Note I stated, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to enable the "zombie parasite" to manifest from deep in their brain, so I am not referring to theistic impulses only.Fanman wrote: ↑June 3rd, 2018, 5:37 amSpectrum,
Perhaps I have been following the discussion inadequately, what are the justified arguments?That is too shallow because every normal action [other than reflex actions] is influenced by 'thoughts.'
The thesis /proposition I have presented is not merely thoughts but based on justified arguments.
My thesis is very sound theoretically and I understand it is only complete when I can present objective empirical results to support the conclusions. I am optimistic this can be done in the near future, given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [IT and artificial intelligence].
It doesn't seem like a sound thesis to me, that's why I call it an idea, which is at best a derogatory analogy that describes theistic thinking. However, since you're presenting it as a theory I can work with that . What type of objective evidence are you expecting to present and why would it support your conclusions? How are IT and artificial intelligence are going to influence and help you to do that?
However, to topic, the theistic related "zombie parasite" must be highlighted given evils and committed by SOME theistic believers, e.g.
to the extent even innocent goody-two-shoes are subliminally compelled to sacrifice their lives for an illusory God just like how zombie-infected-ants are driven to the 'sacrificial altar' for the interest of the parasites.
Frankly your refusal to acknowledge this fact of this empirical cause and effect is very immoral on your part and thus you are indirectly complicit to the continual torrent of evil and violence committed by those evil prone Muslims.
As for objectivity, in the near future we will be able to link the specific sets of neurons to the terrible evils and violence committed by religionists who are inspired by the evil elements in the holy texts as a divine duty.
I won't go into the details as it would be a waste of time in me having to start from the bottom with neuroscience, IT and artificial intelligence.
To date scientists have been able to track many responses, e.g. rage to specific parts of the brain. It is a matter of time they will be more specific and refined to the exact sets of neurons and sub-connectivity.
As I had mentioned before, I keep up to date with the latest developments within Science, especially those related to the neurosciences and are relevant to spirituality.Prof Lin added: "Our research provides what we believe is the first evidence the lateral septum directly 'turns the volume up or down' in aggression in male mice, and it establishes the first ties between this region and the other key brain regions involved in violent behaviour."
The researchers next plan to investigate which specific brain cells in the LS control male aggression, and under what conditions they are activated to promote or halt the behaviour.
The long term goal aim is to find out whether drugs can be found to control aggression without compromising other social and cognitive functions.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/he ... rage-brain
The above negatives you provided above are indirect and secondary.IMV, if God doesn't exist, and you were to prove that it is impossible for God to exist. How is that not proving a negative? Proving that God doesn't exist would be implied in “impossibility”. There is no possibility of God existing if it doesn't exist.My argument 'God is an impossibility' is based on sound logical syllogism [theoretical] not something based on faith nor opinion.
No! I am not trying to prove a positive nor a negative.
My argument is to set a limitation [non-starter] in principle, i.e. impossibility against the possibility of the existence of a God.
If your argument proved that God was an impossibility I think it would follow that:
1. God does not exist.
2. That God never existed.
3. That God cannot exist.
4. That you've proven that.
5. That you've proven the negative.
Please explain why you think it would mean something different?
What I am presenting is like the case of a solid 'alibi' in a murder case where it is 'absolutely' impossible for a suspect to be charged for the murder. It is an absolute non-starter.
The looser form of proving a negative [did not murder] is where the jury upon hearing various subjective evidence and arrive at a verdict [subjective], the person did not murder the victim. Often in such cases there will be two camps who are not too sure of what really happened. In some cases, those acquitted of murder [proven negative] are subsequently charged for murder upon new evidences.
What I have presented re God is impossible is analogically like 'a solid alibi in a murder case' i.e. it is 'absolutely' impossible for a God to exists as real.
Regardless of whether it is suited for psychology or neuro-psychological, what is critical to trace the problem to the proximate root causes.I don't know specifically. I mean that there are different aspects of the psyche working together that influence or contribute to people having religious beliefs. Like psycho-social, cognitive, interpretive and experiential aspects. If you're talking about the science of belief, I don't believe that neuroscience has reached the point where it can tell us specifically why people have religious beliefs. I think that presently that area is best suited to psychology.What collective aspects? You meant a 'top down' thing, e.g. individual person[s] are influenced by mass brainwashing to act. e.g. advertising. Nah, this is too shallow.
Note when someone commit religious evils and violence, there are elements of hatred, rage and anger which are emotions.
When religionists killed non-believers without provocations from others, there must be deeper impulses that trigger these rages and anger. These deeper impulses are from the religious "zombie parasite."
How can scientists study evidences if they did not find or look for the evidences?It is very normal most scientists do that, the default is to find likely evidence that support one's hypothesis but one must have the intellectual integrity to ensure the evidences and knowledge used are relevant and one must continually scrutinize and refine the argument.
Really? IMV scientist don't look for evidence that supports their theory. They study the evidence pertaining to their theory objectively and ascertain whether or not the evidence fits the theory they're working on, and (I think) any scientific theory has to be falsifiable. As you know, finding correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there's causation, and how would you falsify your idea/theory?
You appear to diagnosing theists as having a “zombie parasite”. You've seemingly started with the diagnosis “zombie parasite” and are looking to confirm that diagnosis by finding behavioural “symptoms” that correlate with what you perceive as a “zombie parasite”, which seems biased to me. From my perspective (I may be wrong), it seems as though you're combining philosophy, science, psychology and medical science/neurology. So in order to demonstrate that your idea/theory is sound, it must be sound in all of those areas you're appealing to, which I don't think it is. I ask again, what is your objective standard?
My thesis is easily falsifiable if you can produce God to be verified scientifically. Then in this case we can request God to prove God did it and not the 'zombie parasite'.
The other alternative is to prove the driver for religion is due to the modern brain totally and not the existential elements within the basement [reptillian and mammal] of the brain.
My my argument, the very primitive religions emerged 300,000 years ago during the paleolithic age.
Note the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes;
The above indicated as early as 3,000 years ago, the the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness was not developed and thus most of the human activities were driven from the lower brain dominated by the 'zombie parasite.Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources including historical literature. He took an interdisciplinary approach, drawing data from many different fields. Jaynes asserted that, until roughly the times written about in Homer's Iliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic of consciousness as most people experience it today.
Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods"—commands which were recorded in ancient myths, legends and historical accounts. This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.
Yes, my approach is eclectic and I have relied [evidently] on philosophy [Western, Eastern, etc.], science [various], psychology [neuro and various], medical science/neurology, effective problem solving skills, logic, rational & critical thinking and whatever is necessary to prove my point.