- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So you believe there's a psychosomatic link between religion and brain damage?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you believe there's a psychosomatic link between religion and brain damage?No I have no proof other than my eyes and my brain, the things I read on this forum leads me to believe that religion damages the brain ...
Oh, so we aren't talking about the word "theory" as scientists do. OK.
But remember, to a scientist there is a huge difference between the word "theory" and "hypothesis". You are apaprently using theory as the "common" term, not technically.
Sorry. I'm a scientist so when people abuse the term in a science discussion I am prone to err on the side of the actual scientific definition.
Correct. The point being that it is more likely than an explanation that includes unverifiable supernatural beings.
That's all it says. It doesn't say "god doesn't exist", it doesn't say anything other than:
1. You have all this evidence
2. Using this evidence how did this likely come about without including unevidenced factors.
Would you prefer that when discussed in classes the issue mention unevidenced items as well? That will lead to many unpleasant ramifications regardless. It will open the doors to include anything and everything (including the unevidence role of leprechuans and unicorns).
I don't say that to be flippant or rude about religion. The fact is, religion must prove the validity of their hypothesized factor (GOD) within some degree of certainty before he can be invoked in the mechanism. OR at the very least provide sufficient evidence that the model will work better with this "God Factor" than without.
That's it! It doesn't say anything about God's existence or lack thereof.
Think of it like a sporting event or a game. In soccer as a player on the field I cannot use my hands. That does not mean that my hands disappear, it merely means that the rules make the game work by establishing a common baseline. If you want to play soccer as field player and use your hands you are no longer playing soccer.
If you want to play chess and have the knight be able to fly over the board and land wherever he wants to, then you are no longer playing chess.
These are the rules. They are not, as many may wish to think, arbitrary and "anti-god". They are merely that you are limited to working within a framework of liklihood. If you have reason to believe that there are "other factors" you don't know about, you cannot just then "make up" what those factors are and expect them to be accepted without an exceptional reason for doing so. It is far better to provide some evidence for those factors and how the inclusion of those unseen factors works better than the model without them.
There are cases in science where the model just lacks somethign to make it work. There are cases where things have to be done that don't make a lot of sense, but make the numbers work better. In the present case if you feel that abiogenesis has some significant lack you may hypothesize "god" but your mere incredulity around the chemistry is insufficient to make that hypothesis compelling to others.
In the current case, since abiogenesis is, technically speaking, NOT a theory, it is still a suite of hypotheses being tested. So it is really not possible at this time to make the claim that the model with God is superior than the model without God.
Why? Why is your god somehow more likely to exist than leprechauns or unicorns? Or a god of any other religion?I am not talking religion as a whole. I am talking about the Christian God and the Christian creation narrative. It stands on it own. In the case of leprechauns and unicorns, neither have any claims in creation.
Then we would look like them.Why? Why is your god somehow more likely to exist than leprechauns or unicorns? Or a god of any other religion?
Genesis 1:26a said:And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Then we would look like them.
Where's their documentation?Technically leprechauns look like small humans.
Well they do say you have to be Irish to be Irish. So that excludes the rest of humanity. Therefore non leprechaun looking people (anyone taller than a pencil) and not of having Gaelic descent; are excluded from the deity club!Technically leprechauns look like small humans.
And Irish people do exist. *ahem*
I think I might be on to something here. Brb, just gonna franchise me a cult.
The leprechauns did it case closed
Kiss that theory goodbye, then ---Well, it's more of an oral tradition really...
I highlighted the part in which I am interested, please provide where in the resources provided by the University that it states this.
If I am wrong about the content having no part reserved for abiogenesis then by all means please provide that as well.
The fact that students who have under-performed (but show Potential) but have had a horrible quality of high school education are being "brought up to speed" about the origin of life is not something that really supports your argument, now does it?
No I have no proof other than my eyes and my brain, the things I read on this forum leads me to
believe that religion damages the brain, if I told you I could fly by waving my arms would you think
I was just a little bit kooky? and why would you think that? because you know it's not possible,
the same thing applies here, the things they believe are not possible, however much they believe them,
which leads me to believe something has damaged their brains, and what do they all have in common?
Religion.
I am not promoting teaching creation, but if you are saying that abiogenesis is being "discussed" then the Christian creation narrative has as much to offer in a discussion as the natural. The Christian creation narrative is a set up in such a way as to provide information of the stages of life.
I am not talking religion as a whole. I am talking about the Christian God and the Christian creation narrative. It stands on it own. In the case of leprechauns and unicorns, neither have any claims in creation.
When you exclude anything of supernatural in an area that prohibits anything other than "natural" as its foundation you are not just establishing rules you are excluding possibility.
It is that simple. It maybe what we have to do to make it all work, but it provides a blind spot in our understanding that can color our findings.
Oh but we "make up" factors all the time. That is what the beginning of science hypothesis is based on.
We make up how something happened and go about researching it to find out if we are correct. Having God as a Creator makes sense in many ways. Do I think that "God did it" is sufficient..no. I feel science is important and I think it works well working within the specified mechanics. That is all well and good but when science then tells us that a better explanation of the beginning of life is such and such and God is prohibited as an explanation, then science is crossing the line.
I don't know the current statistics but a majority of people in the world believe that God did create the universe. So making it compelling to others is not really necessary.
The model with God has to be tested as well. Unfortunately the testing against the evidence is a moving and changing thing. The evidence keeps changing.
You mean the fossil record doesn't match the Genesis account?Except that the Genesis account doesn't match up with the evidence from the fossil record.
You know. It's times like these why I understand why so many other first world countries laugh at our education system.
QFT +rep!The first step is always the hardest.
Methinks someone is way behind the times.Yep! he's getting there; albeit excruciatingly slowly, but hey! He IS getting there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?