Raider5678

If your first post you quoted them saying: "they are not stating religious people overall are mentally inflexible or that belief is caused by brain damage. There are many cognitive processes involved in forming beliefs. But in some people, the system of “belief revision” may become suppressed due to brain damage." Unless I'm mistaken, that includes going from atheism to religion, and going from religion to atheism. Because in both instances, that would be a revision of beliefs. Fundamentalism is the strict adherence of rules. So they used religion as a medium, to see if people with that type of brain lesion had a stricter adherence to rules to their religion. Correct? Or am I mistaken?

My statement: The study looked for religious fundamentalism with patients having DLPFC lesions. They found the people with DLPFC lesions had increased fundamentalism(Definition: Strict adherance to the basic principals of any subject or dicipline) because the brain lesions reduced cognitive flexibility and openness. Where did I lie? Okay. In truth, that wasn't my exact statement. Rather, it was that you guys added "religious" to what they found. In this post: And that's true. I showed you the exact quote from the study, and if you click the link and look, you'll see I'm telling the truth. They did not say they found RELIGIOUS fundamentalism. Simply fundamentalism. And fundamentalism, I provided the definition for, can be applied to "any subject". So where did I lie? If you can show me, using just quotes. Tell me the post number, and put " " around it. Then tell me where the conflicts with what the study says. And I'll take everything back. But for now, I don't "know very well" where I lied. I said they reworded the findings. Not the title of the study.

Imagine. Also, my font is stuck this weird color....

I tried explaining this once. See what you think. All humans are different. You won't find any of them that are exactly alike. But there are so many of them, and all their lives matter, does that make them unique? Because ultimately, they're all the same. And while that's true, it's also wrong. The measure of life isn't how different you can be. It's how much of an impact you can leave. And the impact doesn't have to be big, it simply has to be good.

I'm not at light to heavily disagree with this. I meant more that philosophy doesn't follow a strict set of logical rules that always points to one conclusion because it uses inductive reasoning sometimes. But for the most part I guess it is logic based. I retract my statement.

Click the second link and scroll down to the highlights box. The first subset states "We examined religious fundamentalism in a large sample of penetrating TBI patients." And unless we have different studies, you see the same thing correct? They examined for it. The second subset says: "Patients with VMPFC lesions reported greater fundamentalism." The definition of fundamentalism is: strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline. plural noun: fundamentalisms "free-market fundamentalism" So they were looking for religious fundamentalism in particular. The third subset states: DLPFC lesions increase fundamentalism by reducing cognitive flexibility and openness So: They were looking for religious fundamentalism. Correct? So I formed this statement. The study looked for religious fundamentalism with patients having DLPFC lesions. They found the people with DLPFC lesions had increased fundamentalism(Definition: Strict adherance to the basic principals of any subject or dicipline) because the brain lesions reduced cognitive flexibility and openness. Where did I lie?

I knew a man who threw away his life saving someone.

Science requires evidence when logic cannot prove something. There are two types of logic. One makes inferences, and one makes deductions. There's a huge difference. The one that makes inferences can be wrong. But usually it's right, and it's used most commonly. It's called inductive reasoning. The other one, makes deductions, and can't be wrong. It's always right(If it isn't, then you didn't use deductive reasoning, you guessed/assumed something.) But it's not commonly used in real life. It's called deductive reasoning. It's not logic based. You don't understand philosophy.

You, and the study both said it when you reworded the study to say "Study finds link between brain damage and religious fundamentalism." You both worded it as such. Except, you added the word religious, because the original study didn't have that. And since you can add religious without making it a false statement, I can also add atheism. But both of those are dragging the results of the study, and twisting them to say what we want it to say. Ultimately, it found exactly what the study says it found. A link between brain legions and the non ability to change your fundamental beliefs. I simply pointed out where the news article went wrong.

Good to see you've realized this. Now when you hear somebody say things like "All those religious idiots" or "They're too stupid to realize God isn't real." You can adequately realize that those statements are biased or wrong. And if you hear a religious person say "Atheists are stupid" or "Atheists just want to commit sin." You can adequately realize that those statements are biased or wrong.

Most helpful reply of the year above. Everybody +1 that.

The study found no link between brain damage and religiousness. It found a link in the ability to modify your fundamental beliefs. Otherwise, if you believe in God when you get the brain legions, then you'll have a harder time changing your beliefs. If you don't believe in God when you get the brain legions, then you'll have a harder time changing your beliefs. It isn't some "one way" road. This is a very important scientific study that shows how brain legions can cause illogical thought processes. But you, and the news article, have gone and twisted it around to use it against religion. Whether I believe in God or not doesn't matter. You're taking it out of context and trying to make it say something it didn't.

So, a link that certain brain damage means people have a harder time challenging their beliefs? Okay. You realize that can apply to more then just religion right? And I know you're gonna hate this. But this study also found a link between atheism and brain damage. Whether you believe it or not.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b00771 Complicated stuff that doesn't matter much unless you're using it for something specific.. Unless I'm wrong. In which case someone will correct me.

Because it weakens your immune system and allows opportunistic viruses to kill you.

6. Think logically and place the variables one by one.

So basically, an extremely short rail gun? Or, extremely fast.

First, try substituting them into the equation. X = 12 Y = -6

Well. Even from earth you can look at mars and figure out the abundant resource that is all over there. A possible place to colonize. Just to have a back up colony on mars, in case something happens to Earth. By the time there were millions of people living on mars, it would be self sustainable. So that's the objective.

Why Richard?

Your name, and signature, says a lot about you. Just saying.

Clap..... Clap..... Clap..... Very funny. Along with our precious participation trophies, we also excel at sarcasm.

The hard part is maintaining the high temperatures required, and making the plasma float.

Evidently.