As requested: Racr's thread.

[sc281]

..

Txred:

This isn't a Theocracy. Your religion is not law here. Deal with it.

Racr:

Those are his beliefs. Your militant atheism is a religion in and of itself. Can he prove a God exists? No. Can you prove God doesn't exist? No.


Seriously, so much energy fighting over something unproveable. You are two sides of the same coin, thumping your own respective "books"

But nooo, let's got through the same circular B.S..... again. I'm sure it'll be different this time.

Who said that I believe god doesn't exist? I sure as fuck didn't. Also, you brought religion into this, nobody else did.

You should also learn what a religion is, and what it is not.

1st Bold:
Fair enough. After going through some of your past posts, I don't see where that was said. Maybe I should have been more specific in mentioning the Christian God or the bible, as the Christians regard that book as the word of God.

But can you fault me for coming to the conclusion when the plurality of your posts follow this line of thought?

Apparently not so common if you've got your god goggles on.

If you do believe in a God, or no God at all, then why is it so hard for you to accept someone else's belief?

How does your belief in a god (as inferred in your reply) not conflict with statements like this?

Ceyko, I place no faith in science. I hold religion to the same standards I hold science to. You make a claim, you'd better have proof.

2nd bold:
Please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious. I would really like to know your views, beliefs if you will; and how your beliefs are any more realistic or unrealistic than Txredneck's.

[BMCSean]

[racrguy]

1st Bold:
Fair enough. After going through some of your past posts, I don't see where that was said. Maybe I should have been more specific in mentioning the Christian God or the bible, as the Christians regard that book as the word of God.

But can you fault me for coming to the conclusion when the plurality of your posts follow this line of thought?

Yes, because you read into it more than what I said. When I speak about religion I intentionally pick and choose every word I use to clearly and concisely make my point.

If you do believe in a God, or no God at all, then why is it so hard for you to accept someone else's belief?

I have no problem accepting that people have other beliefs. However, if they try to use that belief to affect the actions of others or use it as a justification for their own actions, I expect them to be able to adequately explain how they came to their decision and justify it. Also, just because I accept someones belief, it doesn't mean that I have to respect it.

How does your belief in a god (as inferred in your reply) not conflict with statements like this?

I do not believe in god, so it meshes rather nicely.

2nd bold:
Please enlighten me. I'm not being facetious. I would really like to know your views, beliefs if you will;

I do not believe in god, much like many other adults do not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, alien visitation and the Loch Ness Monster. Of course I "believe" a great many other things, but I'll divulge into that reasoning in just a second.

and how your beliefs are any more realistic or unrealistic than Txredneck's.

All of the beliefs I hold are as in tune with demonstrable reality as I can be. Daily I test my beliefs and ideas to make sure they are still correct, and when they are shown to be incorrect, I revise or replace them to fit the new data. I follow evidence to its conclusion, not make the evidence fit my conclusion. Things that are supernatural, are by definition impossible, because if they were possible they'd be natural.

All in all I think you're mistaking a disbelief and a belief in a negative. There is a difference between "I do not believe in god" and "there is no god"

Stating that I do not believe in god is not a belief one holds.
Stating that I believe there is no god is an actual belief, because I believe there to be no god, I positively believe a negative. A belief that must be justified via the burden of proof principle.

Remember: "Just because I'm not buying what you're selling does not mean I'm selling something else" -Matt Dillahunty

[BMCSean]

Answer my question, Sean!

[racrguy]

Answer my question, Sean!

Would I answer if God was calling? Only if I had him programmed into my phone, I don't answer calls from people that I don't know.

[sc281]

First off, thanks for the clarification.

Secondly, I personally agree with almost everything you've said.

Where I differ is that you place your belief system as superior to someone else's.

You test your beliefs to their conclusion, and change your views accordingly.
What do you use to test your beliefs with? The scientific method? Vision quests? Lsd induced dreams?(stay with me here, I'm not trying to insult you) Whatever system you have designed for yourself or will design in the future, you have placed your faith in that being the best arbiter of what your views are going to be. You can't know for certain if you are right. At a certain point you take your views on faith.

He tests his beliefs in the same way as you use your system. He changes his beliefs based on his understanding of the conclusions. He has placed his faith in the bible being the word of God and as such being the best arbiter of what his views are going to be. He can never know for certain if he's right. At a certain point he takes his views on faith.

You use your equation to find a solution (your belief). He uses his equation to find a solution. (his belief)

I personally believe in what I can test as well. I also understand that my tests are my beliefs, and the conclusions drawn from that are a reflection of my worldview. I've got just just as much a shot at being right as you or denny, or the prophet of pastafarianism.

Who is right? I don't fucking know. In the grand scheme of things, we are a tiny speck on an insignificant planet in a backwater solar system in a galaxy that is barely out of its diapers. We don't even know what we don't know.

[BMCSean]

Would I answer if God was calling? Only if I had him programmed into my phone, I don't answer calls from people that I don't know.

God is not a telemarketer, you will answer.

[sc281]

God is not a telemarketer, you will answer.

There is no decline button we He calls.

[racrguy]

First off, thanks for the clarification.

Secondly, I personally agree with almost everything you've said.

Where I differ is that you place your belief system as superior to someone else's.

You test your beliefs to their conclusion, and change your views accordingly.
What do you use to test your beliefs with? The scientific method? Vision quests? Lsd induced dreams?(stay with me here, I'm not trying to insult you) Whatever system you have designed for yourself or will design in the future, you have placed your faith in that being the best arbiter of what your views are going to be. You can't know for certain if you are right. At a certain point you take your views on faith.

He uses it to test his beliefs in the same way as you use your system. He changes his beliefs based on his understanding of the conclusions. He has placed his faith in the bible being the word of God and as such being the best arbiter of what his views are going to be. He can never know for certain if he's right. At a certain point he takes his views on faith.

You use your equation to find a solution (your belief). He uses his equation to find a solution. (his belief)

Who is right? To quote the wise man "We shall see."


I personally believe in what I can test as well. I understand that my tests are my beliefs.

But I've got just just as much a shot at being right as you or Denny. The kicker is, no one will ever know one way or the other.

A belief system that is based and resides solely in reality is superior to that based in the realm of the supernatural. Would you say that your belief system is equal to that of an institutionalized person, or superior?

Faith is by definition belief without the requirement of proof, I do not use faith in any aspect of my life. If it cannot be tested, it is discarded. I have not designed a system for myself, I've based my tests in demonstrable reality.

I also disagree with you that tests are beliefs. Your tests may be your beliefs, but my tests are my tests, and my beliefs are my beliefs. My tests do shape my beliefs, but the two are not the same.

When dealing with things that are facts I use the scientific method, when dealing with opinions I use my own judgement and take others' thoughts into account. I have no more faith in science than I have faith that the ground will be there to catch me should I jump into the Grand Canyon.

For instance: I have trust in a handful of people. Do I have faith in these people? No, because they've proven themselves to be trustworthy from past actions. I place my life in the hands of airline pilots and crews from time to time. Do I have faith in them? No, because they've had to prove themselves at a given competency level for their current profession.

Do I "believe" the theory of evolution? Yes, in the same way that I believe the sun exists. It has been tested time and time again, and will continue to be tested every day and has yet to be proven wrong. A lot of our medicine revolves around this theory, things like vaccines, hereditary linked diseases, cancer. Every time it has been tested it has never been falsified, much to the chagrin of creationists who posit that god created everything in its current form.

[racrguy]

God is not a telemarketer, you will answer.

There is no decline button we He calls.

No need for a decline button, I just won't answer. That asshole can go to VM.

[sc281]

A belief system that is based and resides solely in reality is superior to that based in the realm of the supernatural. Would you say that your belief system is equal to that of an institutionalized person, or superior?

Faith is by definition belief without the requirement of proof, I do not use faith in any aspect of my life. If it cannot be tested, it is discarded. I have not designed a system for myself, I've based my tests in demonstrable reality.

I also disagree with you that tests are beliefs. Your tests may be your beliefs, but my tests are my tests, and my beliefs are my beliefs. My tests do shape my beliefs, but the two are not the same.

When dealing with things that are facts I use the scientific method, when dealing with opinions I use my own judgement and take others' thoughts into account. I have no more faith in science than I have faith that the ground will be there to catch me should I jump into the Grand Canyon.

For instance: I have trust in a handful of people. Do I have faith in these people? No, because they've proven themselves to be trustworthy from past actions. I place my life in the hands of airline pilots and crews from time to time. Do I have faith in them? No, because they've had to prove themselves at a given competency level for their current profession.

Do I "believe" the theory of evolution? Yes, in the same way that I believe the sun exists. It has been tested time and time again, and will continue to be tested every day and has yet to be proven wrong. A lot of our medicine revolves around this theory, things like vaccines, hereditary linked diseases, cancer. Every time it has been tested it has never been falsified, much to the chagrin of creationists who posit that god created everything in its current form.

The bible said that God created everything. Science hasn't been able to tell us how the universe was created. Is Denny's Bible wrong? How do you know?

[racrguy]

But the scientific method was made by man, and you use that to test your beliefs? What makes that the best way to suss out what's right?

Objectively demonstrable, repeatable results that are able to be independently verified.

The bible said that God created everything. Science hasn't been able to tell us how the universe was created. Is Denny's Bible wrong? How do you know?

We don't need to have a better answer to recognize one that doesn't work. When/if any actual evidence that can be objectively demonstrated and reliably repeated comes along that agrees with some of the things in the bible, two things will happen:

1. The claims in the bible would no longer be classified as supernatural.

2. I will immediately accept that the objective statements of the bible are true. ( i.e. What the authors thought about God/Jesus would still be nothing more than opinion and tossed out as irrelevant to the facts.)

Until then, why should anyone believe anything the book says when there is nothing to support its claims?

[quikag]

Tell me, racrguy, do you believe in love? If you do, how do you objectively test it?

[Denny]

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that God doesn't exist. The most I've ever got in return is, "Well, show me where He does!"

That's about as much as I expect anyway.

[racrguy]

Tell me, racrguy, do you believe in love? If you do, how do you objectively test it?

How do you test it? Science.

The 3 stages of love

Helen Fisher of Rutgers University in the States has proposed 3 stages of love – lust, attraction and attachment. Each stage might be driven by different hormones and chemicals.


Stage 1: Lust

This is the first stage of love and is driven by the sex hormones testosterone and oestrogen – in both men and women.


Stage 2: Attraction

This is the amazing time when you are truly love-struck and can think of little else. Scientists think that three main neurotransmitters are involved in this stage; adrenaline, dopamine and serotonin.


Adrenaline

The initial stages of falling for someone activates your stress response, increasing your blood levels of adrenalin and cortisol. This has the charming effect that when you unexpectedly bump into your new love, you start to sweat, your heart races and your mouth goes dry.


Dopamine

Helen Fisher asked newly ‘love struck’ couples to have their brains examined and discovered they have high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine. This chemical stimulates ‘desire and reward’ by triggering an intense rush of pleasure. It has the same effect on the brain as taking cocaine!

Fisher suggests “couples often show the signs of surging dopamine: increased energy, less need for sleep or food, focused attention and exquisite delight in smallest details of this novel relationship” .


Serotonin

And finally, serotonin. One of love's most important chemicals that may explain why when you’re falling in love, your new lover keeps popping into your thoughts.


Does love change the way you think?
A landmark experiment in Pisa, Italy showed that early love (the attraction phase) really changes the way you think.

Dr Donatella Marazziti, a psychiatrist at the University of Pisa advertised for twenty couples who'd been madly in love for less than six months. She wanted to see if the brain mechanisms that cause you to constantly think about your lover, were related to the brain mechanisms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

By analysing blood samples from the lovers, Dr Marazitti discovered that serotonin levels of new lovers were equivalent to the low serotonin levels of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder patients.


Love needs to be blind

Newly smitten lovers often idealise their partner, magnifying their virtues and explaining away their flaws says Ellen Berscheid, a leading researcher on the psychology of love.

New couples also exalt the relationship itself. “It's very common to think they have a relationship that's closer and more special than anyone else's”. Psychologists think we need this rose-tinted view. It makes us want to stay together to enter the next stage of love – attachment.


Stage 3: Attachment

Attachment is the bond that keeps couples together long enough for them to have and raise children. Scientists think there might be two major hormones involved in this feeling of attachment; oxytocin and vasopressin.


Oxytocin - The cuddle hormone

Oxytocin is a powerful hormone released by men and women during orgasm. It probably deepens the feelings of attachment and makes couples feel much closer to one another after they have had sex. The theory goes that the more sex a couple has, the deeper their bond becomes. Oxytocin also seems to help cement the strong bond between mum and baby and is released during childbirth. It is also responsible for a mum’s breast automatically releasing milk at the mere sight or sound of her young baby.

Diane Witt, assistant professor of psychology from New York has showed that if you block the natural release of oxytocin in sheep and rats, they reject their own young.

Conversely, injecting oxytocin into female rats who’ve never had sex, caused them to fawn over another female’s young, nuzzling the pups and protecting them as if they were their own.


Vasopressin
Vasopressin is another important hormone in the long-term commitment stage and is released after sex. Vasopressin (also called anti-diuretic hormone) works with your kidneys to control thirst. Its potential role in long-term relationships was discovered when scientists looked at the prairie vole. Prairie voles indulge in far more sex than is strictly necessary for the purposes of reproduction. They also – like humans - form fairly stable pair-bonds.

When male prairie voles were given a drug that suppresses the effect of vasopressin, the bond with their partner deteriorated immediately as they lost their devotion and failed to protect their partner from new suitors.

Since the actual paper requires that you pay for it...

https://www.youramazingbrain.org/lov...ciencelove.htm (Source of the text above)
studiesoflove.com/loveromance/stagesoflove.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Fisher_(anthropologist)#2004idn't