 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hmmmm, don't see any credible scientific medical citations or links to it. I guess if a think tank says it, it must be true, right? Even if it were true, which is unlikely, that doesn't make the belief true.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hmmmm, don't see any credible scientific medical citations or links to it. I guess if a think tank says it, it must be true, right? Even if it were true, which is unlikely, that doesn't make the belief true. |
Here you are, I'll spoon feed it to you...
http://www.apa.org/divisions/div36/Newsltrs/v32n1.pdf
| Quote: | The writer Ana?s Nin might have been summarizing worldview theory when she wrote,
?we don?t see things as they are, we see them as we are.?More prosaically, human cognition
and behavior are powerfully influenced by sets of beliefs and assumptions about life
and reality, or, as we may put it, by worldviews. |
| Quote: | The answer to the question, then, of how religion influences psychology, can be expressed
as follows: Religions shape worldviews, thereby shaping their adherents? sense of
reality and proper behavior; in turn, worldviews shape cognition and behavior. I depict this
formulation in Figure 1. Each of Glock?s five dimensions of religion and religiosity potentially
affects beliefs within each of the seven groups of worldview dimensions. That is,
religion exerts an influence in forming the individual?s sense of reality and proper behavior,
that is, the individual?s worldview. In turn, the individual?s worldview exerts an
influence on the individual?s cognition and behavior. |
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Um, no. You're quotes from the APA are entirely irrelevant to the point you tried to make. This is your argument:
1. A influences B
2. Therefore, A is good.
This argument is logically fallacious. Conclusion 2 doesn't stem from premise 1. It's a non-sequitur.
You're "quotes" don't substantiate what you originally argued: that A is good for your health. Being important in influencing behaviour, views of what is proper, or understanding of reality is not logically synonymous with "is good for your health." Entirely different. That's like saying: "smoking affects your lungs, therefore, it is good for your health." Doesn't follow.
It's a lot of irrelevant information about the interplay between vision of reality and belief. It also fails to address my second point: even if it were true that religion were pyschologially good for you, it doesn't make the belief true. Furthermore, you cannot move from benefit psychologically to the individual to objective benefit for the individual, much less objective benefit for society.
? Last Edit: Nov 14, 2007, 11:09pm by technocrat ?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Edit: In fact, I have several studies that show strong correlations between religiosity and socially negative results. I could post them from the Journal of Religion and Society. It's hardly beneficial for society.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The APA says a lot of things. Psychology is barely a science.
But, assume it's true, again, my point stands: the benefits of something to the individual do not make the belief true, nor do they actually justify religion.
I spoonfed it too you already. So this the leftovers. |
Psychology is barely a science? Yet we have peer reviewed articles and scientific testing and analysis to establish a reference point. They use the scientific method to prove/disprove theories... I would say it qualifies perfectly as a science. I'm thinking that the wording that you wanted was it's not an EXACT science. True. But very few things on this Earth are exact. That is in part the point I've been trying to make to you. You have this stone cold right or wrong sense of the truth, but that's not how the truth works.
There is no need to 'justify' religion to you. What you think is irrelevant. We are looking at this through the scope of society. You had a hard time with God. I get it. You don't believe. I get it. Just because you don't isn't a justification to say that others shouldn't. Others have the ability to make up their own minds. It's arrogant to assume that you have the answer for everyone which is what you are doing by saying that religion isn't true. Why says? You? On what authority? You have a religion dear technocrat. You pray at the altar of science. That is the framework of your world view yet instead of allowing for the failures of science, you have elevated it to an infallible status. Good luck with that. Science has corrected it self many times over the years. I guess their truth changes.
God may not be true for you, but He is for some people. Instead of attacking religion in this maddening need to feel vindicated for your need to hate, why not just let it go. If you think you are so right then why not simply be satisfied in the belief that you are correct?
None of your points stand despite your protests. Instead of defending a weak position, why not simply admit that in this particular case your assumptions are incorrect as a general rule. Why they may work for you they are not TRUTH for everyone as truth is based upon an individuals interpretation of the evidence.
Here is some light reading on the truth...
http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm#H1
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Edit: In fact, I have several studies that show strong correlations between religiosity and socially negative results. I could post them from the Journal of Religion and Society. It's hardly beneficial for society. |
Yet you flippantly dismissed the analysis from the apa and other sources that show that religion can have a positive impact. I'm not saying that it cannot have a negative impact. I'm saying that impact is different for each individual and it's important to allow the individual to explore their beliefs.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debateman
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nov 14, 2007, 11:02pm, technocrat wrote: | Quote: |
Um, no. You're quotes from the APA are entirely irrelevant to the point you tried to make. This is your argument:
1. A influences B
2. Therefore, A is good.
This argument is logically fallacious. Conclusion 2 doesn't stem from premise 1. It's a non-sequitur.
You're "quotes" don't substantiate what you originally argued: that A is good for your health. Being important in influencing behaviour, views of what is proper, or understanding of reality is not logically synonymous with "is good for your health." Entirely different. That's like saying: "smoking affects your lungs, therefore, it is good for your health." Doesn't follow.
It's a lot of irrelevant information about the interplay between vision of reality and belief. It also fails to address my second point: even if it were true that religion were pyschologially good for you, it doesn't make the belief true. Furthermore, you cannot move from benefit psychologically to the individual to objective benefit for the individual, much less objective benefit for society. |
You know Tech, you are absolutely correct. I'm sorry. I was going to use those quotes as additional information for my argumentation that religion is important in decision making/world view. I confused the two threads. I'll be more than happy to provide you a laundry list of information regarding the health benefits of spirituality tomorrow as it's late and I have class in the morning.
_________________
www.politicalwrinkles.com
www.kizzumeforum.com
www.politicalfever.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Tech--you don't believe in God. Fine. Why do you have to represent HackFest's signature?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jen
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, I don't have much to add to this thread, but I must say reading it is exhausting. I am an Atheist, as I have stated before in this thread. What I don't get, is trying to argue with someone over one's beliefs. I do not believe in god. My best friend does. We don't fight about it. Sometimes we will ask the other questions. Like, she once asked me, "How does an Atheist deal with death?" I told her, "just like anyone else does, we cry, we miss the person, and we slowly get over it." I think one of the main problems with religion, or lack of religion, is that a lot of the time, it's hard for people to just agree, to disagree. I don't have a problem with Christians in general. I have had some problems in the past, because a few people, who happened to be Christians, thought I was a bad person, and had no morals, because I did not believe in God. I have also had problems with other Atheists, because they feel the need to try to convince others of their stance. I don't understand that. Why the need to try to convert people over to Atheism? Why try to make someone feel beneath you because they don't see things just the way you do? Just because you see something differently, does not make you any more intelligent than anyone else. It's nice when I can find another Atheist to talk to about my beliefs, which I don't really talk too much about typically. But, me being an Atheist is not my entire personality. If someone does not share that belief with me, it does not make me want to change that person. It only opens me up to try to learn more about the differences in people, and why they believe such things. Ugh. Sorry, I kind of rambled on for a bit. I just don't really understand disrespecting anyone for what they believe, or don't believe. I guess it's just not my style.
_________________
" The feeble tremble before opinion, the foolish defy it, the wise judge it, the skillful direct it." Jeanne-Marie Roland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nov 15, 2007, 5:46pm, jen wrote: | Quote: |
Wow, I don't have much to add to this thread, but I must say reading it is exhausting. I am an Atheist, as I have stated before in this thread. What I don't get, is trying to argue with someone over one's beliefs. I do not believe in god. My best friend does. We don't fight about it. Sometimes we will ask the other questions. Like, she once asked me, "How does an Atheist deal with death?" I told her, "just like anyone else does, we cry, we miss the person, and we slowly get over it." I think one of the main problems with religion, or lack of religion, is that a lot of the time, it's hard for people to just agree, to disagree. I don't have a problem with Christians in general. I have had some problems in the past, because a few people, who happened to be Christians, thought I was a bad person, and had no morals, because I did not believe in God. I have also had problems with other Atheists, because they feel the need to try to convince others of their stance. I don't understand that. Why the need to try to convert people over to Atheism? Why try to make someone feel beneath you because they don't see things just the way you do? Just because you see something differently, does not make you any more intelligent than anyone else. It's nice when I can find another Atheist to talk to about my beliefs, which I don't really talk too much about typically. But, me being an Atheist is not my entire personality. If someone does not share that belief with me, it does not make me want to change that person. It only opens me up to try to learn more about the differences in people, and why they believe such things. Ugh. Sorry, I kind of rambled on for a bit. I just don't really understand disrespecting anyone for what they believe, or don't believe. I guess it's just not my style.
It isn't just religion; we see this just as much with politics. You know that old famous saying "Don't talk religion or politics at a bar" or something along those lines. It seems that people take religion and politics very personally, and therefore, when disputing ones politics or religion, it is very hard not to take it personally. |
I agree with you though that it can get very overkill though. I try my best not to disrespect someone else's beliefs and in the process, hope that they can do the same for me. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
| |
|
