Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 07:06 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 07:00 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Who destroyed me?

Whoever taught you about Christianity.

Burn Cool

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
23-05-2014, 07:14 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 07:21 AM by Chas.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  That statement is its own contradiction. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. That's it.

If you have spent a year and not learned that, there is little hope for you.

the definiendum "atheism" has several definiens Chas, not just the one you think.

It took you a year to look up a Wikipedia article?

One that says that there are really only two definitions with several names.



Oh, and I have taken Latin, as well, you pretentious ass.
So, you think it adds gravitas to your blather?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
23-05-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 06:46 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Bloody hell that woman waffles on.

Yup. Watched it for 30 odd minutes and the overarching theme was:

"I just didn't understand shit!"


I lost count of how many times she said that whilst I was keeping track of facepalm and wtf moments and tried to discern her point.


Then, Christianity. Ta-daa!


And now she understands. Not.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like John's post
23-05-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 09:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Okay Jeremy, I did you the courtesy of watching the video. Well, I watched 45 minutes of it and decided there wasn't a chance that she'd say anything more compelling if she hadn't done so in the first 45 minutes.

Did you watch it? Unsure

You do realize that essentially the whole thing is her admitting that she's just really bad at accepting reality and doesn't seem to have a grasp on what "reason" is. She starts off by misrepresenting nihilism, just as you have tried to do here at TTA, because you also don't understand how a person can just accept reality. I understand, it really can be a daunting thing to fully appreciate and for many people it's much more satisfying to simply believe in magic.

But the kicker is that she actually admits that it's her complete fascination with fiction that compelled her to filter her worldview through the fantasy works of Tolkien and Lewis and others. She wouldn't be a christian if she couldn't view the world through the wardrobe in the spare 'oom. She just straight up says that she would not be a christian if she wasn't able to translate her reality through the magical worlds of fictional literature. And lo and behold she accepts the bible as literal truth.

That doesn't strike you as a bit.......delusional???

The other disappointment is that she kept going on about how faith is not based on something you can't prove. She stated that her faith was based on reasons that made it line up with reality. She didn't provide one ounce of evidence or even one reason. She just kept going on about her love of fiction. She stated how she knew hell was real because of Paradise Lost. Rolleyes She says how, as a literary scholar, she "knows that the gospels are historical truth", yet does not give any effort to actually back that up.

You got anything else? If you can find something that actually give any semblance of good evidence for the christian worldview you should post it and let me know. I'll watch another video if you think it'll actually give your position some credence.

I will extend you that courtesy, even if you refuse to reciprocate. I am willing to challenge my worldview. In fact I love doing it. The fact that I am wrong in my worldview from time to time and I allow myself the freedom to change it gives me the confidence in it to know that it reflects the best evidence that I have come across.

Try again.

Christians are just delusional =/= good argument

Try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 06:46 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Bloody hell that woman waffles on. Finally got to 17.30 minutes where she admits that she became a Christian because she had an emotional need. This time it was because she wanted some meaning in her life.

Hmm, this all sounds rather familiar. Oh look, the same conclusion based on another video posted by JEW

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid577040

The mistake people make is that they think of the brain as being rational. It isn't. We're wetware. The brain is a self organising system that is constantly trying to settle into a stable state in the same way that the body continually tries to maintain homoeostasis.

Emotions aid in this by increasing and decreasing neural activity on a large scale, normally through the use of neurochemicals. She had an emotional need because she was disturbed by the lack of meaning in her life. She found the easiest solution available to her to be contented.

If that's what it takes for her to be happier then good for her. But it doesn't necessarily work for the rest of us.

Citation needed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 07:47 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 09:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Okay Jeremy, I did you the courtesy of watching the video. Well, I watched 45 minutes of it and decided there wasn't a chance that she'd say anything more compelling if she hadn't done so in the first 45 minutes.

Did you watch it? Unsure

You do realize that essentially the whole thing is her admitting that she's just really bad at accepting reality and doesn't seem to have a grasp on what "reason" is. She starts off by misrepresenting nihilism, just as you have tried to do here at TTA, because you also don't understand how a person can just accept reality. I understand, it really can be a daunting thing to fully appreciate and for many people it's much more satisfying to simply believe in magic.

But the kicker is that she actually admits that it's her complete fascination with fiction that compelled her to filter her worldview through the fantasy works of Tolkien and Lewis and others. She wouldn't be a christian if she couldn't view the world through the wardrobe in the spare 'oom. She just straight up says that she would not be a christian if she wasn't able to translate her reality through the magical worlds of fictional literature. And lo and behold she accepts the bible as literal truth.

That doesn't strike you as a bit.......delusional???

The other disappointment is that she kept going on about how faith is not based on something you can't prove. She stated that her faith was based on reasons that made it line up with reality. She didn't provide one ounce of evidence or even one reason. She just kept going on about her love of fiction. She stated how she knew hell was real because of Paradise Lost. Rolleyes She says how, as a literary scholar, she "knows that the gospels are historical truth", yet does not give any effort to actually back that up.

You got anything else? If you can find something that actually give any semblance of good evidence for the christian worldview you should post it and let me know. I'll watch another video if you think it'll actually give your position some credence.

I will extend you that courtesy, even if you refuse to reciprocate. I am willing to challenge my worldview. In fact I love doing it. The fact that I am wrong in my worldview from time to time and I allow myself the freedom to change it gives me the confidence in it to know that it reflects the best evidence that I have come across.

Try again.

Christians are just delusional =/= good argument

Try again.

Said the idiot in whose thread the very posting of the video in question was an example of the Argument from Authority Fallacy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 07:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 06:46 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The mistake people make is that they think of the brain as being rational. It isn't. We're wetware. The brain is a self organising system that is constantly trying to settle into a stable state in the same way that the body continually tries to maintain homoeostasis.

Emotions aid in this by increasing and decreasing neural activity on a large scale, normally through the use of neurochemicals. She had an emotional need because she was disturbed by the lack of meaning in her life. She found the easiest solution available to her to be contented.

If that's what it takes for her to be happier then good for her. But it doesn't necessarily work for the rest of us.

Citation needed.

It was the research topic of my PhD and subsequent peer-reviewed journal paper. I don't want to reveal my professional identity on-line in order to provide a citation for someone who won't even watch a short video.

But here are some of the relevant references that I used. Code extracted from my bibtex file. The last one is particularly good.

Code:
@book{dynamic-patterns,
author = {J. A. Scott Kelso},
title = {Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior},
year = {1995},
isbn = {0-262-61131-7},
publisher = {A Bradford book. The MIT Press.},
}
@article{ metalearning-neuromodulation,
  author = {Kenji Doya},
  title = {Metalearning and Neuromodulation},
  journal = {Neural Networks},
  volume = {15},
  number = {4},
  pages = {495-506},
  year = {2002},
  publisher = {Elsevier Science Ltd.},
  issn = {0893-6080}
}
@inproceedings{ metalearning-neuromodulation-emotion,
  author = {Kenji Doya},
  title = {Metalearning, Neuromodulation, and Emotion},
  year = {2000},
  pages = {101-104},
  booktitle = {Affective Minds},
  publisher = {Elsevier Science Ltd.},
  editor = {G. Hatano and N. Okada and H. Tanabe}
}
@inbook{needs-neurochemical-rolls,
author = {Edmund T. Rolls},
title = {Who needs emotions? The brain meets the robot.},
year = {2005},
isbn = {0-19-516619-4},
publisher = {Oxford University Press.},
chapter = {5},
pages =  {117-146},
}
@inbook{malsburg03,
  AUTHOR = {Christoph von der Malsburg},
  TITLE = {The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks},
  CHAPTER = {Self-Organization and the Brain},
  PUBLISHER = {The MIT Press},
  YEAR = {2003},
  pages =  {1002-1005},
  isbn = {0-262-01197-2}
}
@article{neuroimaging-and-depression,
  author = {Ian H. Gotlib and J. Paul Hamilton},
  issn = {0963-7214},
  journal = {Current Directions in Psychological Science},
  number = {2},
  pages = {159-163},
  priority = {2},
  publisher = {Blackwell Publishing},
  title = {Neuroimaging and Depression: Current Status and Unresolved Issues},
  volume = {17},
  year = {2008}
}
@article{positive-negative-emotions,
author = {Qing Zhang and Minho Lee},
title = {Analysis of positive and negative emotions in natural scene using brain activity and GIST},
journal = {Neurocomput.},
volume = {72},
number = {4-6},
year = {2009},
issn = {0925-2312},
pages = {1302-1306},
publisher = {Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.},
}
book{affective-neuroscience,
author = {Jaak Panksepp},
title = {Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions},
year = {1998},
isbn = {0-19-509673-8},
publisher = {Oxford University Press, Inc.},
}
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Mathilda's post
23-05-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:21 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 07:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Citation needed.

It was the research topic of my PhD and subsequent peer-reviewed journal paper. I don't want to reveal my professional identity on-line to someone who won't even read what I post.

But here are some of the relevant references that I used extracted from my bibtex file. The last one is particularly good.

Code:
@book{dynamic-patterns,
author = {J. A. Scott Kelso},
title = {Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior},
year = {1995},
isbn = {0-262-61131-7},
publisher = {A Bradford book. The MIT Press.},
}
@article{ metalearning-neuromodulation,
  author = {Kenji Doya},
  title = {Metalearning and Neuromodulation},
  journal = {Neural Networks},
  volume = {15},
  number = {4},
  pages = {495-506},
  year = {2002},
  publisher = {Elsevier Science Ltd.},
  issn = {0893-6080}
}
@inproceedings{ metalearning-neuromodulation-emotion,
  author = {Kenji Doya},
  title = {Metalearning, Neuromodulation, and Emotion},
  year = {2000},
  pages = {101-104},
  booktitle = {Affective Minds},
  publisher = {Elsevier Science Ltd.},
  editor = {G. Hatano and N. Okada and H. Tanabe}
}
@inbook{needs-neurochemical-rolls,
author = {Edmund T. Rolls},
title = {Who needs emotions? The brain meets the robot.},
year = {2005},
isbn = {0-19-516619-4},
publisher = {Oxford University Press.},
chapter = {5},
pages =  {117-146},
}
@inbook{malsburg03,
  AUTHOR = {Christoph von der Malsburg},
  TITLE = {The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks},
  CHAPTER = {Self-Organization and the Brain},
  PUBLISHER = {The MIT Press},
  YEAR = {2003},
  pages =  {1002-1005},
  isbn = {0-262-01197-2}
}
@article{neuroimaging-and-depression,
  author = {Ian H. Gotlib and J. Paul Hamilton},
  issn = {0963-7214},
  journal = {Current Directions in Psychological Science},
  number = {2},
  pages = {159-163},
  priority = {2},
  publisher = {Blackwell Publishing},
  title = {Neuroimaging and Depression: Current Status and Unresolved Issues},
  volume = {17},
  year = {2008}
}
@article{positive-negative-emotions,
author = {Qing Zhang and Minho Lee},
title = {Analysis of positive and negative emotions in natural scene using brain activity and GIST},
journal = {Neurocomput.},
volume = {72},
number = {4-6},
year = {2009},
issn = {0925-2312},
pages = {1302-1306},
publisher = {Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.},
}
book{affective-neuroscience,
author = {Jaak Panksepp},
title = {Affective neuroscience: the foundations of human and animal emotions},
year = {1998},
isbn = {0-19-509673-8},
publisher = {Oxford University Press, Inc.},
}

Looks like a center-of-the-ring bullseye to me. Thumbsup

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
23-05-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 06:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
No thanks. I abstain from all forms of sexual acts.

Don't you just love it when natural selection works in favour of humanity?

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like DLJ's post
23-05-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:21 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  It was the research topic of my PhD and subsequent peer-reviewed journal paper. I don't want to reveal my professional identity on-line in order to provide a citation for someone who won't even watch a short video.

But here are some of the relevant references that I used. Code extracted from my bibtex file. The last one is particularly good.

How soon until Jeremy declares that he won't read books, in addition to not watching videos?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: