Quote:Bro thinks psychology = therapy.

Bro thinks psychology = doesn't include therapy.

Bro think he is in anyway winning this conversation

(May 8, 2025 at 12:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I have a psychology degree and it does seem to be real....

It is just noise.

(May 8, 2025 at 10:56 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 8, 2025 at 12:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I have a psychology degree and it does seem to be real....

It is just noise.

From your link:

Quote:Since then, many studies have been done that have reported this effect in other domains of knowledge. Dr. Dunning tells me he believes the effect “has more to do with being misinformed rather than uninformed.”

Impressive. So far, John has managed to cite two pop-sci articles as if they were anywhere near the calibre of peer-reviewed publications. The first one was about somebody's blog post FFS. Then he carries on about what an amazing source the articles in Psychology Today are, apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that, while excellent for the layperson, Psychology Today isn't a publication that any serious psychologist would ever cite. It is to psychology what Scientific American is to science. Some excellent articles to be sure, but not a word of it peer-reviewed.

An actual professional would have led with the original Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 paper from Intelligence because they'd have known it by rote and would have had to go looking for the Psychology Today version. They'd have also been keenly aware of the more recent literature (e.g.: Lebuda et al., 2024) showing that while the Glejser test shows little to no evidence for DKE whereas classical quartile analysis provides strong support for DKE.

You sir, are a rookie trying to pose as the real thing, and sticking chicken feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.

(May 8, 2025 at 5:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: In my experience, christians believe because they think or wish (and I mean nothing untoward here, I call this genuine) that a remarkably small number of pregnant propositions are (or were) true.  Conversely, a person will not believe in christianity if they think or wish that even one of those items aren't true.  The odds aren't in the christianities' favor - which might explain why more skeptical populations are less christian by brute force of large numbers.   Why the number of people who believe in one or more, but not all, of these propositions..... is far greater than the number of christians.

Gods exist and are theistic.
Moral content exists and is objective.
Gods can modify moral desert.

-and all of this is acceptable.  

Notice "atheists have bad brain" isn't in there?  Not because it can't be true, but because it doesn't matter if it is.  We can zero out all the bad brained atheists...and we can imagine that's 99% of us...but the remaining 1% will still have a solid logical case against christian belief.  Which is to say, that even if gods exist, and even if objective moral content exists, and even if gods are personal and intervening, and even if the manner of their intervention is to modify moral desert.....that would be bad...and so, it doesn't actually matter whether or not it's true.  No more so than it matters whether or not some dipshit is in charge of a county's laws.   That's granting a hell of alot to christian belief....not just possibility, even actuality... and it still has mount improbable to climb at the very last step.  We are, or at least should be aware, that there are people in mechanically equivalent and undeniably factual circumstances who do not affirm the appropriate beliefs.

Well John's "bad brain" idea was offered, as are all his beliefs, without even the pretence of any evidence, it is a no true Scotsman fallacy. 

Rather than addressing the dearth of objective evidence for any deity, or more specifically the one version of the one deity, from the countless thousands humans have imagined, that he believes is real, John has relentlessly attacked those who don't share his belief. These attempts to reverse his burden of proof, is of course nothing new, it seems to be in vogue in apologetics, but is of course irrational at its core.

(May 8, 2025 at 5:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 8, 2025 at 3:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Don't you have psych patients you should be fucking up?

Bro thinks psychology = therapy.

Well that is a relief I must say, I had been a little concerned patients in need of help might be coming to you. Given the display here, that was rather disconcerting, even if there is a large ocean between us.

Anyway, now we can get back to the thread topic, @John 6IX Breezy, why do you believe the Jesus character from the gospel stories is a deity?

(May 8, 2025 at 5:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 8, 2025 at 3:19 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Don't you have psych patients you should be fucking up?

Bro thinks psychology = therapy.

Bro thinks you're a fraud.

Boru

(May 9, 2025 at 3:35 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Impressive. So far, John has managed to cite two pop-sci articles as if they were anywhere near the calibre of peer-reviewed publications. The first one was about somebody's blog post FFS. Then he carries on about what an amazing source the articles in Psychology Today are, apparently blissfully ignorant of the fact that, while excellent for the layperson, Psychology Today isn't a publication that any serious psychologist would ever cite. It is to psychology what Scientific American is to science. Some excellent articles to be sure, but not a word of it peer-reviewed.

An actual professional would have led with the original Gignac & Zajenkowski 2020 paper from Intelligence because they'd have known it by rote and would have had to go looking for the Psychology Today version. They'd have also been keenly aware of the more recent literature (e.g.: Lebuda et al., 2024) showing that while the Glejser test shows little to no evidence for DKE whereas classical quartile analysis provides strong support for DKE.

You sir, are a rookie trying to pose as the real thing, and sticking chicken feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.

To be fair to him his  Psychology Today article does bring up Gignac & Zajenkowski but yeah you should actually research papers not pop articles

Quote:It is just noise.

No it isn't. It's a subject still fiercely debated. Stop making exaggerated claims as if the matter have been settled because it hasn't been.

(May 9, 2025 at 3:35 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Impressive. So far, John has managed to cite two pop-sci articles as if they were anywhere near the calibre of peer-reviewed publications.

Scroll back.