RE: Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
April 13, 2012 at 1:22 am
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 1:23 am by R-e-n-n-a-t.)
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 4:48 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
|
 (April 13, 2012 at 12:29 am)Shell B Wrote: Psychiatry is not pseudo-science or intangible in the slightest. What gives you that idea? You misunderstood, the "mind" is intangible. The brain can be studied scientifically, but the mind cannot, not yet anyway. Lets say you are insane the Psychiatrist cannot physically study your mind and give a perfect diagnosis of what the reason is. He must use subjective methods if you are helped it is more art than science. If you are raving mad a doctor may give you a powerful seditive but a hard wack on the head would sedate you too.  (April 13, 2012 at 1:49 am)Kratos Wrote:(April 13, 2012 at 12:29 am)Shell B Wrote: Psychiatry is not pseudo-science or intangible in the slightest. What gives you that idea? The mind is not intangible, the mind is the brain.  RE: Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
April 13, 2012 at 2:45 am
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 2:47 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:The mind is not intangible, the mind is the brain. Umm, actually the mind/body dichotomy is far from resolved.Nor indeed is there any consensus on the very nature of consciousness.. Eg there is no empirical basis for Freud's 'ego,id,superego',yet the majority of psychiatrists in Australia remain Freudians. Psychiatrists base drug prescriptions to alleviate specific symptoms on empirical evidence..(mostly) However, it can certainly be argued that both Freudian and Jungian psychotherapy are indeed pseudo sciences. PS please do not think I'm defending Kratos,I'm not. Still think he's a poe or a dill.  RE: Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
April 13, 2012 at 2:49 am
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 2:51 am by Shell B.)
(April 13, 2012 at 1:49 am)Kratos Wrote: You misunderstood, the "mind" is intangible. The brain can be studied scientifically, but the mind cannot, not yet anyway. Lets say you are insane the Psychiatrist cannot physically study your mind and give a perfect diagnosis of what the reason is. He must use subjective methods if you are helped it is more art than science. If you are raving mad a doctor may give you a powerful seditive but a hard wack on the head would sedate you too. Hmmmm. I still disagree. A doctor can't always tell you why you got cancer, does that make medical science pseudo-science? (April 13, 2012 at 2:45 am)padraic Wrote: However, it can certainly be argued that both Freudian and Jungian psychotherapy are indeed pseudo sciences. Oh, I'm with you 100 percent. However, going back to my last post as an example, what that crazy Nazi doctor did was pseudo-science. Is all medical science painted with the same brush? (April 13, 2012 at 2:45 am)padraic Wrote:Quote:The mind is not intangible, the mind is the brain. It just seems exceedingly strange that someone could believe in an ethereal mind and yet deny a God or Goddess. For me, there's only the material. Any claim that anything intangible exists is a pretty heavy claim towards deism.  RE: Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
April 13, 2012 at 4:45 am
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 4:47 am by NoMoreFaith.)
Psychology is applied Biology is applied Chemistry is applied Physics is applied Mathematics.
The further you get from Mathematics, the sketchier the results, and less predictable, which is why Psychology gets a bum deal sometimes. There may not be consensus on the mind/body dichotomy, but there is definitely consensus that there is no evidence for dualism of mind/body, but plenty evidence for the mind being the brain. Its not conclusive, but its up against a god of the gaps argument for consciousness. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved. Has turned out to be. Not Magic. I have no reason to believe that the mind will turn out to be magic, when nothing else has.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside? The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm RE: Does Atheism Need to be Rebranded?
April 13, 2012 at 5:40 am
(This post was last modified: April 13, 2012 at 5:45 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:It just seems exceedingly strange that someone could believe in an ethereal mind and yet deny a God or Goddess Argument from incredulity. Me? I make no claims. I am so far unable to accept dualism for the same reason I am unable to accept the existence of god(s) ; lack of credible evidence. Either or both may be the case,no matter how unlikely I think that might be. Quote:There may not be consensus on the mind/body dichotomy, but there is definitely consensus that there is no evidence for dualism of mind/body, but plenty evidence for the mind being the brain. Its not conclusive, but its up against a god of the gaps argument for consciousness. THAT is my position.. Quote:. Is all medical science painted with the same brush? Well,yes,by those with an IQ hovering around room temperature.  |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
