Brain Differences Found Between in Believers in God and Non-Believers
-
Quote:
The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people.
Yes, agreed and already stated.
Quote:
As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control.
But they also forbid murder, right? And aren't you OK with that one? They also forbid stealing, which I can imagine you agree with. So, doesn't that say you agree with them controlling some things?
Quote:
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
No, morals are personal. So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
No, morals are personal.
I disagree.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from
Irrelevant.
Quote:
I disagree
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
Quote:
So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any? You are dodging the issue.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The data is the fact that they are not receiving the control signals (i.e. the signals to "PAY ATTENTION!")
I can only suppose that you think the the study is in some way measuring their ability to detect errors. That is false. The article explains the test that was given. The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected. The article says nothing about how nor when the errors were detected.
jschell wrote:
The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected.
Ahhh.. Wrong. The results are less activity in the brain. Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing that... Oh wait...NM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cingulate_cortex[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I guess you don't understand the word 'practising'.
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position. I can assure you that the context of verbal usage and printed usage I am very sure of what it meant. Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition. And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one. http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian[^]
jschell wrote:
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position.
Where exactly did I do that?
jschell wrote:
Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition.
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
jschell wrote:
And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one.
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Use the best guess
-
jschell wrote:
Denigrating me doesn't lend credence to your position.
Where exactly did I do that?
jschell wrote:
Following is a religious site that explicitly points out that "many people" agree with my definition.
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
jschell wrote:
And implicitly suggest that your definition is the limited one.
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Where exactly did I do that?
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
I said nothing about it mentioning me. The definition that it gives is the one that I have seen in use. I will point the definition from that site specifically. "Many people consider they are practising Christians because they go to church and/or take Mass or the Lord's Supper (depending on denomination). " First part indicates "many people". Followed by two parts that both reflect behavior not belief.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Nope. It specifically states that it is about behavior - not belief. The comment above specifically provides the definition and the two behaviors of the definition.
-
jschell wrote:
The results, the anxiety, occurred when an error was detected.
Ahhh.. Wrong. The results are less activity in the brain. Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing that... Oh wait...NM. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cingulate_cortex[^]
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing tha
From the article... " a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake." Presumably you are not claiming that the anxiety occurred when one doesn't know about the mistake? Presumably not. If so then the only way the anxiety can occur is when the participant becomes aware of the mistake either because they are told or because they are aware of it themselves. And the study measured that anxiety. To make it clear what the actual step were. 1. A test was administered 2. The participant made a mistake. 3. The mistake was detected. 4. The participant reacted. 5. The anxiety was measured from 4. The measurements had nothing to do with whether the participants themselves detected the mistake. Actually the article makes no mention of the rate of that nor how the participants detected the mistakes but the most likely scenario to insure a good measurement would have been for the testing processing itself to TELL the participant that they made a mistake. Absolutely nothing in that suggests that the results of the study had anything to do with measuring the rate of error detection.
-
Quote:
I disagree
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
Quote:
So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any? You are dodging the issue.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
I seriously doubt that most of the population of the world gives deep introspective thought to something like whether killing someone else randomly is right or wrong. They follow what others around them do. Thus it is not personal. Most significant morals are like that.
ryanb31 wrote:
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any?
You are dodging the issue.You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it. And then attempting to blame me for it.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Specifically that which is used for error detection which causes anxiety Not sure how you are missing tha
From the article... " a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some anxiety-producing event like making a mistake." Presumably you are not claiming that the anxiety occurred when one doesn't know about the mistake? Presumably not. If so then the only way the anxiety can occur is when the participant becomes aware of the mistake either because they are told or because they are aware of it themselves. And the study measured that anxiety. To make it clear what the actual step were. 1. A test was administered 2. The participant made a mistake. 3. The mistake was detected. 4. The participant reacted. 5. The anxiety was measured from 4. The measurements had nothing to do with whether the participants themselves detected the mistake. Actually the article makes no mention of the rate of that nor how the participants detected the mistakes but the most likely scenario to insure a good measurement would have been for the testing processing itself to TELL the participant that they made a mistake. Absolutely nothing in that suggests that the results of the study had anything to do with measuring the rate of error detection.
jschell wrote:
And the study measured that anxiety.
Wrong. Brain activity was measured. Again, you are making a mistake. You are lacking some signals I think ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Where exactly did I do that?
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It makes no mention of you or your definition.
I said nothing about it mentioning me. The definition that it gives is the one that I have seen in use. I will point the definition from that site specifically. "Many people consider they are practising Christians because they go to church and/or take Mass or the Lord's Supper (depending on denomination). " First part indicates "many people". Followed by two parts that both reflect behavior not belief.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
On the contrary, it is almost exactly the same as mine.
Nope. It specifically states that it is about behavior - not belief. The comment above specifically provides the definition and the two behaviors of the definition.
jschell wrote:
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
I used the term "I guess" which is hardly a claim, and if you think that is denigrating you, then I think you are being over sensitive. Quite frankly I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this. All I did was to give an opinion on a news item that was posted in this forum, and followed it up with an explanation of a term for the benefit of one of our non-English members. For reasons that are a total mystery to me you seem to see this as a personal attack on you.
Use the best guess
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I know that you and I have different morals; therefore, they are personal.
I seriously doubt that most of the population of the world gives deep introspective thought to something like whether killing someone else randomly is right or wrong. They follow what others around them do. Thus it is not personal. Most significant morals are like that.
ryanb31 wrote:
How can that be irrelevant? Do you not have any?
You are dodging the issue.You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it. And then attempting to blame me for it.
Quote:
They follow what others around them do.
So, who started it?
Quote:
You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it.
Then what does it have to do with?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
jschell wrote:
By claiming that I don't understand the word.
I used the term "I guess" which is hardly a claim, and if you think that is denigrating you, then I think you are being over sensitive. Quite frankly I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this. All I did was to give an opinion on a news item that was posted in this forum, and followed it up with an explanation of a term for the benefit of one of our non-English members. For reasons that are a total mystery to me you seem to see this as a personal attack on you.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
For reasons that are a total mystery to me you seem to see this as a personal attack on you
Incorrect. I took one of your follow on comments to me as an attack. Not your original comment.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
and followed it up with an explanation of a term for the benefit of one of our non-English members
As I pointed out your definition is not the one that most people use.
-
jschell wrote:
And the study measured that anxiety.
Wrong. Brain activity was measured. Again, you are making a mistake. You are lacking some signals I think ;P
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Quote:
They follow what others around them do.
So, who started it?
Quote:
You are attempting to make the discussion personal which has nothing to do with it.
Then what does it have to do with?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, who started it?
That is irrelevant. Could be a monkey. Could be aliens. Could be a god. Could be common sense. Could be a bug. The point however is that those people now get their morales from the culture.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then what does it have to do with?
That comment as well has nothing to do with the discussion.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So, who started it?
That is irrelevant. Could be a monkey. Could be aliens. Could be a god. Could be common sense. Could be a bug. The point however is that those people now get their morales from the culture.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then what does it have to do with?
That comment as well has nothing to do with the discussion.
Quote:
The point however is that those people now get their morales from the culture.
I don't. Neither do most of the people I worship with. Most religious people would disagree with you.
Quote:
That comment as well has nothing to do with the discussion.
Don't dodge the question. What's the point then? You keep claiming things are irrelevant. You are not the one who started the conversation so be clear, not vague.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
For reasons that are a total mystery to me you seem to see this as a personal attack on you
Incorrect. I took one of your follow on comments to me as an attack. Not your original comment.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
and followed it up with an explanation of a term for the benefit of one of our non-English members
As I pointed out your definition is not the one that most people use.
-
jschell wrote:
your definition is not the one that most people use.
Sorry, but I do not believe that you are "most people".
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Sorry, but I do not believe that you are "most people".
I specifically provided one link, a religious one, that explicitly supported my definition. And claimed that "many people" use it. And actually that was the very first link that came up when I went looking for the definition so I suspect there are others as well. But feel free to provide your own link that backs up that your definition is more widely used.
-
Quote:
The point however is that those people now get their morales from the culture.
I don't. Neither do most of the people I worship with. Most religious people would disagree with you.
Quote:
That comment as well has nothing to do with the discussion.
Don't dodge the question. What's the point then? You keep claiming things are irrelevant. You are not the one who started the conversation so be clear, not vague.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Most religious people would disagree with you.
Provide a link.
ryanb31 wrote:
Don't dodge the question
Which of course ignores completely the reason I didn't answer it in the first place.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Sorry, but I do not believe that you are "most people".
I specifically provided one link, a religious one, that explicitly supported my definition. And claimed that "many people" use it. And actually that was the very first link that came up when I went looking for the definition so I suspect there are others as well. But feel free to provide your own link that backs up that your definition is more widely used.
-
jschell wrote:
But feel free to provide your own link that backs up that your definition is more widely used.
I never made such a claim. I think this discussion has run its course.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I never made such a claim.
The original subthread that lead to your response was "I remember a guy at school that was "practicing" because it was expected by his family, he didn't actually believe" Which in the chain lead to your post... "It's quite simple: a practising Christian is one who believes in God, and tries to follow the teachings of Jesus. Whether they go to church or not is irrelevant," Your definition is not the one that is normally used because by the most common definition it is explicitly relevant whether one goes to church or not because if one doesn't go to church (or at least doesn't participate the normal ceremonies) than one is not pracitising. That is what the word "practising" means in the common definition. Belief as nothing to do with it.