Posts by MadGiant

20

Why are people beholden to ancient superstitions?

by Doug Mason in

how is it that in a world that is so technological, scientific, fact-based, evidence-based, and so on, that many people are superstitious - even more so, the superstitions of ancient cultures?.

doug.

MadGiant

Why are people beholden to ancient superstitions?

You just have to look at the dictionary to find the answer to your question. Sadly, all the definitions apply.

[a] A superstition is an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.
[b] An irrational belief, practice, or ritual that a person feels he needs to embrace or perform in order to bring about good luck or a desired outcome.
[c] A belief, not based on reason or scientific knowledge.

Bold mine.

Ignorance and fear are the key.

Take care,

Ismael

24

Can anyone explain love?

by mrhhome in

jw
friends

we have had a variety of theist vs atheist debates on this forum.

usually, it devolves (or evolves?

) into a debate on what can or cannot be proven.. so let's step back a second.

MadGiant

"It's a very complicated subject. There are so many different kinds of love. I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it." - LisaRose

I agree, and this quote is for both of you:

It is a splendid thing to think that the woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the mask of years, if you really love her, you will always see the face you love and won. And a woman who really loves a man does not see that he grows old; he is not decrepit to her; she always sees the same gallant gentleman who won her hand and heart. - Robert G. Ingersoll (1833 – 1899)

Love is a chemical reaction.

That initial giddiness that comes when we're first falling in love includes a racing heart, flushed skin and sweaty palms. Researchers say this is due to the dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine we're releasing. Dopamine is thought to be the "pleasure chemical," producing a feeling of bliss. Norepinephrine is similar to adrenaline and produces the racing heart and excitement. According to Helen Fisher, anthropologist and well-known love researcher from Rutgers University, together these two chemicals produce elation, intense energy, sleeplessness, craving, loss of appetite and focused attention. She also says, "The human body releases the cocktail of love rapture only when certain conditions are met and ... men more readily produce it than women, because of their more visual nature."

Another possible explanation for the intense focus and idealizing view that occurs in the attraction stage comes from researchers at University College London. They discovered that people in love have lower levels of serotonin and also that neural circuits associated with the way we assess others are suppressed. These lower serotonin levels are the same as those found in people with obsessive-compulsive disorders, possibly explaining why those in love "obsess" about their partner.

53

I am free!!! What Shall I do on this Meeting Night?

by KateWild in

jw
friends

so i am at a loose end tonight.

i am not going to the meeting and sitting on the back row looking repentant no way!.

here are some options... care to add some if you wish, help me to decide.. 1. go to the meeting and sit in the middle, reading "einstein and religion" paperback, go in early and stay after the prayer.

MadGiant

Aikido

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

Of course the Bible is the word of God. It says so right in the Book of John.

The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God. Hmmmm…..

So how are you going to get a person who makes this kind of claim to understand why youcan’t accept the argument? How are you going to expose its flaw? First, it’s essential that you make the arguer see that the “reason” he/she is offering in support of a claim isn’t really a reason it all. It’s either a restatement of the claim or an unproven assumption. If the reason is really just a restatement of the original claim, it will be helpful to reword the claim so that the language of the conclusion and reason is the same so it’s easier to see the circularity (like above with the abortion and Bible examples). It may also help to use an analogy (as long as it’s not a false analogy) to put different terms into the argument that will allow the speaker of the fallacy to see the underlying logic more easily:

Saying the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says the Bible is the word of God is a bit like saying the accused murderer is innocent because the accused murderer’s personal diary says he didn’t kill anyone.

If the reason is really just another unproven claim (as in the pig heart statements above), then it is essential that the arguer be made to see why the reason needs to first be proved if it is to serve as proof of another claim. In other words, for a reason to be a real reason it has to be true. In the pig heart examples, we could begin by showing how critical it is that opponents believe the reasons are true in order for them to believe the claim is true.

Usually, we fall into the trap of circular reasoning when we are arguing for somethingwe’ve believed for a very, very long time without ever examining why we believe it. It just “feels” true, so when pressed for a reason, we reword the conclusion and offer it as a reason. The challenge of addressing a circular argument is getting the arguer to examine the long-held assumption that functions in her mind as a reason for the conclusion. She’ll resist letting go of that, though, because doing so leaves her with nothing but a baseless claim, and she’ll have to reexamine the issue and essentially start over. No one really likes being told they don’t know what they’re talking about, and fewer still like having to acknowledge they don’t know what they’re talking about. But that’s essentially what’s exposed when one begs the question. When someone says to you “That’s just the way it is” or “It’s just common sense,” you can bet there is likely some circular thinking going on.

http://www.redwoods.edu/Instruct/JJohnston/English1B/reading/logic/fallaciesIV.html

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

Try this site:

http://www.redwoods.edu/Instruct/JJohnston/English1B/reading/logic/fallaciesIV.html

and this one:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

"mad: a painting is a painting because it was painted, Yahweh is not a creation because he was not created. every painting has a start , a time it was painted, just like every creation, but god is not in the creation side, he is not created, because hes not a creation" - unstop

Wait!, What?
Really?

Ma'am/Sir, English is my second language, but you really have to start reading what you write.

"a painting is a painting because it was painted" -

Ok, completely agree with this description.

"Yahweh is not a creation because he was not created." -

Now I am completely lost. Does it make any sense that a painting need a painter but a creator doesn't need a Creator? How this creator become to be, if she/he/it wasn't created by something or someone (like us perhaps)?

"every painting has a start , a time it was painted, just like every creation, but god is not in the creation side, he is not created, because hes not a creation" -

Really? You just wrote exactly the same thing from the previous sentence. This leave us in the same place (circular reason, maybe?). If every painting has a start and a time, a creator has to have a Creator, a start and a time. Something or someone (like us), created the creator.

Their is no way around it.

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

"you see a painting you know it was painted by a painter. if you see creation you know it was created by a creator." - unstop

I understand your point perfectly.

I will change my ways and from now on, this is going to be my philosophy of life.

I just have a problem.

How created the creator?

Because, using your logic, my new way of life, I see a creator and I know that somewhere must be a creator, Creator.

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

" point is, god created you and if god was not real, than you would not be here."

Really?

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

"okay how about this statement, "if god there were no god, than there would be no atheist" - unstop

Really?

220

serious question for evolutionist,

by unstopableravens in

MadGiant

"if the god of the bible is real, would it be that hard to believe he can bring and put whereever however?" - unstop

Short answer, NO.

Read your statement a few times and you might catch something. What with the slave mentally. You just described a horrible, horrible been. If your "bottom line" really is preach and convert, you are doing the exact opposite.

I don't want to be part of, or have anything to do with the thing you just described.

"It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god would choose for his companions, during all eternity, the dear souls whose highest and only ambition is to obey." - Robert G. Ingersoll (1833 – 1899)

“And why does this same god tell me how to raise my children, when he had who had to drown his?" - Robert G. Ingersoll (1833 – 1899)

Ismael