You can’t recognize counterarguments of substance.
It’s your loss.
Pris,
Which I am under no obligation to agree with.
That is the claim, but I remain sceptical. Because certain cells react to certain “anxiety” causing stimuli in mice, does not as a certainty mean that they are “anxiety cells". If you want to buy that it is your discretion, but don’t expect others to jump in the boat with you.
Again, from 4 to 5 is an epic leap.
Yet another epic leap. That you think these points demonstrate anything substantive is an error of judgement or logic IMV. These points are at best speculative.
I don’t doubt that there are many effective methods of reducing anxiety, but I’m not willing to speculate about the possibility of there being “anxiety cells” that can be modulated, because scientists claim to have found anxiety cells in mice. If such a breakthrough is made in the study of human physiology and is well supported, then I will begin to speculate.
That is entirely your choice. Note, there is no negative reflection on others if they choose not to think as you are. There are differing degrees of what people find acceptable and reasonable.
Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here.
I think that my refutations of your argument are valid, you don’t. We will have to agree to disagree.
Think of me what you will. The fact is, you stated that your argument/syllogism re “God is an impossibility” is perfect.
Are you serious? There is a reason that I don’t link anxiety, mice and religion as a whole. I don’t see the correlation and certainly not causation at this stage.
I don’t agree that existential angst is “DNA ordained” rightly or wrongly. I think that the cause of existential angst is the knowledge that we will one day cease to exist.
Not really no, it doesn’t state anything that I wasn’t generally aware of. I don’t think that your excerpt supports your argument that existential angst is “DNA ordained” and I don’t see why you think it does either?
I disagree. Can you support your argumentation here?
Hold on a minute. The claim is that scientists found anxiety cells in mice, how does it follow therefrom that anxiety cells led to the creation of religion? Not in terms of your opinion, but factually.
Serendipper,
That is the million dollar question. I suppose that when we’re down, we choose the guiding principle that offers the best potential view of our future selves?
Human beings already know what’s good them, but they become distracted and confused. Once they realize their error, then they can choose the good guiding principles. That’s a common concept in all but the nihilistic philosophies/religions.
Pris,
Good luck tweaking this 
.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVsJT9Uc_M[/youtube]
The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity and it is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad because you never know what will be the consequences of the misfortune or you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.
What does it mean to be down? Yes I think when people are down they choose religion as a convenient way to feel uplifted (superior). Churches prey on praying people.
That’s why the Stoics say that the things over which you have no control are neither good or bad … they are indifferent. The things over which you have control are either good or bad - your thoughts and your actions.
The Taoist are opposite and claim that your nature is infinitely more wise than your consciousness. The Zen school is often called the sudden school because it discourages thinking about solutions in lieu of spontaneity; in other words, do something quickly even if it’s “wrong”.
“Your nature” is to think. That’s what distinguishes humans from other animals.
Throwing your brain into the garbage seems to be a bad idea.
Yeah, I thought of that. I’m not sure how the Taoists rationalize that. Apparently, I am the illusion and therefore any conscious thoughts I have aren’t real, but the illusion also exists in reality, so I’m not sure of the differentiation.
Animals think.
I don’t think the idea is to throw the brain in the trash but to let the unconscious part take more control than the conscious. Don’t think, but feel.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d5o8d1kitM[/youtube]
Maybe animals feel but don’t think. :-"
Haha yeah I can see that, but I see them stop and appear to be pondering what to do next so they’re not always spontaneous. And animals evolved into humans right? So where is the line drawn between the thinkers and instincters?
Serendipper,
By “down”, I mean at a point where self destructive behaviours have led to a person hitting rock bottom, where their life is in tatters and they’re not able to function effectively. I think that at this stage people are very vulnerable, because if they cannot lift themselves out of the bad situation, any course of action or guiding principle offering redemption will seem like a way out to them. So I agree that churches can prey on praying people, but if they can offer a route out of trouble a person could take a calculated risk. If religion does help them, then the person who’s helped (should they become religious) may conclude that it is God who has helped them; not seeing how much they did to help themselves.
phyllo,
I agree, but some people aren’t able to abate self-destructive behaviours, even though they’re aware that such behaviours are extremely detrimental to their well-being. Good guiding principles are practicably a form of “a saviour”, but not everyone has the self-awareness necessary to recognise when they need them.
This is pure rhetoric.
For thousands of years humans have been experimenting with and studying animals [inside and outside] as a model to understand human beings.
First it was physical and then it progress to the mental.
I am sure you understand scientists are not that stupid to transfer what they learned of animals directly to humans. So there is no need to raise the above rhetorical question.
To confirm whether the same conclusion affect humans scientists will have to carry out various testings and verification before they arrive at a conclusion for humans.
In the research for the identification of anxiety cells, whether the mice are aware of their impending demise or not, is not critical. Note it is known only certain animals are self-aware and it is certainly humans are self-aware of mortality. It is unlikely for those animals who are self-aware [elephants, apes, dolphins, and others] of the mortality.
I believe your above resistance to my views is you prefer not to exercise your intelligence.
Here is one view from Quora;
What I have been doing is to use existing knowledge to form a very probable hypothesis [note I am saying mine is a proven theory].
I have NOT claimed mine is a proven theory.
I have given you my hypothesis re my points 1-6 above.
You have to apply the Principle of Charity here.
In 1, note ‘perfect’ in ’ ’ [astrophe] which meant absolutely perfect. Thus I don’t claim absolute perfection.
But in 2 I differentiated ‘absolutely perfect’ from ‘relatively perfect.’
I can say I have a perfect [relative] score [100/100 or 100%] in an objective test I took but that is not an absolute perfection. Such is confusing and seemingly contradicting in layman terms, but not philosophically. You find it confusing?
Pris,
That’s funny. There is no “resistance”, I disagree with you, because I think that you are wrong. When I think that you’re right, I agree. This phenomena, is called “choice”.
What is a proven theory?
I never stated that you did.
Whereby I’ve highlighted what I see as the issues.
Pris,
No, I’m not confused about this. You emphatically claimed that you’ve never said that your arguments are perfect, but you did claim your argument/syllogism is perfect. What is there to possibly be confused about? I know what perfection means. You seem to be the one struggling with the term.