Brain Differences Found Between in Believers in God and Non-Believers
-
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.
-
Quote:
Provide a link.
Grow up.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
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.
jschell wrote:
Your definition is not the one that is normally used
I never claimed that it was; it's just the definition that I, and most people that I know, use. And I offered it in order to help someone for whom English is not their first language. If you don't want to use that one then feel free to use your own, but really there is no need to make such a big issue of it.
Use the best guess