[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 11:41 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 08:35 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Mormonism is RACIST!

Seriously don't expect me to respect you for subscribing to a religion which says "black skin = devil"

Joseph Smith:-

"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization"

“But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332)

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages... The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 66)"

This racist FUCK is the founder of your religion? Censored

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like IndianAtheist's post
06-01-2014, 11:50 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 10:25 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 11:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 10:46 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  I ask because an orthodox Mormon, as I understand it, is expected to believe in things like Kolob, your eventually becoming a god with your own universe, Jesus and satan as rival spirit brothers, Native Americans descend from ancient Israelites, Smith using a stone to translate Reformed Egyptian, Jesus will one day rule the earth from Jackson Co MO, etc.
These are the highlights one only finds in anti-Mormon litanies. These are not things Latter-day Saints really think or care much about.
(06-01-2014 10:46 PM)freetoreason Wrote:  These are claims that would make a mainstream Christian blush.
Which is just a result of cultural conditioning. For people without that conditioning, mainstream Christian claims are just as laughable. A talking donkey, the sun standing still, a flying man who is a different person but the same being as his father, and a dozen other things are no less silly.

Of course we're in agreement about the silliness of these things, yet you call yourself Mormon do you not? Is this because you choose not to dwell on or think about these things too much? Does that allow you to keep the silly parts separate from those you do care about and do dwell on?

Might it be true to say that you are really only culturally Mormon and that the religion you hold to is more of a universalist model where you adopt certain practices as a way of maintaining a kind of moral purity and keeping in touch with some generic spiritual feeling? What is it that you actually believe when it comes down to it?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
07-01-2014, 02:26 AM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 03:40 PM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:57 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Sure, it begins as a criticism of using subjective experience as evidence others are supposed to take seriously, but not far behind is the insistence that one may only construct their worldviews on what other tell them they're allowed to, namely testable and repeatable empirical data of which---in many iterations---the science-hobbyist understands that Dawkins approves.

What is being disputed--at least by me--is not an issue of permission (you used the phrase "allowed to") but one of warrant or justification. Mormons can and will construct their worldviews as they choose--I have no control over that and it is besides the point. The issue is whether Mormons are justified in constructing their worldview as they do.

The puzzle which you present is that you appear to be aware of the literature on the psychology of religion and superstition but rather than use that knowledge defensively--in the manner that knowledge of confirmation bias is by used pharmacologists to design and manage clinical trials--you instead appear to have adopted a fatalistic attitude to those cognitive biases that predispose human beings to religioisity and superstition.

Knowing what I do about Theory of Mind (ToM)[1] and the Intentional Stance[2] I can catch myself becoming angry with machines that aren't doing what I want them to do and I can stop myself from proceeding on that fruitless quasi-animistic trajectory. Yes it is "natural" to assume machines have intentionality but just because this bias is "natural" it does not entail that it is something good.

Quote:Now, whatever you believe about what happened to this friend of mine, other friends who were there and witnessed it have long since decided to understand it as miraculous. Many people might insist there has to be some natural explanation, but at that point the explanations are really just a matter of preference.

I don't agree that the choice of explanation is merely a matter of preference, e.g. like a choice between flavours of ice-cream. This is why:

(1) Recovery from internal carotid artery aneurysm rupture[3] and spontaneous dissection[4] is not extraordinary.

(2) Younger people recover much more and much sooner than older people from isolated traumatic brain injury even when their injury is worse than that of an older cohort.[5] This result has been replicated in animal models.[5]

(3) The impact of the projectile (softball) corresponds to the medial temporal lobe (MTL). The MTL is responsible mainly for the creation of longterm memories.[6][7][8][8] For this reason any deficit in MTL function would not be readily observable. Existing longterm memory would be unaffected by the lesion to the MTL but the ability to create new longterm memories would be impaired.

(4) Contrary to what you appear to believe the placebo effect is a real therapeutic effect and not just a subjective experience. The placebo effect can not only modulate an experience of pain[9][10] but it can also modulate an inflammatory response[11][12]

Quote:If one of my friends were to come here and say that they would never use that story to convince anyone else of the reality of their beliefs, but that it is a close personal witness to them that their worldview works, on what grounds do you tell them they are not allowed to think that?

Again this isn't an issue of permission it is one of proper justification. Your friends can and will do what they like in relation to this matter. What I am questioning is whether what they do can be rationally justified.

Postulating the entire Mormom worldview as an explanation for your friends recovery is perhaps the most ontologically uneconomical explanation that I can think of at this time. It is an extravagant explanation for something that can be explained in more mundane and economical terms.

The broader implication of the supernatural explanation is that in Lakatosian terms it contributes to a degenerating research program. The supernatural explanation neither helps us explain or predict more than the naturalistic alternative and additionally it fails to produce testable hypotheses. It is a dead-end that condemns us to a position where we never can come to understand why your friend had such a good outcome. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We apparently witnessed a miracle and it forever stays a miracle because our knowledge of traumatic brain injury does not grow. I understand that you are not advocating a cessation of all neuroscientific research but what I have described would be the outcome if your worldview were taken seriously.

By assuming that your friend's recovery has a naturalistic explanation we become motivated to learn more and in the process we become better able to treat traumatic brain injury.

Quote:So no one should ever say they're in love, since that's not really testable in any truly objective way. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to say they experienced love at first sight.

I am not doubting that people have subjective experiences. What I am doubting is whether those subjective experiences correspond to an objective reality. I know that the schizophrenic that tells me he is hearing a critical voice is having a genuine subjective experience--what I doubt is that the voice is originating outside of his brain.

You can be fairly certain that you are in love--although lust can cloud judegement--but you can't be sure that the object of your affecttion actually loves you. That is why the so-called Romeo spies of the Cold-War were successful. That is also why Nigerian scammers are able to exploit lonely women. These are the perils of subjectivity.

In any event romantic love is reducible to a brain state and it is only a matter of time before it will be objectively identifiable.

Quote:Pain is another thing that people need to stop talking about, since it's entirely subjective.

No, it isn't entirely subjective, in some cases it is associated with some lesion which can be an objective indicator. But of course in those cases where there is no associated lesion the clinician has nothing beyond a phenomenological report and that is a problem because it can form the basis of insurance fraud[13] or a scam for the procurement of opioids.[14]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Chippy's post
07-01-2014, 02:41 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 10:55 PM)maklelan Wrote:  No, alcohol consumption is unilaterally and objectively a bad thing. It kills brain cells no matter what and produces a state of cognitive impairment, and that's just with moderate drinking. That it's fun and is therefore not bad is the subjective part.

That is untrue and not based in the available evidence. Refer this and this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chippy's post
07-01-2014, 03:06 AM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 03:17 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:29 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Many give it a pass in the sense that they don't think it's an issue that needs any attention.

There is an incongruity between media and public hysteria regarding psychoactive drugs other than alcohol and the amount of social harm that alcohol actually causes relative to those other drugs (I raised this very point in a thread on methamphetamine legalisation). But my purpose in highlighting this incongruity is to argue that all psychoactive drugs should be restricted only in the way that alcohol is now restricted.

In the (Australian) state that I live the penalties against alcohol related crime are tough and it is a heavily policed area but it hasn't eliminated drink-driving or drunken violent behaviour. We even have an offence of culpable driving which can attract up to 20-years imprisonment but people still drink and drive. We also have unavoidable advocacy campaigns on the mass media, education programs in schools, test questions for the drivers' license relating to alcohol etc.

Some people are just irresponsible or they lack even basic insight into their own behaviour. That can't be legislated away. There are many prescription drugs that cause drowsiness and doctors caution patients not to drive (or operate heavy machinery when on these drugs as the cliche goes) but a subset of patients just don't listen to advice. The problem isn't the alcohol, it is the people.

In some Muslim countries where alcohol is forbidden alternatives are used, e.g. khat in Yemen.

I think that at least two things will be with us for a very long time:
(i) religion;
(ii) the human desire to get off one's face.

I think people should be free to choose their own "opium": religion or psychoactive drugs. Neither is an intrinsically bad option--both become problems when they are abused.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chippy's post
07-01-2014, 03:56 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 12:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 12:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Your not a thesbien but you can appreciate Gwenith and her profession can you not?

*you're *thespian *Gwyneth

Non-scientist. Tongue

I was trolling you, but, as an ameteur scientist, it is very easy, seductive, to believe my own hypothesis.
My degree is in Computer and Mathematical Sciences (SO THERE! Shocking )

I must say thesbien is probably not a word in any country's dictionary. Maybe its a cross between a thespian and a lesbian? Saying that someone is a thespian lesbian seems a bit awkward. Much easier to say thesbian instead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
07-01-2014, 04:03 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(07-01-2014 03:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 12:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  *you're *thespian *Gwyneth

Non-scientist. Tongue

I was trolling you, but, as an ameteur scientist, it is very easy, seductive, to believe my own hypothesis.
My degree is in Computer and Mathematical Sciences (SO THERE! Shocking )

I must say thesbien is probably not a word in any country's dictionary. Maybe its a cross between a thespian and a lesbian? Saying that someone is a thespian lesbian seems a bit awkward. Much easier to say thesbian instead.

Perhaps Drama Queen?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
07-01-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
So in other words, just as Christians try not to think about hell, Jonah, Noah's ark, and any other ideas that create cognitive dissonance, Mak chooses to cherry pick his holy book. Cultural/intellectual Mormon, probably a good human being, intelligent, but nothing new under the sun. Move on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like freetoreason's post
07-01-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(07-01-2014 03:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 12:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  *you're *thespian *Gwyneth

Non-scientist. Tongue

I was trolling you, but, as an ameteur scientist, it is very easy, seductive, to believe my own hypothesis.
My degree is in Computer and Mathematical Sciences (SO THERE! Shocking )

I must say thesbien is probably not a word in any country's dictionary. Maybe its a cross between a thespian and a lesbian? Saying that someone is a thespian lesbian seems a bit awkward. Much easier to say thesbian instead.

So I'm a lesbian now? Blink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(07-01-2014 07:17 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 03:56 AM)Stevil Wrote:  My degree is in Computer and Mathematical Sciences (SO THERE! Shocking )

I must say thesbien is probably not a word in any country's dictionary. Maybe its a cross between a thespian and a lesbian? Saying that someone is a thespian lesbian seems a bit awkward. Much easier to say thesbian instead.

So I'm a lesbian now? Blink

Well, we've seen you in heels and you like the same things as they do, so do the math. Big Grin

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: