At work.

Wait? I've replied to the OP's post.

Have I deen skipped, ignored or dismissed?

Enquiring minds need to know!

I wonder if being paid by the state to take care of grandma = licensed dementia therapist where it is from?

(October 3, 2021 at 9:01 pm)Fireball Wrote: Ghetto, you're allowed to put a person on "ignore", or let your eyes glaze over if you don't like that person's response, just like the rest of us. You're already playing shit-house lawyer. We'll see how long it is before you start whining about your first amendment rights, which, BTW, don't exist on a private platform. I have a few people on ignore simply because they make inane or stupid comments. Jury's out for you, so far.

Whatever works for you
Setting boundaries with lay ppl unable to receive a consult works for me

---

(October 4, 2021 at 3:23 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

 Wait? I've replied to the OP's post.

 Have I deen skipped, ignored or dismissed?

 Enquiring minds need to know!

It's not about you 
It's about the trash nature of this forum

---

(October 4, 2021 at 12:11 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Ghetto - How can I help ?

Do you have a question you would like to ask ?
Please ask the question in a full sentence format.

 
The  only position an atheist has  when I speak from my scope of practice is to  receive a consult about how science would roll thru the atheist debate arena IF it rolled at all. 
Your response rules you out as a suitable candidate 
Sorry

---

(October 3, 2021 at 10:06 am)Fireball Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 2:15 am)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote: A responder's questions need to be focused on line 3 & 4 of OP 
Otherwise,  you're ruled out for further discussion

My, aren't we the one.

^^  Dodging 

Science & medicine stands regardless of what I am personally

(October 4, 2021 at 5:55 pm)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 9:01 pm)Fireball Wrote: Ghetto, you're allowed to put a person on "ignore", or let your eyes glaze over if you don't like that person's response, just like the rest of us. You're already playing shit-house lawyer. We'll see how long it is before you start whining about your first amendment rights, which, BTW, don't exist on a private platform. I have a few people on ignore simply because they make inane or stupid comments. Jury's out for you, so far.

Whatever works for you
Setting boundaries with lay ppl unable to receive a consult works for me

---

(October 4, 2021 at 3:23 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

 Wait? I've replied to the OP's post.

 Have I deen skipped, ignored or dismissed?

 Enquiring minds need to know!

It's not about you 
It's about the trash nature of this forum

---

(October 4, 2021 at 12:11 am)Rahn127 Wrote: Ghetto - How can I help ?

Do you have a question you would like to ask ?
Please ask the question in a full sentence format.

 
The  only position an atheist has  when I speak from my scope of practice is to  receive a consult about how science would roll thru the atheist debate arena IF it rolled at all. 
Your response rules you out as a suitable candidate 
Sorry

---

(October 3, 2021 at 10:06 am)Fireball Wrote: My, aren't we the one.

^^  Dodging 

Science & medicine stands regardless of what I am personally

Would you consider engaging in discussion at all? I mean, that’s kind what this place is for.

Boru

(October 4, 2021 at 6:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 4, 2021 at 5:55 pm)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote: Whatever works for you
Setting boundaries with lay ppl unable to receive a consult works for me

---

It's not about you 
It's about the trash nature of this forum

---

 
The  only position an atheist has  when I speak from my scope of practice is to  receive a consult about how science would roll thru the atheist debate arena IF it rolled at all. 
Your response rules you out as a suitable candidate 
Sorry

---

^^  Dodging 

Science & medicine stands regardless of what I am personally

Would you consider engaging in discussion at all? I mean, that’s kind what this place is for.

Boru

Well! You're on his list now, too!

(October 3, 2021 at 8:59 pm)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 8:24 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I thought there was a rule that said if you are going to talk about cognitive science, you can't be a dumbass who doesn't understand cognitive science. But (looking over the rules) I couldn't find it.

Maybe it should be a rule. And that's why I thought it was one.

^^  Dodging  
Im  a licensed dementia therapist 
Regardless of what I am personally,  there are mountains of evidence behind my scope of practice
If my relevant credentials aren't standing on their own,  
then whatever a responder says is only dodging 
A dodger's next step is to get a consult w/ another  clinician

The requirements for licensure as a dementia therapist, though they may vary from state to state, are no joke. Years of experience in a medical field, and a four year degree (in anything). You also have to attend a seminar. Not sure how long the seminar is. Could be one day. Could be 500 hours. That's all fine and good. And I'm sure you are qualified to practice your profession.

But this qualification doesn't necessarily translate to an expertise in cognitive science. You are likely only required to learn the bits of cognitive psychology that pertain to your practice, with (I'm sure) some more general instruction also heaped on.

A masters degree in cognitive science or psychology would do more to suggest expertise. And even THEN... in a hypothetical world where you had a masters degree in cog psy... you've still only made statements of authority up to this point. Something tells me if you actually had a master's degree, you'd not do that. You'd say [this idea] is wrong because of x (which is empirically supported in cognitive studies). You have provided less than a teaspoonful of substance in all your posts combined.

So-- no-- you're relevant credentials are not standing on their own. And even if you had relevant credentials, you're not properly engaging in argument. That's something you'd learn in grad school... how to argue an original thesis using a proper methodology.

(October 4, 2021 at 9:51 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 8:59 pm)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote: ^^  Dodging  
Im  a licensed dementia therapist 
Regardless of what I am personally,  there are mountains of evidence behind my scope of practice
If my relevant credentials aren't standing on their own,  
then whatever a responder says is only dodging 
A dodger's next step is to get a consult w/ another  clinician

The requirements for licensure as a dementia therapist, though they may vary from state to state, are no joke. Years of experience in a medical field, and a four year degree (in anything). You also have to attend a seminar. Not sure how long the seminar is. Could be one day. Could be 500 hours. That's all fine and good. And I'm sure you are qualified to practice your profession.

But this qualification doesn't necessarily translate to an expertise in cognitive science. You are likely only required to learn the bits of cognitive psychology that pertain to your practice, with (I'm sure) some more general instruction also heaped on.

A masters degree in cognitive science or psychology would do more to suggest expertise. And even THEN... in a hypothetical world where you had a masters degree in cog psy... you've still only made statements of authority up to this point. Something tells me if you actually had a master's degree, you'd not do that. You'd say [this idea] is wrong because of x (which is empirically supported in cognitive studies). You have provided less than a teaspoonful of substance in all your posts combined.

So-- no-- you're relevant credentials are not standing on their own. And even if you had relevant credentials, you're not properly engaging in argument. That's something you'd learn in grad school... how to argue an original thesis using a proper methodology.

I don't debate nor argue my licensed scope of practice 
Either you're receptive to a consult  as I elaborate on my position 
or you're excused

I lied, I'm responding again.

Just to say: this forum isn't your work place, and the members here aren't your patients.

(October 4, 2021 at 7:58 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(October 4, 2021 at 6:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Would you consider engaging in discussion at all? I mean, that’s kind what this place is for.

Boru

Well! You're on his list now, too!

There's no discussion nor Q&A until after I have had a chance to lay out my position. 
I can't lay out my position if no one wants to hear about line 3 & 4 in my OP 
I don't debate a licensed scope of practice w/ a lay person let alone listen to their bickering before they've had a consult 
It really is this simple^  
if an atheist is interested in how science could enhance our arguments,  then there's no room to proceed. 
If/when an atheist has no interest, it's over before it starts

---

(October 4, 2021 at 10:52 pm)Foxaire Wrote: I lied, I'm responding again.

Just to say: this forum isn't your work place, and the members here aren't your patients.

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our finest because logic isn't it

---

(October 3, 2021 at 9:01 pm)Fireball Wrote: Ghetto, you're allowed to put a person on "ignore", or let your eyes glaze over if you don't like that person's response, just like the rest of us. You're already playing shit-house lawyer. We'll see how long it is before you start whining about your first amendment rights, which, BTW, don't exist on a private platform. I have a few people on ignore simply because they make inane or stupid comments. Jury's out for you, so far.

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our finest because logic isn't it

---

(October 3, 2021 at 8:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 7:49 pm)Ghetto Sheldon Wrote: The rules state that I have to answer to each responder? 
The rules state I can't ignore a responder? 
The rules state I have to engage with a responder who won't focus on OP topic?  
Gee,  I guess I do need to review the rules

Reading benefits us all.

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our finest becAUSE  logic isn't it

---

(October 4, 2021 at 7:58 pm)Fireball Wrote:

(October 4, 2021 at 6:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Would you consider engaging in discussion at all? I mean, that’s kind what this place is for.

Boru

Well! You're on his list now, too!

^^ Irrelevant & off topic 
^^ Dodging OP topic:  doing science to offer theists our best because logic isn't it

---

(October 3, 2021 at 1:54 am)Foxaire Wrote: What do you propose is better than reason to comprehend the atrocities of religion?

  This question ^^ is the best response under my OP.
Reality orientation (RO)  towards the delusional is a standard practice VS logic against them 
It wouldn't be that difficult to enhance logic w/ RO 
#1  Promote one thing first:  that you understand them.   This affords a connection from which you can stand a chance to gain further cooperation.
#2   Per my OP,  we need to start collecting data to see how badly we are only causing backfire & strengthening their faith.

If we really  care about the life threatening atrocities of religiosity  over proving ourselves smarter than a fukken moron,  then we wouldn't want to increase the delusional's defiance 

The next appropriate step is to collect data to discern our best from our worst.  We then toss out the ineffective & that which increases a life threatening atrocity.  As I mentioned in OP,  we need an ancillary team to create a comprehensive approach.  We put the level of cognitive involvement on a spectrum so others can rank the delusional.  From a theist's ranking on a spectrum,  you can then choose the menu of options already discerned apt for their ranking.
 
IF you don't already comprehend the atrocities,  then I suggest referring out to someone who does, pretending you understand or accept you'll never understand them..  Im a recovery pentecostal...  I don't demand evidence for a gawd I already understand

Ghetto - Should you have any questions in the future, many of us would be glad to help you understand any difficult topics or subjects that you might show interest in.

You seem to have some difficulty with conversation in general.
We can talk about how normal conversations are usually handled, if this would help you.

Hi Sheldon, My name is Rahn. I am 56 years old. In my day job, I work construction and build new homes, room additions and do interior remodeling, usually a kitchen or bathroom. I am also an author of two books. Both are fiction and any day now I will be famous and wealthy. (LOL) I have been an atheist all of my life. Never bought into any of the religious stuff. I have one son and three grandchildren. My life is good, but like most things, it could always be better.

If you would like, please tell me something about yourself.