Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

You are absolutely right!

Maybe a few carefully placed red herrings and a pile of dead horses will stop all but the true Scotsman :wink:

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.

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.

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.

Pris,

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…

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.

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.

What does that mean? You look down on the other posters?

Yes that’s what the prism is for… focusing the distance :wink:

Well, he did claim this:

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.

Pris,

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Maybe, but it is a highly speculative claim.

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

Pure science fiction IMV.

Read my point again. I did not claim ‘because something is based on faith that it is necessarily wrong.’ Not every view that is based on faith is necessarily wrong.

I stated ‘theism is fundamentally based on faith which by default is easily defeated and difficult to defend using reason.’

You got my point wrong. It is not ‘perfect’ but “absolutely perfect”.

Thus it should be
God must be ABSOLUTELY perfect [the Greatest of all] or he’d [a lesser god] have to eat shit from a greater god.

Thus God must be “absolutely perfect” i.e. an ontological God than which no greater can exists.
When a God is “absolutely perfect” not just ‘perfect’ then it will always dominate any other gods, thus do not have to eat their shit.
Thus rationally, you MUST choose a God that is absolutely perfect.
Note ‘absolute’ = totally unconditional.

It is no a huge leap by a high probability. I have given links and references indicating a connection between religions and anxieties.

I said again,
What matter to me or philosophically is the substance of the argument.”

You are trying to push through is a fallacy, i.e. Argumentum ad populum, the consensus fallacy where you are trying to appeal the majority.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I will say again,

What matter to me or philosophically is the substance of the argument.”

You keep saying my argument is flawed… so where it is flawed?

However I ‘tweaks it and fudges’ [if you think so] it is up to you to present a counter view, which I had done.

“Peers” is normally a group recognized by all participants where all members has the basic credibility in a specific expertise. For example ‘peers’ in a Scientific community. In general, even in a Scientific community, a Biologist would not accept any Physicist as a peer to present an acceptable critique of their specialized papers related to biology.

In this case I don’t know the background of all the participants here and anyone Tom, Dick and Harry can join to express and counter views presented in this forum. In this case, I do not accept posters here as my ‘peers’ and I expect vice versa from others. No offense intended, it is not that I claim I am better, it is merely an intellectual consideration.

The above is a useful feedback for further improvement, especially on knowledge re Problem-Solving techniques in this case. It is yours and others’ discretion to accept or not.
I often get such feedback and in most cases I make it a point to detect where I have weaknesses and strive to improve on it.

The DNA [no damage] is the generic basic architectural and machinery/operational blueprint for all human beings.
It is the DNA that programmed all humans to be mortals, self-aware and all the basic mental programs like instincts, emotions [including fears-anxiety] etc.

Note,
‘angst’ = a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general.
Then isn’t it literal ‘existential angst’ involve anxiety?
I wrote earlier, I have given evidence and links connecting religions with anxieties.

Note there are non-theistic religions like Buddhism, Jainism and others. Note >90% of humans are religious [theistic and non-theistic].

Where theistic religions assuage anxiety, it is based critically on a belief, God exists.
For those who do not buy the idea God exists, theistic religions do not work on them to assuage anxiety. Instead they rely on other means to relieve the existential angst, e.g. like non-theistic religions, secular self-improvements, and to the other extremes of drugs, opioids, and other negative extremes.

The mechanisms that drive the existential crisis, i.e. anxiety and others that led to religions as a solution is basically a psychological problem of say a certain degree but not serious enough to warrant psychiatric treatment.

However when this same psychological mechanism is serious enough it leads to serious anxiety disorders which are mental illnesses.

The fear of mortality is heavily suppressed within an existential angst, but when this fear of death impulses leak to consciousness, it is Thanatophobia which is a serious psychiatric problem.

So there is a continuum of anxiety re the existential crisis ranging from very mild [say 10%] to very extreme [thanatophobia] [90%].
The death anxiety that compel people to religions would range from 10% to say 75%.

At least you acknowledge you don’t know enough. In such a state of ignorance in view of the seriousness of the threats from Islamists, your should at least educate yourself thoroughly on Islam to understand it fully.

Note this Lord Pearson -UK who [possibly the only Lord] is very responsible to take the trouble to understand Islam more deeply in its truths that Islam is inherent evil.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bjks3fmajM[/youtube]

I told you earlier, this thread is not the most critical point but merely a hypothesis based on the promises of the Human Connectome Project.
humanconnectomeproject.org/

Science fiction?? This is why I am aware your knowledge in these areas are so lacking. It is good for you to take this critique positively to increase your knowledge.
Note I have taken the trouble to build up a relevant knowledge database that is very strong, deep and wide. This is why I am able to deal with whatever questions you can throw at me at whatever depth you can dig into and width you can stretch. Just try…

Note currently humans has been progressing in modulating their anxieties and other emotions albeit using the black-box approach and there are success stories. The Buddhists had been doing that for thousands of years without resorting to theism.

The Human Connectome Project [in future] will enable humanity to go in deep into the ‘black box’ to expedite the process and ensuring it is fool proof.

Aristotle [thousands of years ago] was aware of modulating emotions [anxieties included];

The Stoics also discussed about modulating one’s emotions for the better.

Right.

In order for it to be defeated by default, it would have be necessarily wrong. What do you think default means?

Default - a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative. Remained the club’s president by default. The default candidate. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/default

So by using the word “default”, you’re saying there is no viable alternative to defeat, which necessarily means that anything based on faith is necessarily wrong.