This is why we do population studies and don’t rely on anecdotes because we cant be sure otherwise if the cause is due to a vaccine or randomness.
zntneo
Karma: 88
Well yes that context matters which is why I wondered how he new the reaction was due to the vaccine
I would say that for instance I don’t believe that most alt med stuff works but this is exactly the reason I care that others know this and how we know this. This attitude infuriates me.
I have had the flu vaccine regulary for the past 5 years and have never had an adverse reaction. Further how are you sure the “reactions” you are having are from the vaccine?
I still can’t get over how much MBTI seems to work on the foyer effect.
Holy crap i’ll edit hold on
I think the experimental evidence for religion making people happier is horribly flawed (i might be a bit biased given i worked in a lab who was doing work on the subject). Here are some reasons:
Generally the researchers in the field assume that you can just do a linear analysis of religiosity and happiness, meaning using a scale of not religious to very religious and then making not religious=atheist, which is clearly not a good assumption. In fact studies have shown in the past a curvilinear relationship where the “more certain” positions of atheist and theist are as happy as each other . Also, even making sure that the people in the atheist pool are atheists is hard. If i remember correctly the pew research that showed a certain number of atheists in the country also found 40% of those atheists believed in god.
Second reason is : generally the studies use church attendance as its operational definition of religion which does not control for the social support that being in a church provides and when studies control for that generally they find no difference.
Now if this post is about if its true that it makes people happier what does that mean then please ignore.
Edit: i hope thats better
Ok i’ve read all the comments and have no idea what everyone is talking about and how to rationally go about making a guess. Could someone post a link or something that might explain?
Well he does have other arguments such as the evolutionary argument against naturalism but generally he is considered one of the more rigorous of christian philosophers.
oh and btw yea the basic belief argument seems absolutely horrible to me.
I would have picked something by william lane craig,richard swinburne or alvin plantinga. I mean mere christanity if i remember right is the book where he brings up the triliema argument for the jesus being god.
hmm… god delusion generally wouldn’t be at the top for “best arguments” for atheism. I’d go with something like the Atheism: the case against god or if he’ll read a tome you have Atheism:a philosophical justification, the impossibility of god, the improbability of god. These are all pretty high level philosophy books but they are the best and strongest books out there. Did your friend really recommend mere Christianity for best argument on his side?
Dang i missed the meeting if anyone wants to add me i’m here https://plus.google.com/101382871104606212529/posts
Well i’m still trying to find a better job. I am thinking i need a better job search method. Any suggestions on a good method of job search would be great
Working on getting my self to actually do things instead of sleep as much as i do.
Reading a book by susan blackmore about consciousness *Just finished a book called “Philosophy Toolbox”
close its a gas station unfortunately makes it even slower
Not assuming that i should work on exercises its that i want to.
Yes when nobody is at the register. I know its a great opportunity for improvement in social skills and in fact have noticed an improvement (though i have also noticed some things i find very annoying about some social conventions)
Exercises to do while alone
His definition of rationality is still quite annoying.
As someone who is both into the skeptics movement and the atheist movement i’m not sure what skeptics “wouldn’t dare mutter” about. It seems to me that skeptics and atheists just have and interest in those things and want to stop the harm caused by them.
Also, i must be ignorant about all these other horrible delusions you are talking about.
Further you must be talking about instrumental rationality because i’m not sure how this is evidence against epistemic rationality.
I totally agree if its not your cup of tea fine. What pisses me off is the line about ” if you don’t believe it exists it seems like a good reason to not be concerned with it”