That is dubious evidence at best. I’m well aware of Stone Age figurines … that should not be assumed to be anything to do with religious worship though.

also the understanding of the goddess, which preceded the idea of the gods — Jack Cummins

Where do you get that from?

Here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtImgnj5DN0

It is common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was.

Stephen Fry did a rather informative documentary on bipolar/depression. You can find it on youtube I think? It’s called The Secret Life of Depression or something like that.

Ask god maybe? It’s clear you cannot read or simply don’t understand what you’re reading (which amount the same thing). I won’t be responding any more to anything you say - other than by reporting it to mods.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when the same person calls science ‘dogmatic’.

Nonsense. There are genes related to psychopathy. This is a fact not a fiction.

You can do the research or keep spouting crap that will likely get you removed from this forum. Your choice.

Try reading the entire thing rather going for the ignorant knee jerk reaction. The fact that there are genes that correspond to psychopathic behaviour is OLD news. Very old news.

In conclusion, expression of ZNF132 in neurons and RPL10P9 in both neurons and astrocytes is markedly abnormal among habitually violent offenders and these findings are strongly associated with the degree of psychopathic symptoms. The changes in protein levels observed here point to alteration in insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, and previous literature has shown that abnormal glucose metabolism is the only predictor for violent crimes which can surpass the accuracy of PCL-R [35]. We also observed changes in the opioid system, which has been shown to support prosocial functions, such as empathy, among humans and nonhuman primates [12, 13, 37, 38].

Anything else moron? Care to call me a lunatic again?

Shut up

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z

@Philosophim I was referring to a state I have personally experienced although I may have said it on another thread?

Calling people ‘crazy’ or a ‘lunatic’ simply because they have experienced psychosis is rather insulting. My point was that I understand perfectly well how what I experienced would’ve been seen in a different manner had I not had a particularly secular upbringing.

We map experiences onto stories/ideas/perspectives that make ready sense to us. The Jungian Axis Mundi.

My point was that people can suddenly be depression even though their life has been perfectly fine (including childhood).

Some people can be psychopaths due to a gene. But not all people who possess the gene become psychopaths. Some people’s neurochemistry simply changes to a certain degree in later life that can cause quite severe depression (irrespective of outside influences).

Of course there are some from column A and some from column B, but it is (as has been suggested by some one) plain wrong to state that it is all about life experiences.

Its incredibly important that we don't look down on or consider religious people "stupid" — Philosophim

Agree 100%. But some people are just plain stupid too. Some are religious and some are not. (See above)

Go play with someone else on your low level moron. Bye

Things are not BS just because you say so. Sorry.

Being upset and saddened due to the death of all your family and friends is not exactly the same as having a happy family life, a successful career following the path of your childhood dream, lots of friends, good health (eating, sleeping and exercise), yet you feel like you should be dead or die due to misery.

There is a significant difference.

They offer nothing. I did look.

You really don’t understand what I’m talking about nor seem to understand anything about how the brain functions. Calling them ‘lunatics’ (or insinuating I’m saying that) tells me all I need to know about your ignorance.

This is the crux of it for me. Think of it like trying to explain yellow to someone who is blind. You can kind of attempt do it, by way of references to other senses.

I think it is quite reasonable to understand that people have different experiences and, furthermore, that some people have had some quite powerful experiences that many others have not. These more unique experiences are ‘feel more real than real,’ even though that turn if phrase sounds strange in and of itself. I cannot explain what it is other than to refer to it as a vivid sensation that feels like a transition from a 2D cinematic experience to a fully fleshed out 3D theatre experience. One is far more ‘present’ than the other, more ‘connected’.

If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. When, for instance, people talk about ‘hearing voices’ but the ‘sane’ person would say ‘of course I would understand it was in my head’ but you likely wouldn’t as the voice you hear sounds like it is ‘outside’ and acts as if completely independent from your own conscious thoughts.

This is why I generally think of the whole god/religion concept as something entangled within the human psyche. The ‘space’ between unconscious processes and conscious thought. The interesting thing is there is a common pattern to how such things present themselves as ‘independent beings’. Studies with DMT have shown some fairly strong reported instances from both religiously inclined and non-religiously inclined people. For myself personally I believe what happens is the human brain can naturally produce DMT and the effect of this on conscious is the reason ‘religious experiences’ exist.

If the above is correct then a further problem is understanding what kind of stress the human body has to go through to natural produce enough DMT to induce such profound experiences. DMT has been found in a rats brain, but last I looked there was still no direct evidence that DMT is naturally produced in the human brain let alone in large enough quantities to be of significance.

There was a woman who had a stroke (forgot her name). She was also a cognitive neuroscientist. She describes a ‘connectedness’ and sense of bliss I can relate to. The potential for such experiences is both scary and inspiring in terms of human development. If myself, or the woman here, had been brought up in a religious manner then I can completely understand having a solid and unshakable ‘belief’ in god there after. My upbringing was about as secular as can be so I didn’t end up preaching on the streets. There is little doubt in my mind though that many religious figures experienced something akin to what we both did and tried damn hard to square it and express because they fully understand how powerful the experience was and potential of humanity.

In teh same respect Husserl often liked to look at the ‘obvious’.

It does take a certain perspective to see the mundane as phenomenal (in both senses of the word!). I have been in tears at the sheer beauty of a cracked pavement. That level is not too common, but it is everywhere potentially. The awe and wonder in the experiences of life are right under out noses.

I think a key point is to recognise an object as an arbitrary delineation, and the term ‘object’ as such an object too. Heidegger was mostly concerned with the worded concepts than the sensory explication, likely because when we talk of sensation/perception we do so through these here worded terms.

The true phenomenological path is freewheeling subjectivity. The scramble to communicate these ideas to others will always fall short - but that is okay.

What evidence? Severe clinical depression simply happens. Someone can be living a very happy and productive life then suddenly, for no psychological reason, they become depressed.

From the last I read on this subject it is something that often worsens with age. I cannot remember when this usually happens, but if I recall well enough I believe most cases of this happen from mid 20’s to mid 30’s? It’s been a long while since I last looked at this though.

By far and away the most prominent cause/trigger of items like psychosis and schizophrenia is irregular sleeping patterns. Given that our understanding of sleep and dreaming is fairly limited the reasons likely lie within this area.

They experienced something. That can be investigated. Why they called what they experienced ‘god’ is something we can also ask them about.

It seems that these experiences are just neurological matters. Or rather, we have no other objective way of viewing them so why bother?

If we cannot agree on what we are talking about then all questions regarding it are pointless.

God hasn't made Itself readily apparent, so why would you think evidence comes to those who do not seek? Yet sometimes it does, through psychedelics or NDE's for instance — theRiddler

You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?

Again, same issue as elsewhere.

What is meant by ‘god’?

If ‘metaphysical’/‘supernatural’ science doesn’t have any input.

If psychological, there is a lot to say about about what human’s mean by the term ‘god’ and why this term exists.

In the later case both the sciences are arts have something to offer. In the former case there is nothing to say on the subject because such is nothing to us because we cannot talk about what we cannot form a concept for.

Not unless there is a VERY clear and VERY detailed definition of what is meant when someone says ‘god’.

Claims of some supreme being existing can only only be verified if said being is understood to a reasonable degree. Given that a ‘god’ is usually outlined as something mostly outside our natural understanding and experience of the world it is often a dead end.

If we’re just talking about a superior race of beings, more or less living as we do, then that seems viable. The question would then be about where they are, why they are hiding from us and why we should care about them (other than as a potential threat to our existence given the assumption their technological capabilities far out stretch our own).

You are not worthy of my time then. Bye

People think they want ‘happiness’ but really they mean that they want to do something ‘meaningful’. The sense of satisfaction gained from struggling, failing and overcoming (even for months/years) is far better than a dull slovenly ‘happiness’.

The journey and all that. Common phrase likely because it is true that we enjoy the act of doing something more than the actual achievement.

You are starting to sound ridiculous. How can you say it is chimera with the technological advances we have today gained by way of scientific investigation through experimentation? Medicine and communications are kind of a large reason why we are talking - I would be dead without the medical attention I’ve received and I certainly wouldn’t be able to communication with you from the other side of the planet either.

Is that a ‘fairy tale’?

So blame the media not the methods of science. There have not exactly been many physicists who are able to bridge the gap in term of public relations. Feymann was certainly one guy who really was good at putting things across well.

As an example of the explanation of QM he simply stated ‘anyone who says they understand QM is lying, because no one understands it’.

When asked about creating ‘an anti-gravity device’ he said ‘a chair works perfectly well’.

The problem with many reporters in the mainstream, non-specialised, media is that they actively try to sensationalise anything they can. There is also the issue of funding experiments. Again, scientists openly admit they do ‘pretend’ to be researching one thing whilst really collecting data for something else related.

Money plays a big part in how religion and science is portrayed. Religion gets more money though.

How would you go about dealing with the world if not in terms of opposites? — Agent Smith

Possibility does this by sidestepping the question and saying something that looks like it means something but then seems utterly incapable of offering any ‘verification’ for their pretend point … because there isn’t one.

They have probably read too much Heidegger, Foucault or Derrida. Or nothing other than one of those.

I was thinking in term of cooking :)

A more serious answer in terms of evolution:

https://www.newscientist.com/question/came-first-chicken-egg/

Feymann and Einstein are ‘meglomaniacs’ because they admit they don’t have all the answers? Feymann because he is happy to state that there may or may not be some overarching formula to explain the universe?

I don’t quite understand what ‘hero’ you are about? Newton was a megalomaniac type. One example does not make a rule though. Just like not all theists believe the Earth was created in seven days and such.

Some people are more dogmatic than others. ‘Dogma’ is something believed in on authority regardless of investigation. In the past some took Aristotle’s view of gravity as the writ truth, but they changed their minds when an experiment showed his view to be wrong. This kind of ‘mind changing’ is more common amongst scientists because there is no written truth only a methodology that guides investigation.

Religions can, and do, also ‘change their mind’ due to social pressure. Science changes due to experimentation and discovery that often leads to social change. Both have a place as far as I can tell, but atm religion is struggling to adapt due to the speed of discovery we have been witnessing over tha past couple of millennia.

I prefer eggs. They are more versatile.

The ultimate goal for us physicists seems to be to know the basic workings of the universe. — EugeneW

Not really. Possibly for the more megalomaniacal scientist? Generally people who like to play football are not in pursuit of the basic workings of football. In the same way physicists are just ‘playing’ and enjoy the pursuit.

Feymann stated that the universe may or may not be reducible to a singular equation. He wasn’t really bothered either way, but it is generally more interesting for us if it isn’t. The ‘exceptions to the rule’ make life fascinating not the mundane day-to-say humdrum.

I’m always right because I know I must be partially wrong and knowing I’m partially wring means I’m right to know I am partially wrong, therefore everything I have said or will say must be right because I already know it contains something wrong within necessarily.

Am I right or am I right! Absolutely not. So I must be right :)

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom.

Turns out you were correct!

Accepting ignorance is the first step towards wisdom

Since when has it been ‘a right’ to have a mother and father? It is a biological fact, but it certainly isn’t a universal principle that children need the ‘mother and father’ present when being raised.

It is most probably fair to say that a male and female roel model are needed for children in general, but this can exist beyond mere ‘mother and father’ roles - and does in some social structures. Levi-Strauss notes this with examples around the world. In modern cases there are families in Asia where the brother of the father/mother fulfils the role we would traditionally associate with ‘father’.

When it comes to stating god exists 100% that is more or less dogmatic thinking. Believing in god does not make anyone dogmatic though. Some people are more dogmatic than others.

Scientists can be fairly dogmatic too. The main difference with the scientific approach is that it is far open to dispute/question the current way of understanding the universe and the vast majority of scientifically inclined persons are actually excited when experimentation and theory leads to something new and unknown, whilst religious doctrine (although it is adjusted sometimes) takes far, far longer to reform.

Both share something in common. They are ways and means of looking at human life in the universe and have, in part, helped each other along over the millennia.

When science hits a technological wall then philosophical and theological matters try and edge back in. When scientific investigation discovers something new both philosophers and theologians benefit from it (and sometimes try to undermine the discoveries or attach their importance to their own views).

sorry, ‘your ignorance’. About brain function and that physiology is not somehow separate from brain function.

If you are a dualist there is probably not a discussion worth having here, sorry.