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)
DNA wise, anxiety cells [existential related] drive humans to invent religions/theism.
Religion assuages anxiety [existential related]
religion is a type of mental illness -non DSMV (8)
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)
Anxiety cells discovered in the brain by scientists
Anxiety cells [existential related] are identified
anxiety cells can be modulated (9)
Anxiety cells [existential related] identified are modulated [future only]
Anxiety driving one to be religious (1) is reduced and/or eliminated - no more religious.
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;
and the whole range of other evil and violent acts via religions.
I think that doing so encounters problems, which I’ve already stated.
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?
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.
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?
This is what you’re accomplishing:
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
Yes but you see your problem is you expect too much
I sincerely welcome you and hope you stick around in spite of… everything.
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… ) and I found this site to be very good.
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.”
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.
That he is, I suppose that practice makes perfect, or is that absolutely perfect? 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
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Again mine is a general point.
I was speculating with optimism based on the advances of the Human Connectome Project.
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.
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__
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 suggest you read through the thread and note I have provided arguments and countered arguments reasonably. Show me where I am wrong?
That doesn’t mean anything. The implementation of “faith” does not = automatically wrong and therefore you cannot draw your conclusion, which is:
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.
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.
You stick to your guns even if they are half-cocked, yes, I know.
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.
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?
What it boils down to is you’re going to have it your way and no one can convince you otherwise.
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? It would certainly be interesting to understand how they interpreted that the mice were anxious. It sounds so tabloid…
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.
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 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.
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.
. 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… 
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 
.