Accrding to the article, some scientists have established a link between brain damage and religious fundamentalism:
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/scientists-established-link-brain-damag...
Thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
A link between fundamentalism and bdain damage would not explain me!
Another user posted on this a while back. I got a lot of dislikes for it, but you can still see my comment on it here: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/religious-fundamentali...
" I got a lot of dislikes for it,"
Is your disingenuous use of the word dislikes deliberate? You understand the definition of debate involves voting right? So the disagree button performs an end function, blaming the audience by implying bias might carry a little more weight if we haven't all seen how consistently biased and often dishonest you are in your post John. Or do you think your dishonest evasion will have no consequences for your credibility on here, like the boy who cried wolf, or in your case cried "irrelevant" whenever he's faced with questions or points he doesn't want to answer as it'll undermine his position.
I must say, despite all my studies into the foundations and functions of human behavior and cognition, I am envious of your ability to naturally detect honesty across the internet lol. Surely the court system would pay good money to have you on their team.
It's a shame that "all (your) studies into the foundations and functions of human behaviour and cognition" can't make you understand that cherry picking my post, whilst ignoring most of the content is in fact very dishonest.
If you are going to whine about the disagrees you get then try answering people's questions candidly, there is a long list building up in the macro evolution thread for a start, which you have dishonestly ignored, nor is that thread by any means your debut in duplicitous behaviour.
You see in your response to my accusation that your posts are relentlessly dishonest, you offer unsurprisingly a dishonest misrepresentation of my post, implying that I made some sort of claim at infallible detection of honesty, rather than an observation based on the evidence presented in your posts. I really do wonder if you even realise you're doing it, or is it actually some sort of pathology.
Denying reality could be a sign of Brain Damage. Acceptance of reality is never a sign of Brain Damage. Atheists should take note.
Duly noted, when did your accident occur?
@Nobody....(in particular)
Gotchya. Cool. I am making a note that Nobody told atheists to take note on the denial of reality, even though Nobody denies reality around here. Check.
" I got a lot of dislikes for it,"
Makes me wonder - what were you shooting for? People can be so cruel. I'm going to go back and give you a like. Not because you deserve it but to make you feel better.
Likes do make me feel better.
However, most of that post was me essentially transcribing the notes from my classes. So I found the dislikes particularly interesting.
There are no likes or dislikes, only agrees or disagrees. Since your favourite pastime is to deny established scientific facts, I think you may be misunderstanding the root cause of those disagrees.
"However, most of that post was me essentially transcribing the notes from my classes."
Maybe the disagrees were aimed at the rest of your post, offering your subjective opinion mingled with a few facts isn't likely to fool most of the posters on here, as they're not nearly as stupid as you'd like to believe.
Well, feel free to post below the parts of that post which were my subjective opinion, as well as the reasons why you disagree with them. You stated in your response at the time that I'm "quite obviously biased" and gave a "theistic interpretation." Statements which earned you high likes.
So show me.
"well, feel free to post below the parts of that post which were my subjective opinion, "
""However, *****most of that post***** was me essentially transcribing the notes from my classes.""
It was your caveat not mine.
One more time then THERE ARE NO LIKES.
It's a debate forum, and the moderators have included buttons to allow each person one vote to either agree or disagree. Since you seem obsessed with how many people agree with you, you might consider if an atheist leaning forum is the best place to espouse religious beliefs, and denials of scientific facts, in order to achieve that.
I love the way you demand answers though, I never tire of irony. However I'll grant your boon, your denial of a scientific fact that refutes part of your religious beliefs is an obvious example of bias, your claim that you are not motivated by those beliefs is an example of your dishonesty, and your refusal to offer any answer when asked how many scientific facts you deny that don't in any way refute your religious beliefs is evidence of your dishonesty. The high number of agrees suggests that I am not alone in these conclusions, as are the high number of people who have told you precisely what I have of course.
NB these are just a few examples.
I view the like/dislike buttons as informative, specially because I'm in an atheist forum. I recently made two large posts that were the equivalent of the brain damage post. One was about marriage, the other about LGBT.
The marriage and lgbt posts both got about five likes each and no dislikes; whereas my post on brain damage in fundamentalists did the opposite, it got 5 dislikes and no likes.
I wrote all three the same way, by going through my class notes as a refresher, and transcribing and explaining them to people. However, there is one big difference. In the marriage and lgbt posts I cited my references, where's in the fundamentalist post I did not.
That's an interesting hypotheses because I've been citing my references in APA format, not with links to Wikipedia pages, and my sources come from textbooks and journals which i know most of you don't have access to.
So, it looks like just the presence of citations alone, even though nobody is looking though them, is enough to make people think I'm more right than if I didn't have them.
THERE IS NO DISLIKE BUTTON.
Sigh....
"So, it looks like just the presence of citations alone, even though nobody is looking though them, is enough to make people think I'm more right than if I didn't have them."
I couldn't say you'd have to ask them, but since you already admitted your post in the brain damaged thread was not entirely from that text it's a moot point, as I already pointed out. Mainly I don't understand why you obsess over the agree and disagree button.
And I read those posts. I neither AGREE nor DISAGREE with them. To me they seemed as if they were made by a student who flunked a test and was trying to prove he is correct by also including references...
rmfr
Generally speaking when you flunk a test, then go to the teacher with references which prove you were correct, the teacher fixes your grade.
So...... you were copying and pasting from your class notes? You thought that what was good for one place would be great for the other? And you still wonder about those dislikes?
Of course what's good for one place is great for the other. Since the day I came to this site, I've loved it because its discussions enable me to review what I've learned. How many real-world situations am I going to encounter where I can talk about the functions of the vmPFC? Zero. All of that is forgotten knowledge unless I have place to actively review and teach that information.
@Breezy, thank you for the info. It was opened during my trip, so I wasn't very active at that time. And as a matter of fact, last night before I posted, I looked up a similar thread, but obvioulsy I missed it.
I'm going to find out the reason why you got so many dislikes and if @Sheldon is right... (he probably is hehe)
My apologies to @LogicforTW (who opened the original one) and the rest for the inconvenience.
No worries, it is a very interesting point that I obviously also believe is worth discussing, I claim zero ownership to the concept as somehow being my credit because I posted about it first :)
You mean he didn't earn those dislikes. Damn! I am going to take back my 'sympathy like.' I don't feel sorry for Breezy any more.
oh..perhaps i pressed the wrong button john sorry for doing it intentionally..its not that bad though 5 dislikes...
hey...i thought the dislike button doesn't bother him cog....he said it to me and everyone else...adding that he might too dislike his own comment..so dishonest.
he told me this way back older post...hhmmm...
i guess he just swallow what he said...
@Flamenca, and others...
A long time ago, when I had to chase T-rexes out my back yard...
I wrote a paper in college about how religion may not cause mental disorders, but it does cause mental patterns and ways of thinking very similar to mental disorders. Don't where that paper is. Don't even know if I still have a digital copy. However, I do remember that my focus was based on some of the text used to define three different disorders: Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Schizophrenic Delusion Disorder, and Inferiority Complex Disorder.
This is a very quick hash on what I could remember about that paper.
Pay attention to the highlighted text for they do describe virtually all Absolutists perfectly.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding [caring] of others’ feelings. People affected by NPD often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power, success, and/or domineering control (megalomania). They often take advantage of the people around them, especially focusing upon the homeless, poor, drug addicts, and less educated. This disorder is very similar to Megalomaniacal Dementia when applied to those of a religious bent. [What is so funny here is the type of people NPDs target are exactly the same ones targeted by Absolutists.]
One thing I have always noticed about virtually all Absolutists is their incessant need to be admired by everyone. They also lack understanding other's feelings, especially if they do not believe the same delusion as the Absolutists. Due to the fact that the Absolutists believe their delusions are reality, this makes them feel very self-important. As for their taking advantace of people, especially the homeless, poor, drug addicts, and less educated... Well simply look at the demographics of the Absolutists.
Schizophrenic Delusion Disorder (Schizophrenia)
Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some combination of hallucinations, delusions, and extremely disordered thinking and confused, sometimes deranged behavior that may or may not impair daily functioning, and may be disabling. Schizophrenia is a chronic condition usually requiring lifelong treatment.
All highlighted text above does a perfect job of describing an Absolutist: interpret reality abnormally, delusions (especially of grandeur), disordered thinking, and sometimes deranged behavior. Absolutists look at reality as "God did it" instead of using the Scientific Method to figure it out. They are delusioned in believing in a deity they cannot prove exists. And the anger of not being able to prove it is what causes their disordered thinking and deranged behavior.
Inferiority Complex Disorder
A psychological disorder characterized by an acute sense of being lower in status, quality, capability, intelligence, skillfulness than other people that can be wholly or partly unconscious resulting in exaggerated timidity, or overcompensation with exaggerated aggressiveness.
Now the Inferiority Complex Disorder is due to that sadistic indoctrination process of the Absolutists. The basis of this is that ALL persons are born of sin, into sin, and incapable of living moral and ethical lives without a sky-faerie. Akin to the Schizophrenia, their inability to prove a God exists also causes an overcompensation with exaggerated aggressiveness.
Well, that is the result of quick hashing (about five minutes).
rmfr
Lol, I do love the complexity of having both an acute sense of lower status, and an exaggerated feeling of self-importance, all at the same time. Adler would have been proud.
@John Re: "I do love the complexity of having both an acute sense of lower status, and an exaggerated feeling of self-importance, all at the same time."
What's so complex? For instance, I know I am stronger, faster, more intelligent, funnier, and MUCH better looking than anybody else on this site. However, I really hate myself so much for it, that I often feel incredibly unworthy to be in the presence of anybody here. It works out okay, though, because my self-loathing keeps me humble and helps me to avoid making any of you guys feel inferior. See? Nothing complicated about that. LOL
People can display arrogance, and narcissism, but still secretly have low self esteem. I'd have thought a student of psychology would know that.
Adler is Freud 2.0, and the inferiority complex is his equivalent of the Oedipus complex.
Notice the words you yourself used: "but still secretly". Obviously, we know you're a modern day psychic and have the ability to read people's mind and infer hidden intentions such as honesty; but the rest of us cannot.
"People ****can*** display arrogance, and narcissism, but still secretly have low self esteem."
That's a statement about what is possible, and clearly not a claim to know what someone is thinking.
Pages