## 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

The primary function of brains is to achieve homeostasis of brain/body functions.
So what is existential angst? Do atheists suffer from it? If so, why?
Is it just some free-floating, ephemeral dis---ease that affects all humans?
Or is it only indicated in the persons who believe in theism?
"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: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

I am VERY conscious of gradation along a continuum within reality. That is why I always qualify with terms 'various degrees' 'continuum' 'some' most of the time where relevant. Who else does that? It is my default view but I can't repeat that all the time whenever I posts.
This is why I focus in the evidences of evil acts, e.g.

Note this;

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
I.S.I.S reveal 6 reasons why they despise Westerners
-as terrorist's sister claims he wanted revenge for US airstrikes in Syria

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

So they kill non-believers Primarily because they are mere disbelievers and others are secondary reasons. Note this critical point!
I would call this confirmation bias. You are specifically looking for these sorts of statements. They support your agenda.
The word "atheist" goes back to ancient Greece.

It's etymology is stated in Wiki but note I mentioned when it was first coined,

"the actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

So who is right? See I did not invent it.
You originally wrote :
"3. Even worst, non-believers are killed merely because their existence itself is perceived as a threat to the psychological security of the theists. Thus the coinage of the derogatory term 'atheist' in the 16th century."

I don't know why you added the second sentence about the term "atheist". The word was already used in ancient Greece and Rome. So what was your point? It doesn't enhance your claim that those people were killed because of a "threat to the psychological security of theists". It was an irrelevant addition.
I know it is a story but the Christians will think otherwise. Moreover what is critical here is the principle involved.
Note the above principles of psychology can be abstracted from real empirical behaviors and thinking of existing believers. Note the extremes of evils SOME believers are willing to do in the name of God.
Well, 5% of the population is psychopathic and sociopathic. Therefore, you can expect "extreme" behavior from 1 out of 20 people - believers and non-believers.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Ierrellus wrote:The primary function of brains is to achieve homeostasis of brain/body functions.
We need to add, to facilitate survival and avoidance the threats of of premature death.

So what is existential angst? Do atheists suffer from it? If so, why?
Is it just some free-floating, ephemeral dis---ease that affects all humans?
Or is it only indicated in the persons who believe in theism?

I have wrote many times,
the existential crisis generating existential angst is a fundamental potential in ALL humans DNA wise. It is very active [subliminally] within the majority of people. One of the resultant of the existential crisis is anxiety via the anxiety cells [as discovered per OP].

Theism [believing in a God in various forms] is the most effective balm to soothe, inhibit, suppress, deflect, redirect the existential angst which caused terrible psychological turmoil within the pysche.

While theism is an effective solution to soothe the existential angst, it is a double-edged blade, i.e. it facilitates SOME believers to commit VERY terrible evils and violence around the World in the name of their theistic religion.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

phyllo wrote:
I am VERY conscious of gradation along a continuum within reality. That is why I always qualify with terms 'various degrees' 'continuum' 'some' most of the time where relevant. Who else does that? It is my default view but I can't repeat that all the time whenever I posts.
It is not practical to qualify all the time, but I am trying my best to be specific as much as possible. So far I note I am the only one here who is attempting to qualify and be specific - in using 'SOME' 'degrees' various, etc. Who else?

This is why I focus in the evidences of evil acts, e.g.

Note this;

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-new ... ns-8533563
I.S.I.S reveal 6 reasons why they despise Westerners
-as terrorist's sister claims he wanted revenge for US airstrikes in Syria

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers;
you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred,
this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

"The fact is,
even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to HATE you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam."

So they kill non-believers Primarily because they are mere disbelievers and others are secondary reasons. Note this critical point!
I would call this confirmation bias. You are specifically looking for these sorts of statements. They support your agenda.
If I do not bring supporting evidence, you complain. When I bring supporting evidence you also complain.

My point above is to support the fact that there is an evil ethos inherent in the core texts of the religion of Islam. It is a fact, what is the issue then?

You originally wrote :
"3. Even worst, non-believers are killed merely because their existence itself is perceived as a threat to the psychological security of the theists. Thus the coinage of the derogatory term 'atheist' in the 16th century."

I don't know why you added the second sentence about the term "atheist". The word was already used in ancient Greece and Rome. So what was your point? It doesn't enhance your claim that those people were killed because of a "threat to the psychological security of theists". It was an irrelevant addition.
Note when people feel threatened, they will introduce all sorts of derogatory and dehumanizing words directed at the threat [often misperceived], e.g. 'atheists' 'satanic' 'apes' 'pigs' so that their people will have a focused-negative attitude toward what is deemed as a threat. Note the current examples of 'islamophobe' 'racists' bigots, etc. directed as those who critique Islam.

So my point is the term 'atheist' was coined in the 16th century to direct a derogatory and negative attitude to non-theists as a threat [based on misperception] and out of unwarranted fears.

Note this was added and followed from the Bible's,
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

I know it is a story but the Christians will think otherwise. Moreover what is critical here is the principle involved.
Note the above principles of psychology can be abstracted from real empirical behaviors and thinking of existing believers. Note the extremes of evils SOME believers are willing to do in the name of God.
Well, 5% of the population is psychopathic and sociopathic. Therefore, you can expect "extreme" behavior from 1 out of 20 people - believers and non-believers.
Actually it is estimated within the psychology & psychiatric community, appx 1% are psychopathic, i.e. 70 million.

But note evil proneness come in degrees within a continuum, if psychopathy [malignant] is say 95% evilness then petty evils is say 10% evilness.

From the above one can infer appx 20% of Muslims are active to commit degrees of evilness up to 75% [serious evil] which will including killing, raping, oppression, violence, etc.
20% of of Muslims who are likely to commit serious evils is 300 million around the World.
Note even 1 Muslim, i.e. a lone wolf evil prone Muslim inspired by the inherent evil elements in the Quran can already caused tremendous amount to terrible evil acts and violence. Just imagine the potential from 300 million [~] evil prone Muslims.
This is why the evil and violent acts of Muslims around the World is so evident and that is a critical threat to humanity in the future.

You should reflect wisely on the following;
It is so evident evil prone Muslims [a significant SOME] as inspired by their religion are committing terrible evil and violent acts around the World, - why are you doing nothing about it. e.g. one statistics among the many others;

In addition why are you condemning me to stop me who critique the source of the evils and contributing views to find solutions to the evil and violence acts.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

DSMV does not have a listing for theism or for some generalized existential angst.
There are theists who have done much good in the world. You would throw out the baby with the bath water.
Modulation of anxiety cells would require a superior knowledge of where in the brain toxic events actually are seen to occur and why they are taken to be recognized as toxic. Let's hope future science will have no interest in disturbing normal homeostasis. The brain's reaction is to pain, regardless of how the pain is characterized. There 's no universal pain called existential angst. The closest you can get to anything like that(universal DNA ordained)is the drive to adapt and to survive. It can be said that religion is an adaptation meme and that the adherents who kill and maim in the name of religion will be sloughed off the genetic evolutionary process as waste.
"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: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

It is not practical to qualify all the time, but I am trying my best to be specific as much as possible. So far I note I am the only one here who is attempting to qualify and be specific - in using 'SOME' 'degrees' various, etc. Who else?
I'm talking to you. It's irrelevant what other people are doing.
If I do not bring supporting evidence, you complain. When I bring supporting evidence you also complain.
If you don't provide evidence, then you are making an unsupported claim.
If you cherry-pick your sources, then you are making a biased claim.

If you are going to talk about theists in the general sense that you do, then your evidence has to apply to the vast majority of theists. Currently it does not.
Note when people feel threatened, they will introduce all sorts of derogatory and dehumanizing words directed at the threat [often misperceived], e.g. 'atheists' 'satanic' 'apes' 'pigs' so that their people will have a focused-negative attitude toward what is deemed as a threat. Note the current examples of 'islamophobe' 'racists' bigots, etc. directed as those who critique Islam.

So my point is the term 'atheist' was coined in the 16th century to direct a derogatory and negative attitude to non-theists as a threat [based on misperception] and out of unwarranted fears.
This is one of your unsupported claims. You haven't written anything that shows that the use of the word "atheist" in the 16th century was the result of a perceived threat or an unwarranted fear.
Actually it is estimated within the psychology & psychiatric community, appx 1% are psychopathic, i.e. 70 million.

I wrote psychopath and sociopaths:
Psychopathy & sociopathy

1% of the general population are psychopaths
Dr. Robert Hare, Criminal psychology researcher, Creator of the PCL-R

4% of Americans are sociopaths
Dr. Martha Stout, Harvard University psychologist
In the 2005 book, "The Sociopath Next Door" Harvard University psychologist Martha Stout claims one out of every 25 people in America is a sociopath. She defines sociopath as a person with no conscience.

5-15% of Americans are Almost psychopaths
Dr. Ronald Schouten, Associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
Ronald Schouten refers to the "almost psychopaths" in his book "Almost a Psychopath"

In more specific areas

20-25% of prisoners are psychopaths
Dr. Robert Hare, Criminal psychology researcher, Creator of the PCL-R

Paul Babiak (with Robert Hare), Research psychologist and executive coach
Hare and Babiak noted that about 29% of corporate psychopaths are also bullies.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o ... sociopaths
But note evil proneness come in degrees within a continuum, if psychopathy [malignant] is say 95% evilness then petty evils is say 10% evilness.

From the above one can infer appx 20% of Muslims are active to commit degrees of evilness up to 75% [serious evil] which will including killing, raping, oppression, violence, etc.
No, let's not just make up some numbers.
In addition why are you condemning me to stop me who critique the source of the evils and contributing views to find solutions to the evil and violence acts.
I'm critiquing your poor arguments, lack of evidence and what appears to be a clear bias.

If that's a problem for you then maybe a philosophy forum is not the proper place for you.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Ierrellus wrote:DSMV does not have a listing for theism or for some generalized existential angst.
DSMV cover serious mental illnesses.
Theism arise from a "mental problem" of low degrees which is not of immediate threat to the well being of the individual - thus not covered within the DSMV.
But since theism-as-a-whole generate terrible evil and violent consequences by SOME within a potential pool of >300 millions, it is significant and thus humanity need to investigate the problem to its proximate root causes, i.e. the existential angst.

There are theists who have done much good in the world. You would throw out the baby with the bath water.

This point refer to good done in the name of a God. I agree, but note I have stated at present there is a net-pros against the cons of theism, e.g. provide basic morality, charity, social works, etc. But the trend into the future is the cons of theism [especially from Islam] are outweighing the pros of theism.
These theists could also done good if they are not theists by exercising standard human values without driven by a deity [illusory and impossible].

Modulation of anxiety cells would require a superior knowledge of where in the brain toxic events actually are seen to occur and why they are taken to be recognized as toxic. Let's hope future science will have no interest in disturbing normal homeostasis.
That is why I mentioned the ongoing and progressing Human Connectome Project where human will obtain superior knowledge of the brain connectivity.
I agree with homeostasis per se, but what is normal homeostasis. Homeostasis is like a thermostat where a 'standard' need to be set. In the case of humans, there are many standards -some almost fixed and permanent while others can be variable.
Whatever the inborn standard ['fixed' or variable] we have to review the related consequences.
I believe we can modulate the anxiety cell without disturbing those 'fixed' standards.

The brain's reaction is to pain, regardless of how the pain is characterized. There 's no universal pain called existential angst. The closest you can get to anything like that(universal DNA ordained)is the drive to adapt and to survive. It can be said that religion is an adaptation meme and that the adherents who kill and maim in the name of religion will be sloughed off the genetic evolutionary process as waste.
Note when a person face the threat of potential premature death, there are definite mental pains to drive the person to avoid the threat to dissolve the pain.
At present the hope of talks with Kim of North Korea would have relieved the related existential pains of a lot of South Koreans and some around the world. Note we are dealing with only possibilities of the potential existential threat, what more if the threat of death is a lingering certainty.

Now what is more significant is this; it is a 'fact' all humans face the 'threat' of the certainty of mortality and the subconscious [not consciousness] is entangled in a dilemma and this triggered the existential angst.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

phyllo wrote:
Note when people feel threatened, they will introduce all sorts of derogatory and dehumanizing words directed at the threat [often misperceived], e.g. 'atheists' 'satanic' 'apes' 'pigs' so that their people will have a focused-negative attitude toward what is deemed as a threat. Note the current examples of 'islamophobe' 'racists' bigots, etc. directed as those who critique Islam.

So my point is the term 'atheist' was coined in the 16th century to direct a derogatory and negative attitude to non-theists as a threat [based on misperception] and out of unwarranted fears.
This is one of your unsupported claims. You haven't written anything that shows that the use of the word "atheist" in the 16th century was the result of a perceived threat or an unwarranted fear.
I could write a paper but it is general knowledge to understand,
"when people feel threatened, they will introduce all sorts of derogatory and dehumanizing words directed at the threat [often misperceived]"
Note the amount of condemnations thrown at enemies and those perceived as 'enemies'.
The term 'atheist' was a derogatory term [epithet -a disparaging word] coined in the 16th century by the theists to 'put down' non-theists.
Note this is common [the us versus them instinct] within the theistic world where non-believers are condemned as 'kafir' kuffar, infidels, etc.

Actually it is estimated within the psychology & psychiatric community, appx 1% are psychopathic, i.e. 70 million.

I wrote psychopath and sociopaths:
Psychopathy & sociopathy

1% of the general population are psychopaths
Dr. Robert Hare, Criminal psychology researcher, Creator of the PCL-R

4% of Americans are sociopaths
Dr. Martha Stout, Harvard University psychologist
In the 2005 book, "The Sociopath Next Door" Harvard University psychologist Martha Stout claims one out of every 25 people in America is a sociopath. She defines sociopath as a person with no conscience.

5-15% of Americans are Almost psychopaths
Dr. Ronald Schouten, Associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
Ronald Schouten refers to the "almost psychopaths" in his book "Almost a Psychopath"

In more specific areas

20-25% of prisoners are psychopaths
Dr. Robert Hare, Criminal psychology researcher, Creator of the PCL-R

Paul Babiak (with Robert Hare), Research psychologist and executive coach
Hare and Babiak noted that about 29% of corporate psychopaths are also bullies.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-o ... sociopaths
I am not going to dispute the above as in a way the higher percentage support my point.
If we take 5% are psychopaths and sociopaths, then we have a pool of 75 millions Muslims (5% x 1.5 b) who are psychopaths and sociopaths who are easily influenced by the evil elements in the holy texts of the religion.

But note evil proneness come in degrees within a continuum, if psychopathy [malignant] is say 95% evilness then petty evils is say 10% evilness.

From the above one can infer appx 20% of Muslims are active to commit degrees of evilness up to 75% [serious evil] which will including killing, raping, oppression, violence, etc.
No, let's not just make up some numbers.
The above is a simple inference.
If you agree 5% are psychopaths and sociopaths, i.e. 75 million Muslim, one can predict 10% will commit evil acts that are lesser than the evils committed by psychopaths.

In addition why are you condemning me to stop me who critique the source of the evils and contributing views to find solutions to the evil and violence acts.
I'm critiquing your poor arguments, lack of evidence and what appears to be a clear bias.

If that's a problem for you then maybe a philosophy forum is not the proper place for you.
It is my discretion. I am looking forward to some serious critiques so that I can counter and improve on my arguments.
So far your counters are very petty.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

You continue to label any constructive criticism as petty, snarky or attempts to shut you down. How can you expect to play a new song when you are stuck on the same notes? Looking over this thread, I see that some of the smarter people who post here are dismissed as ignorant. Yet you offer the same arguments for a questionable thesis. Phyllo's characterization of the thread stands IMHO. Good luck in finding anyone here who will dare to question your assumptions.
"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: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

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.
"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: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Ierrellus wrote:You continue to label any constructive criticism as petty, snarky or attempts to shut you down. How can you expect to play a new song when you are stuck on the same notes? Looking over this thread, I see that some of the smarter people who post here are dismissed as ignorant. Yet you offer the same arguments for a questionable thesis. Phyllo's characterization of the thread stands IMHO. Good luck in finding anyone here who will dare to question your assumptions.

Nope I am not shutting criticisms but hoping for more criticisms with greater bite.
When I say "ignorant" [not pejoratively] petty, narrow, shallow, it imply I am aware there are [possibly] more serious, wider and deeper basis of criticism of my views. Philosophy wise I think I am doing others a favor.

Note I have been criticized [elsewhere] as 'petty' and lack of depth when I referred to Kant, Islam, Buddhism and many others. I don't complain but take the initiative to study them in great depth.
In the past I relied mostly on secondary sources but got hit by others who referred to the primary sources, so I had to read up the primary sources of the related philosophers to keep up.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Ierrellus wrote: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.
The above is messed up, many are wrong and do not follow.

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

The above premises follow but is not polished, I hope you get the gist.

The above link the discovery of anxiety cells as a driver of religion [note there are other drivers] and how such discovery will enable the elimination of religions/theism.
We focus on anxiety re the OP, but the actual solutions involved dealing with other critical factors not mentioned here.

Criticisms of the above?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

There is no proof that everyone experiences existential angst as anything more than an impetus to adapt and survive.
Your psychoanalyses here tend to be limited to Islamic terrorists.
There is no proof that the creation of religion has anything to do with anxiety cells in the brain.
That theism is a form of mental illness is a matter of personal opinion.
The purpose of anxiety cells in the brain is to ensure mind/body homeostasis.
"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: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

I could write a paper but it is general knowledge to understand,
"when people feel threatened, they will introduce all sorts of derogatory and dehumanizing words directed at the threat [often misperceived]"
Note the amount of condemnations thrown at enemies and those perceived as 'enemies'.
The term 'atheist' was a derogatory term [epithet -a disparaging word] coined in the 16th century by the theists to 'put down' non-theists.
Note this is common [the us versus them instinct] within the theistic world where non-believers are condemned as 'kafir' kuffar, infidels, etc.
Well, I could say that "it is common for atheists to call theists 'mentally ill' because of a perceived threat and unwarranted fear".

But to do that, I would need to :

1. research how common it is and determine actual statistics.
2. research to determine if the motivation is a perceived threat and/or fear.
3. research to determine if the fear is warranted or unwarranted.

All of which are large tasks. I have not done those tasks and therefore I can't legitimately make that claim.

You need to do the same kind of research with respect to your claims about theists and I don't think you have done it. You have no statistics. Your evidence about motivation is cherry-picked. You can't even say that 'fear' is a major motivation.
The above is a simple inference.
If you agree 5% are psychopaths and sociopaths, i.e. 75 million Muslim, one can predict 10% will commit evil acts that are lesser than the evils committed by psychopaths.
You wrote :
But note evil proneness come in degrees within a continuum, if psychopathy [malignant] is say 95% evilness then petty evils is say 10% evilness.

From the above one can infer appx 20% of Muslims are active to commit degrees of evilness up to 75% [serious evil] which will including killing, raping, oppression, violence, etc.
What is "95% evilness" or "10% evilness"?

You made up those percentages. They are meaningless. Therefore, any inferences based on those percentages are meaningless.
It is my discretion. I am looking forward to some serious critiques so that I can counter and improve on my arguments.
So far your counters are very petty.
There is no reason to produce other "serious critiques" when you can't even counter these critiques.

But you're right ... your response is entirely up to you. I can't make you do anything.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Ierrellus wrote:There is no proof that everyone experiences existential angst as anything more than an impetus to adapt and survive.
DNA wise ALL humans are programmed to survived.

Whenever a threat [of various degrees] to one's survival [existence] is perceived explicitly or implicitly and there is no solution [immediately or in the long term] then existential angst [of various degrees] will manifest in terms of worries, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, etc. This is proof everyone experience existential angst.

However the existential angst that is responsible for religion is one that arise from a threat that is permanent and 100% certain, i.e. mortality with no possible solutions. If the other non permanent and uncertain existential threats generate the above mental sufferings just imagine an existential threat that is 100% certain.

Fortunately the brain/mind has evolved with inhibitors to suppress this terrible existential threat so that it does arise within normal consciousness all the time, otherwise humans will be paralyzed with anxieties.

Suppression is not elimination, this impulse re death anxiety is still very strong within the subconscious mind and the existential angst oozes in various degrees that drive the majority [at present] to religions.

Your psychoanalyses here tend to be limited to Islamic terrorists.
It basically explain the root cause of ALL religions [theistic and non-theistic].
There is definitely good in religions but my current focus and concern is on ALL evils [no exception] from religions.
For discussion sake I have limited it to the religion of Islam as a whole. Islamic terrorists [critical] is merely one aspect of evil.

There is no proof that the creation of religion has anything to do with anxiety cells in the brain.
I have already provided you references on the link between anxiety [existential] to religions.

That theism is a form of mental illness is a matter of personal opinion.
Technically, theism emerged from a form of mental problem [not DSMV] where the critical consequences are the terrible evil and violent acts committed in the name of God.

The purpose of anxiety cells in the brain is to ensure mind/body homeostasis.

Everything [99%] the brain does is striving to maintain "homeostasis"* to sustain a normal survival state. The brain/mind does that through various functions.
Anxiety is a secondary emotion [to move] i.e. to drive a person to avoid various threats to avoid premature death and thus survival.

* I don't think "homeostasis" is the right term because the definition is more applicable to physiologically related processes [body temperature, etc.] rather than psychological states.
homeostasis = the tendency towards a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological processes.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

phyllo wrote:
I could write a paper but it is general knowledge to understand,
"when people feel threatened, they will introduce all sorts of derogatory and dehumanizing words directed at the threat [often misperceived]"
Note the amount of condemnations thrown at enemies and those perceived as 'enemies'.
The term 'atheist' was a derogatory term [epithet -a disparaging word] coined in the 16th century by the theists to 'put down' non-theists.
Note this is common [the us versus them instinct] within the theistic world where non-believers are condemned as 'kafir' kuffar, infidels, etc.
Well, I could say that "it is common for atheists to call theists 'mentally ill' because of a perceived threat and unwarranted fear".

But to do that, I would need to :

1. research how common it is and determine actual statistics.
2. research to determine if the motivation is a perceived threat and/or fear.
3. research to determine if the fear is warranted or unwarranted.

All of which are large tasks. I have not done those tasks and therefore I can't legitimately make that claim.

You need to do the same kind of research with respect to your claims about theists and I don't think you have done it. You have no statistics. Your evidence about motivation is cherry-picked. You can't even say that 'fear' is a major motivation.
The above is one good example which is more serious and not petty.

Re my points, I have done the necessary research and various statistics within my means.
As for the other knowledge and principles I have read and researched on them extensively.

Note one of the most common knowledge and principle is the 'Us versus Them' 'In-group versus Out-group' concept. This concept has been researched very widely.
Note
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
and note
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups#Outgroup_derogation
Discrimination between ingroups and outgroups is a matter of favoritism towards an ingroup and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an outgroup.[7] Outgroup derogation is the phenomenon in which an outgroup is perceived as being threatening to the members of an ingroup.[8] This phenomenon often accompanies ingroup favoritism, as it requires one to have an affinity towards their ingroup. Some research suggests that outgroup derogation occurs when an outgroup is perceived as blocking or hindering the goals of an ingroup. It has also been argued that outgroup derogation is a natural consequence of the categorization process.

Out-group [THEM] derogation and condemnation is so common, thus I am surprised how you did not understand this point in terms of Islam [also Christianity and Judaism] condemning other religions and non-believers which is reflected very glaringly in the Quran.

Btw, I stated theism emerged from some kind of mental problem/illness [non DSMV] arising from an existential crisis. I have also stated ALL humans has this potential, therefore there are some non-theists who are also suffering from such mental problem/illness [non DSMV].

The above is a simple inference.
If you agree 5% are psychopaths and sociopaths, i.e. 75 million Muslim, one can predict 10% will commit evil acts that are lesser than the evils committed by psychopaths.
You wrote :
But note evil proneness come in degrees within a continuum, if psychopathy [malignant] is say 95% evilness then petty evils is say 10% evilness.

From the above one can infer appx 20% of Muslims are active to commit degrees of evilness up to 75% [serious evil] which will including killing, raping, oppression, violence, etc.
What is "95% evilness" or "10% evilness"?

You made up those percentages. They are meaningless. Therefore, any inferences based on those percentages are meaningless.
The principle of effective problem-solving is one must make an attempt to quantify all know variables.

Your problem is you are too impulsive and thus quick to reject what I am proposing.

Evilness [re evil acts] is a very significant problem within humanity.
Thus to resolve evilness effectively we need to quantify 'evilness'.
Surely you can agree there are degrees of evilness for all the known evil acts.

Note this common view;

25 Examples of Everyday Evil
People who fit the almost cartoonish definition we've grown accustomed to viewing as evil, certainly do exist -- and we hear about those dictators, serial killers, hit men, & psychopaths on the nightly news.

But, it's a mistake to believe that those are the only people who do evil or that only activities that rise to the level of murder, rape, or armed robbery are sins. The worst of the worst may deserve especially strong condemnation, but small cruelties committed by unthinking people -- who view themselves as good and just, despite their sometimes malicious actions -- have done more than most people realize to spread evil, degrade civilization, and drag our culture into the sewers.

1) Anonymously emailing death threats.
2) Suing someone who did nothing wrong in order to try to collect a big payday.
3) Passing on information that you know is a lie about a political opponent.
4) Posting someone's phone number or address online in an effort to intimidate him or worse yet, in hopes that someone will try to hurt him.
5) Putting an earmark in a bill in order to enrich your friends, family, or yourself.
6 - 25

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhaw ... l-n1352719

To differentiate the degrees,
Let say, IF genocides, mass killing, mass rapes is 90% degree of evilness.
then how would you rate the above 25 and other 'everyday evil'.
Common rationality will determine these everyday evil acts could be rated at 1-10%.
Then we will have other evils acts of various degrees in between the above two extremes.
Agree?

It is not I have made up the above %.
Using basic thinking anyone can generate the above % as defined.

Now [assume the problem raised can be resolved] if one is faced with the two extremes and has limited resources it would be more efficient to focus one's resources on those evilness that are rated at 90%.

So you are wrong when you insist;
"They are meaningless. Therefore, any inferences based on those percentages are meaningless."
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Homeostasis is what you claim anxiety cells are trying to achieve when faced with religious remedies for existential angst. You have already crossed the physical/mental divide; so it will not do now to claim that the brain's activities are purely physical. Homeostasis has a broader definition than you gave; otherwise your entire scenario of cells, anxiety and religion falls apart. This is why I can't always tell whether you are attempting to describe something physical or something mental.
"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: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Re my points, I have done the necessary research and various statistics within my means.
As for the other knowledge and principles I have read and researched on them extensively.
Then you should have no difficulty presenting evidence which supports your claim. But I don't see you doing it.
Note one of the most common knowledge and principle is the 'Us versus Them' 'In-group versus Out-group' concept. This concept has been researched very widely.
So?

That 'principle' has also been shown to break down and the groups merge.
Out-group [THEM] derogation and condemnation is so common, thus I am surprised how you did not understand this point in terms of Islam [also Christianity and Judaism] condemning other religions and non-believers which is reflected very glaringly in the Quran.
I understand that various religious groups sometimes get along and sometimes they don't. And within the groups there are always moderates and extremists.

And if I'm going to be making a general claim about theists, then it can't be based on the extremists of one particular religious group.
Btw, I stated theism emerged from some kind of mental problem/illness [non DSMV] arising from an existential crisis. I have also stated ALL humans has this potential, therefore there are some non-theists who are also suffering from such mental problem/illness [non DSMV].
You state that but I don't believe it. Mental illness is basically the inability to function effectively.Theism doesn't get in the way of effectiveness and it probably enhances it. (But that's a subject for another philosophical discussion.)
Furthermore, if God exists then theism is a correct world view and not merely a convenient invention. Then one needs to determine which god exists from the candidates on the list.
Your problem is you are too impulsive and thus quick to reject what I am proposing.
My problem is that I understand the use and abuse of numbers.
The principle of effective problem-solving is one must make an attempt to quantify all know variables.

Thus to resolve evilness effectively we need to quantify 'evilness'.
One does not quantify things which are unquantifiable.
Surely you can agree there are degrees of evilness for all the known evil acts.
To a large degree, normal people will agree on a ranking but not on actual quantities. IOW, they think that Act A is more evil/bad than Act B but not that Act A is "95% evil".
Let say, IF genocides, mass killing, mass rapes is 90% degree of evilness.
then how would you rate the above 25 and other 'everyday evil'.
Common rationality will determine these everyday evil acts could be rated at 1-10%.
Every time that you write "let's say", you are asking me to agree to your number ... but I don't agree. You pulled the number out of your dreams, imagination, prejudices, etc.
It is not I have made up the above %.
Using basic thinking anyone can generate the above % as defined.
Sure, any person can generate any percentage that he/she feels like. That's why it's useless.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Ierrellus wrote:Homeostasis is what you claim anxiety cells are trying to achieve when faced with religious remedies for existential angst. You have already crossed the physical/mental divide; so it will not do now to claim that the brain's activities are purely physical. Homeostasis has a broader definition than you gave; otherwise your entire scenario of cells, anxiety and religion falls apart. This is why I can't always tell whether you are attempting to describe something physical or something mental.
My understanding of homeostasis has always been the physical.
As for homeostasis in relation to anxiety, I just went along with your view in an analogical sense of balancing something to some expectations and I did make a lot of qualification on the use of the term in relation to religions.

Re anxiety and religion, the motive of anxiety in this particular case is more towards maintaining consonance from dissonance.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

phyllo wrote:
Re my points, I have done the necessary research and various statistics within my means.
As for the other knowledge and principles I have read and researched on them extensively.
Then you should have no difficulty presenting evidence which supports your claim. But I don't see you doing it.
Note I mentioned 'within my means.' I have already provided statistics and references.

Note one of the most common knowledge and principle is the 'Us versus Them' 'In-group versus Out-group' concept. This concept has been researched very widely.
So?
That 'principle' has also been shown to break down and the groups merge.
The "Us versus Them" is centered on divisiveness to facilitate survival and its negativeness.
So?
So that is why many [not all] theists are so offensive when they feel their psychological security re theism is threatened.

Out-group [THEM] derogation and condemnation is so common, thus I am surprised how you did not understand this point in terms of Islam [also Christianity and Judaism] condemning other religions and non-believers which is reflected very glaringly in the Quran.
I understand that various religious groups sometimes get along and sometimes they don't. And within the groups there are always moderates and extremists.

And if I'm going to be making a general claim about theists, then it can't be based on the extremists of one particular religious group.

It is not about theists [some evil, majority good] but theism as a fundamental ideology.

The ideology of theism has its pros and cons.
But the negative consequences of the ideology of theism re 'Us versus Them" generate terrible evils and violence, e.g. the stats below;

and in addition to a whole loads of other evil acts and violence.

Your view of focusing on the majority and not the proximate root causes is very irresponsible and giving attention to a misplaced priority.

Btw, I stated theism emerged from some kind of mental problem/illness [non DSMV] arising from an existential crisis. I have also stated ALL humans has this potential, therefore there are some non-theists who are also suffering from such mental problem/illness [non DSMV].
You state that but I don't believe it. Mental illness is basically the inability to function effectively.Theism doesn't get in the way of effectiveness and it probably enhances it. (But that's a subject for another philosophical discussion.)
Furthermore, if God exists then theism is a correct world view and not merely a convenient invention. Then one needs to determine which god exists from the candidates on the list.

Since the emergence of the idea of God, theists has not been able to prove God exists as real convincingly. Meanwhile there are so many arguments against the existence of God, e.g. God is an Impossibility and other counter views against the idea of God.

Everyone is entitled to think what they want and there is no concern if what is thought has no terrible negative impact on humanity.
But when thoughts are established as an ideology, in this case, theism, and has a VERY significant negative impact on humanity and is a serious threat to humanity in the future [possible extermination of the human species - re Islam] then serious attention must be given to such an ideology taking into accounts its pros versus cons.

At present [data accumulated from the pasts], below is one critical and terrible evil consequence arising from the ideology of theism,

plus a whole loads of other evil acts and violence.

Your problem is you are too impulsive and thus quick to reject what I am proposing.
My problem is that I understand the use and abuse of numbers.[/quote]As I said that is due to your impulsiveness in being defensive and for defensive sake.

The principle of effective problem-solving is one must make an attempt to quantify all know variables.

Thus to resolve evilness effectively we need to quantify 'evilness'.
One does not quantify things which are unquantifiable.
God is unquantifiable because it is an impossibility.
Other than the impossibilities all empirical possibilities are quantifiable but what is critical is the contexts and criteria must be precisely defined. When these numbers are used, one must always qualify the contexts and criteria used.
Note a subjective piece of art work can be quantified, i.e. in terms of the price $$people are willing to pay for it. Beauty is quantified in a beauty pageant and the winners are rewarded and recognized which has effects on people actions. Surely you can agree there are degrees of evilness for all the known evil acts. To a large degree, normal people will agree on a ranking but not on actual quantities. IOW, they think that Act A is more evil/bad than Act B but not that Act A is "95% evil". Let say, IF genocides, mass killing, mass rapes is 90% degree of evilness. then how would you rate the above 25 and other 'everyday evil'. Common rationality will determine these everyday evil acts could be rated at 1-10%. Every time that you write "let's say", you are asking me to agree to your number ... but I don't agree. You pulled the number out of your dreams, imagination, prejudices, etc. It is not I have made up the above %. Using basic thinking anyone can generate the above % as defined. Sure, any person can generate any percentage that he/she feels like. That's why it's useless. Yes, generally people will "think that Act A is more evil/bad than Act B." But note a person of higher IQ and wisdom will strive to find ways via quantification of the variable to prevent, reduce or eliminate the evils concern. I don't simply pull % out of nowhere, there is a rationale to why we can rate genocides, mass killing, mass rapes at 90%. Note; 1. The point here is there are no greater known evils than genocides, mass killing, mass rapes and the likes. This is common knowledge. So I rate them at 90% conservatively. 2. We also know there are common everyday petty 'evils' note the view and reference I posted above which is the other extreme. 3. We also know there is a medium range of evil acts between the everyday petty evils and the extreme evil. What I am trying to aim for is an approximate relative comparison with figures to represent the continuum of evilness. Now IF I rate the extreme evilness in 1 at 90% then I will have to rate 2 much lower than 90%. I am aware there is a medium range of evil acts, thus if I rate the lowest at 10%, then the medium range of evil acts will be something like 50%. I have done extensive research on evilness and evil act. I have also prepared a taxonomy of evilness and evil acts. In this case I can represent all the evil acts in % i.e. High to average = 90% to 50% Average to low = 50% to 10%. The starting point of this we prepare a rough taxonomy and ratings which can be improved over time. Application; If you are the person given the responsible to prevent, reduce or eliminate evil acts in your country but for good reasons has limited resources. In general [not special situations] the chart of % of evil acts and evilness will facilitate to direct your limited resources to the critical areas. If you don't have figures to guide you then you will be using your intuition and that is likely to face communication problems throughout, go haywire with a fire fighting approach. I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious. Prismatic567 Philosopher Posts: 1910 Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am ### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain "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. "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: 12533 Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm Location: state of evolving ### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain have already provided statistics and references. Where? Statistics about the issues I specifically wrote about? It is not about theists [some evil, majority good] but theism as a fundamental ideology. The ideology of theism has its pros and cons. But the negative consequences of the ideology of theism re 'Us versus Them" generate terrible evils and violence, e.g. the stats below; Then stop writing about theists and start writing about theism. But you keep writing stuff like this : So that is why many [not all] theists are so offensive when they feel their psychological security re theism is threatened. And you specifically stated that the theists in this thread feel threatened. Since the emergence of the idea of God, theists has not been able to prove God exists as real convincingly. Meanwhile there are so many arguments against the existence of God, e.g. God is an Impossibility and other counter views against the idea of God. Those arguments against the existence of God were not convincing. But when thoughts are established as an ideology, in this case, theism, and has a VERY significant negative impact on humanity and is a serious threat to humanity in the future [possible extermination of the human species - re Islam] then serious attention must be given to such an ideology taking into accounts its pros versus cons. You haven't shown that theism is a net negative. I personally tend to think that it's a net positive. But it's probably impossible to come to a clear conclusion due to the complexity, subjective value judgements and interpretations of the argument. As I said that is due to your impulsiveness in being defensive and for defensive sake. Please stop these amateur analyses. There is no place for them in a philosophy discussion. Other than the impossibilities all empirical possibilities are quantifiable but what is critical is the contexts and criteria must be precisely defined. When these numbers are used, one must always qualify the contexts and criteria used. If it's only an "empirical possibility" (whatever that means) then it's not actually empirically real and so there is no existing data. I don't care about "possible data". Even real existing stuff is often not quantifiable because of technical and practical limitations. Note a subjective piece of art work can be quantified, i.e. in terms of the price$$ people are willing to pay for it.
Beauty is quantified in a beauty pageant and the winners are rewarded and recognized which has effects on people actions.
Yes, subjective - dependent on persons involved, time, place, etc.
But note a person of higher IQ and wisdom will strive to find ways via quantification of the variable to prevent, reduce or eliminate the evils concern.
Maybe a person of higher IQ and wisdom will realize that evil is not quantifiable.
don't simply pull % out of nowhere, there is a rationale to why we can rate genocides, mass killing, mass rapes at 90%.

Note;

1. The point here is there are no greater known evils than genocides, mass killing, mass rapes and the likes. This is common knowledge. So I rate them at 90% conservatively.
2. We also know there are common everyday petty 'evils' note the view and reference I posted above which is the other extreme.
3. We also know there is a medium range of evil acts between the everyday petty evils and the extreme evil.

What I am trying to aim for is an approximate relative comparison with figures to represent the continuum of evilness.
Now IF I rate the extreme evilness in 1 at 90%
then I will have to rate 2 much lower than 90%.
I am aware there is a medium range of evil acts, thus if I rate the lowest at 10%, then the medium range of evil acts will be something like 50%.

I have done extensive research on evilness and evil act. I have also prepared a taxonomy of evilness and evil acts. In this case I can represent all the evil acts in % i.e.

High to average = 90% to 50%
Average to low = 50% to 10%.

The starting point of this we prepare a rough taxonomy and ratings which can be improved over time.

Application;
If you are the person given the responsible to prevent, reduce or eliminate evil acts in your country but for good reasons has limited resources.
In general [not special situations] the chart of % of evil acts and evilness will facilitate to direct your limited resources to the critical areas.

If you don't have figures to guide you then you will be using your intuition and that is likely to face communication problems throughout, go haywire with a fire fighting approach.
This is nothing more than a rationalization of your errors.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10962
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Phyllo is right Pris, on all counts. Scales of measurement for qualitative properties, such as differing degrees of evil are made in accordance with the perspective of the person measuring them. Which obviously means that they are subjective measurements. You can't expect us to treat your subjective measurements as objective facts or a substantive guide for quantifying degrees of evil - something that is very problematic to quantify or possibly cannot even be quantified. I think the best that you can achieve here is a consensus; and whilst many people may agree that there are evil acts that are more evil than others, assigning percentages to those opinions not only has the potential to create huge differences in variables (consider people's differences in opinion due to culture, religion, social status, etc), but also seems very arbitrary. It is fundamentally guess work, which also encounters a huge potential for confirmation bias.

Back to the drawing board buddy...
Fanman

Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

phyllo wrote:
have already provided statistics and references.
Where relevant.
Note this as a starting point to support my point where relevant;

It is not about theists [some evil, majority good] but theism as a fundamental ideology.
The ideology of theism has its pros and cons.
But the negative consequences of the ideology of theism re 'Us versus Them" generate terrible evils and violence, e.g. the stats below;
Then stop writing about theists and start writing about theism. But you keep writing stuff like this :
So that is why many [not all] theists are so offensive when they feel their psychological security re theism is threatened.

And you specifically stated that the theists in this thread feel threatened.
I stated my main focus is the ideology of theism but that would be ridiculous if I totally avoid theists who adopt the theistic ideology.
Note this thread where I differentiate theistic ideology from theists.
Do NOT Bash Muslims

Since the emergence of the idea of God, theists has not been able to prove God exists as real convincingly. Meanwhile there are so many arguments against the existence of God, e.g. God is an Impossibility and other counter views against the idea of God.
Those arguments against the existence of God were not convincing.

To me it is convincing.
Note my syllogism has only a few main terms, i.e. absolute perfection, empirical-rational reality.
I am still waiting for convincing counter arguments to show why my syllogism is not sound at all.

But when thoughts are established as an ideology, in this case, theism, and has a VERY significant negative impact on humanity and is a serious threat to humanity in the future [possible extermination of the human species - re Islam] then serious attention must be given to such an ideology taking into accounts its pros versus cons.
You haven't shown that theism is a net negative. I personally tend to think that it's a net positive. But it's probably impossible to come to a clear conclusion due to the complexity, subjective value judgements and interpretations of the argument.
I have been admitting theism at present is a critical necessity for the majority and is in a net-positive position, but the trend is the cons are outweighing the pros of theism-as-a-whole.

I have shown the potential and trend of theism toward being net-negative in the near future. Note this again and is trend since 911..

What is very unfortunate is you deliberately avoid to understand the malignant ethos inherent in Islam. You need to research on Islam and Quran to do that.

As I said that is due to your impulsiveness in being defensive and for defensive sake.
Please stop these amateur analyses. There is no place for them in a philosophy discussion.
This is a fact. I have provided the above statistics but that do not stir you to think of its evil potential in the future and to find its proximate root causes.

Other than the impossibilities all empirical possibilities are quantifiable but what is critical is the contexts and criteria must be precisely defined. When these numbers are used, one must always qualify the contexts and criteria used.
If it's only an "empirical possibility" (whatever that means) then it's not actually empirically real and so there is no existing data. I don't care about "possible data".
You missed my point.
All empirical possibilities covered whatever will happen in the future [the next second to the infinite] has to empirically possible based on known empirical evidence. For example, it is useless to attempt to quantify how many 'square-circle' in the next second or later future.

Even real existing stuff is often not quantifiable because of technical and practical limitations.
The point is we may not be able to measure them objectively, we can put approximate numbers to them.

Note a subjective piece of art work can be quantified, i.e. in terms of the price  people are willing to pay for it.
Beauty is quantified in a beauty pageant and the winners are rewarded and recognized which has effects on people actions.
Yes, subjective - dependent on persons involved, time, place, etc.

Yes, subjective, the main point is there is quantification and they work.
People in these cases did not give up rating who is more beautiful in terms of numbers because they think beauty is subjective.

But note a person of higher IQ and wisdom will strive to find ways via quantification of the variable to prevent, reduce or eliminate the evils concern.
Maybe a person of higher IQ and wisdom will realize that evil is not quantifiable.
It is only a person of low intelligence who think evil or anything subjective [empirical-based] cannot be quantifiable.
Note quantification of evil is actually implied in the judiciary system where evilness is in correlation with the degree of penal charges sentenced on the guilty, e.g. the rating of first, second or third degree murder.
So think harder and wider, don't let your intelligence neurons atrophize due to non-usage.

I don't simply pull % out of nowhere, there is a rationale to why we can rate genocides, mass killing, mass rapes at 90%.

Note;

1. The point here is there are no greater known evils than genocides, mass killing, mass rapes and the likes. This is common knowledge. So I rate them at 90% conservatively.
2. We also know there are common everyday petty 'evils' note the view and reference I posted above which is the other extreme.
3. We also know there is a medium range of evil acts between the everyday petty evils and the extreme evil.

What I am trying to aim for is an approximate relative comparison with figures to represent the continuum of evilness.
Now IF I rate the extreme evilness in 1 at 90%
then I will have to rate 2 much lower than 90%.
I am aware there is a medium range of evil acts, thus if I rate the lowest at 10%, then the medium range of evil acts will be something like 50%.

I have done extensive research on evilness and evil act. I have also prepared a taxonomy of evilness and evil acts. In this case I can represent all the evil acts in % i.e.

High to average = 90% to 50%
Average to low = 50% to 10%.

The starting point of this we prepare a rough taxonomy and ratings which can be improved over time.

Application;
If you are the person given the responsible to prevent, reduce or eliminate evil acts in your country but for good reasons has limited resources.
In general [not special situations] the chart of % of evil acts and evilness will facilitate to direct your limited resources to the critical areas.

If you don't have figures to guide you then you will be using your intuition and that is likely to face communication problems throughout, go haywire with a fire fighting approach.
This is nothing more than a rationalization of your errors.
I believe I have presented something very serious but you just brush it off.

Note if the variable is love, beauty and happiness I believe it would be more difficult but still possible to quantify.
In the case of 'evil' we can determine the worst of the worst existing evil acts at present, e.g. genocides, mass rapes, mass killing with torture and the likes.
We can also assess the petty everyday evil.
As I had stated such evils are already quantified implicitly within the judiciary system.
So it is not a problem to put numbers on what is already done at present.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

Fanman wrote:Phyllo is right Pris, on all counts.
You are just agreeing without any serious thinking.

Scales of measurement for qualitative properties, such as differing degrees of evil are made in accordance with the perspective of the person measuring them. Which obviously means that they are subjective measurements. You can't expect us to treat your subjective measurements as objective facts or a substantive guide for quantifying degrees of evil - something that is very problematic to quantify or possibly cannot even be quantified. I think the best that you can achieve here is a consensus; and whilst many people may agree that there are evil acts that are more evil than others, assigning percentages to those opinions not only has the potential to create huge differences in variables (consider people's differences in opinion due to culture, religion, social status, etc), but also seems very arbitrary. It is fundamentally guess work, which also encounters a huge potential for confirmation bias.

Back to the drawing board buddy...
Note my explanation on why 'evilness' is a special qualitative property. I stated above;

Note if the variable is love, beauty and happiness I believe it would be more difficult but still possible to quantify.
In the case of 'evil' we can determine the worst of the worst existing evil acts at present, e.g. genocides, mass rapes, mass killing with torture and the likes.
We can also assess the petty everyday evils.
As I had stated such evils are already quantified implicitly within the judiciary system.
So it is not a problem to put numbers on what is already done at present.

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.

Another critical factor is humans has limited resources so they need to apply limited resources to what is more critical, efficient and optimal. Thus where resources are critical the priority is we direct the resources to the issues of more critical consequences.

By the way, are you aware of how to use the Pareto 80/20 ratio. Point here is to identify where we can use 20% effort to resolve 80% of the problem rather than wasting 80% of resources to resolve only 20% of the problem.

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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext