General Discussion

Bernardo de La Paz

(60,320 posts)

35. He can have his opinion since thought not a crime. If it was, he could outlaw religion AND himself

Reply to HAB911 (Reply #16)

Sun May 7, 2017, 08:53 AM

May 2017

He'd have to outlaw himself for thinking.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Brain damage linked to religious fundamentalism [View all] mainer May 2017 OP

Is this why peeps with substance abuse problems find god. Throck May 2017 #1

peeps with substance abuse problem are sent to God. ileus May 2017 #7

Yes, exacty! mountain grammy May 2017 #24

that and greed gopiscrap May 2017 #58

It's not simple to find a recovery group that is not based in religion. irisblue May 2017 #76

In the 1970s one of my college students said to me, tblue37 May 2017 #26

One Toke Over The Line Sweet Jesus Mendocino May 2017 #63

One of my college roomies did the same thing CanonRay May 2017 #47

The Steven Baldwin syndrome. maveric May 2017 #68

Also explains the intersection of RepubliCONs & evangelical christianism. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #2

Brain Damage. Ligyron May 2017 #3

Confusing fundamentalism with religiosity is an error, research doing so is subject to question. TheBlackAdder May 2017 #4

agreed. nt tomp May 2017 #10

It does NOT make that confusion. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #27

His prior interest has been in neuromorality. rug May 2017 #39

So? And? That means he's confused? No. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #40

It means he leans toward sociobiology. rug May 2017 #41

Nothing wrong with the concept of sociobiology. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #45

There's been plenty wrong with sociobiology since E.O. Wilson. rug May 2017 #53

Again you provide no cogent arguments or facts and refuse to take a clear stand. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #56

Makes sense. Why would so many people be hell bent on shooting themselves democratisphere May 2017 #5

Because 3-stage Evangelicals believe that Baptism w/Holy Spirit is a one-time event, and get cocky. TheBlackAdder May 2017 #8

Ah, yes, the "Get Out Of Moral Responsibility Free" card hatrack May 2017 #19

I grew up in single state baptism and you are spot on... paleotn May 2017 #31

God loves them? Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #46

You've got 'em. Spot on. paleotn May 2017 #69

"Stage 3". I like that. Great classification system! LOL. nt Ilsa May 2017 #78

Lol BigOleDummy May 2017 #6

Why we still allow religions in America is beyond me...we've progressed past that. ileus May 2017 #9

the idea of banning religion outright is insidious, unconstitutional, and quite narrow-minded. tomp May 2017 #11

Read the post....religious people are brain damaged. It's not me..it's in the article. ileus May 2017 #13

the research is sketchy and "balancing" is different from banning. tomp May 2017 #20

No. The article does NOT say that. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #30

"We can't be a truly progressive country until we snuff out all the sky daddy believers." hrmjustin May 2017 #37

That's because it is. rug May 2017 #42

I'm an atheist, and I strongly disagree NastyRiffraff May 2017 #77

I think ileus is due his opinion HAB911 May 2017 #16

He can have his opinion since thought not a crime. If it was, he could outlaw religion AND himself Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #35

You supply an excellent statement of outlook on life that I would like to adopt. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #36

His study proposes attitudes toward belief are based on brain structure rather than experience. rug May 2017 #43

Some attitudes. Your flat bald binary statement is not a fair characterization of his study. . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #48

Many attitudes. rug May 2017 #55

That's NOT an attitude. It is a factual statement supported by research. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #57

+++++ HAB911 May 2017 #17

Wow. You are intolerant. Sanity Claws May 2017 #25

Yes, you are right. And not even all fundamentalists. Just some. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #49

So I shouldn't be allowed to practice my faith because you say so? hrmjustin May 2017 #28

We MUST allow religion if we allow Freedom of Thought, Speech, and Association (and we need those) Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #32

that would require a police state treestar May 2017 #61

So we've progressed beyond the Liberal Quakers? moriah May 2017 #62

So how did all these people get brain damage? milestogo May 2017 #12

Fell down and bumped their heads? ileus May 2017 #14

It is easy to read the article and see that you are wrong. . .nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #50

obviously, it's an epidemic mdbl May 2017 #18

Being raised in a strict religious family? paleotn May 2017 #33

Repeatedly smacked in the head by Benny Hinn? hatrack May 2017 #38

They read post #9 and collapsed laughing. rug May 2017 #44

Would there be liability? moriah May 2017 #66

No, we all assume the risk of reading posts. Caveat lector. rug May 2017 #70

Or caveat bibitor, in drinking and DUzys. ;) moriah May 2017 #71

Read the article. :eyes: The answer is in the first few paragraphs. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #51

I understand that they were working with combat veterans in this research milestogo May 2017 #59

Oh, you're asking about them. First it is important to know what the article does NOT say. Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #67

Probably extreme in a number of ways, I would think. Honeycombe8 May 2017 #15

but aren't humans supposed to be able to separate fantasy from reality? mdbl May 2017 #21

It depends on the brain, as the article states. nt Honeycombe8 May 2017 #23

Where did you ever get that idea. Think of all the people who cannot distinguish tblue37 May 2017 #29

It seems as if relgious fundamentalism is a form of addiction meow2u3 May 2017 #22

Makes sense to me. paleotn May 2017 #34

And the money they spent on the addiction is now given to the church milestogo May 2017 #60

I think that too treestar May 2017 #65

it was previously known that epilepsy in the same region mopinko May 2017 #52

Previously "known" loyalsister May 2017 #72

i dont understand your question, but yes, it has been shown mopinko May 2017 #73

I have epilepsy loyalsister May 2017 #74

it wasnt meant as an insult. mopinko May 2017 #79

It's only an important distinction in a few ways loyalsister May 2017 #80

I once worked for a non profit........... mrmpa May 2017 #54

Sadly... I know an example of this. But only one out of the many... moriah May 2017 #64

More ableism loyalsister May 2017 #75

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2017 #81

An UNSECURE site, JoshuaBE. Can you summarize? Hortensis May 2017 #82