthy and a sign of intelligence to be able to see where we are / went wrong and to admit to our mistakes, it shows good reflective skills. On the other hand, clinging to the impossible position of being right when it is clear that we are wrong will stop us from progressing and makes us seem immature. We can learn a lot from our mistakes, so being right is not as important as you seem to think it is - it is not making you seem more intelligent or capable, quite the opposite. IMV, no one can reflect upon things and conclude that they haven't made any mistakes.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:55 pm

My list of premises, however incomplete, was based on actual claims made. Note when confronted with the illogical nature of a claim, Prism tweaks it and fudges it until it says something other than what he first said. No wonder his logic defies refutation; it's too slippery to be captured by counter logic. This is a tabloid thread, worthy of the National Enquirer.
There are some who argue as if their self esteem were at stake, which says something about anxiety cells in human beings.
Last edited by Ierrellus on Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12518
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby phyllo » Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:57 pm

I never said I agreed the posters here are my "peers."
What does that mean? You look down on the other posters?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10850
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
I never said I agreed the posters here are my "peers."
What does that mean? You look down on the other posters?

Yes that's what the prism is for... focusing the distance ;)
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:54 pm

phyllo wrote:
I never said I agreed the posters here are my "peers."
What does that mean? You look down on the other posters?


Well, he did claim this:

Note my forte is problem-solving techniques.
The problem with yours, phyllo's views [and many others] is there is a lack of sophistication and refinement in addressing problems. When I introduce refinements the immediate reaction is natural instinctual defensiveness. Come on, this is philosophical forum [where refine thinking is a must] not a fish market.


So it would seem that none of us are worthy. Only he has pulled the proverbial sword from the stone (proven that God is an impossibility a priori), which he consistently reminds us of here and elsewhere and only he knows the true nature of religion and theism, for he is the one true Scotsman #-o . The rest of us are just selling fish.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Postby Fanman » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:14 am

Pris,

everybody experiences existential angst. It's DNA ordained. (2)


I think that you're conflating mental and physical attributes here. Existential angst is psychological and arises from the knowledge that we will some day cease to exist, amongst other aspects of life and death. It doesn't follow that existential angst is part of our DNA because everyone experiences it. It appears as though you're connecting dots and seeing correlation, which you think is causation - then you make a positive claim. Perhaps erroneously.

It is a given that everyone experiences existential angst, but it is not a given that existential angst is "DNA ordained". The latter claim requires extensive evidence.

1. DNA wise, anxiety cells [existential related] drive humans to invent religions/theism. 


Where is the evidence that human beings have anxiety cells and that they are existential related? Where is the evidence that anxiety cells led to the creation of religions? You can't expect this to convince anyone. As an argument it has insufficient grounding IMV.

Religion assuages anxiety [existential related]


Perhaps, but it is a speculative claim. Why doesn't religion have the same effect for atheists and agnostics?

religion is a type of mental illness -non DSMV (8)


Simply nonsense IMV, please explain why you believe that religion is a type of mental illness.

3. Religion causes atrocities (by SOME evil prone believers in Islam)


Perhaps, but I'd rather blame the culprits than the religion as they are the agents. The Ideology may influence them, but they have a choice.

the excesses practiced by a minority of Islamic terrorists indicates what religion now is and what its future offers mankind (7)


I'm not sure if Islamic terrorists provide a holistic account of religion, I don't know enough about Islam to make a claim (which doesn't mean that you're right), as for the future of religion who can possibly know? The best we can do is speculate based upon current trends, but that is certainly not an exact science.

4. Anxiety cells discovered in the brain by scientists


You can't seriously be making an argument out of this? The cells were said to be found in the brains of mice. We are far away from making claims about anxiety cells in humans.

5. Anxiety cells [existential related] are identified -in future


Maybe, but it is a highly speculative claim.

anxiety cells can be modulated (9)


We can't know that yet. Therefore a positive claim on the issue is misplaced.

6. Anxiety cells [existential related] identified are modulated [future only]
7. Anxiety driving one to be religious (1) is reduced and/or eliminated - no more religious. 
8. Replaced - religions waned and/or disappeared in the future


Pure science fiction IMV.
Fanman
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]