Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
This of course as we all know is typical of John, he evades and obfuscates the point. So to recap, the point was made by more than 1 poster that they would seek any kind of medical advice form any medical practitioner who denied scientific facts, namely species evolution. Please note he then tried to obfuscate with his claim species evolution was not a medical and therefore a scientific fact. I have made it clear he cherry picks scientific facts based on his religious beliefs, that was not the point, the point is that I would not trust anyone's medical opinion if they did it. He threw a few red herring ad hominem fallacies at me, again pretty typical, but please not he then claimed that not accepting scientific facts didn't make someone a bad doctor, and claimed I "an unreasonable person" for not wanting medical advice from someone who ignores objective scientific facts in favour of superstitious beliefs. Of course as usual his claim is asinine as a medical practitioner that is cherry picking the facts they want to accept, would mean you could not know that they advice had any scientific basis, and I'd have thought that was axiomatic. I also stated that any medical practitioner who behaved this way had an ethical duty to let any patient know.
I shall leave it to others to decide whose position is reasonable. He also made a claim that several posters were exhibiting the Dunning Kruger effect. Ironic really as I have pointed a few times and for some time that his shockingly arrogant claim as a student to know better than the entire scientific world, including giants like Darin himself, seemed to be a textbook display of the Dunning Kruger effect. I then quoted a synopsis of the D/K effect.
His perhaps predictable response was to imply I haven't read it, again the irony of him ignoring the facts of my claim by implying I am less bale than him seems lost on him. Given my point was that people exhibiting the Dunning Kruger effect showed a cognitive bias in favour of their own abilities over those of others, and he was and is claiming to know better than the entire scientific world, including all experts past and present, about evolutionary biology, including of course Darwin himself.
To recap I would not let a medical practitioner who denied medical fact anywhere near me. John's response was hilariously to deny the medical fact of species evolution. It's hardly worth pointing out that as he always does, he ignored completely the quotes and links I had posted from peer reviewed scientific articles showing the importance of medical science and research being entirely based on the medical scientific fact of species evolution.
Same old John, war is peace and peace is war etc.
(Admins/Mods: Where is that 10-K Agree button?) ;-)
Specifically the bold text above. To quote Redd in that prison movie: "Ain't that the God Damned Truth."
Makes me wonder if we can get a petition to present to all 50 states licensing boards to block him from ever practicing...
However, we should give him the benefit of doubt since he is still learning. Just ain't on the best track since he is letting his Absolutist indoctrination retarding his mental faculties of critical thinking, reason, rationality, etc., etc., etc.
rmfr
P.S. — For those who may not know, the Redd I am quoting in that prison movie is from the movie: Shawshank Redemption. If you ain't seen it, then I recommend it as a MUST see. My rating = ****** (out of five stars).
I never thought I'd find myself saying this, since it's a very cringy pop-psych thing to say, but I think the problem here is much in line with the findings of Dunning and Kruger.
We have Nyar who considers himself a clinician for having a DSM on his desk. We have Akirish who took barely a semester of high school or undergrad psychology. We have Old Man that thinks somehow life experience is a replacement for accurate information. All of whom think themselves in a better position than me.
I can't tell if it is irony or hypocrisy to say I am still learning (condescendingly) while none of you are actively learning, and the little you've learned is very basic.
I think Nyars self-delusion is the worst of the three. He lacks understanding in the basic theory behind abnormal psychology. He lacks understanding in basic issues such as what distress is, why it emerges, and how to interpret it. Not tp mention he's not up to date with modern theories of how the mind works in the first place. He is unable to engage critically with information, hence why he latches on to quotes like fundamentalists do their bibles.
I can't even say it matters that he talks to his doctor friends, knowing he's the one delivering the message. Bring them on the forum. Make them an account. Have them speak with me directly. I'm sure you'll learn a thing or two from that exchange.
Again this is a rather hilarious claim, given it is you, and no one else here, who is cherry picking science, and denying known scientific facts depending on whether they conform to your personal religious beliefs. Though of course you risibly have tried to deny this, yet can't offer a single scientific fact you deny that doesn't in any contradict any of your religious beliefs, and seem to have shared your views only on an atheist forum with atheists. Views I might add that the entire scientific world does not share, views that are in fact not supported by any validated scientific evidence.
NB I checked all the major news networks before posting, and there is still not a word about evolution being falsified.
John,
Actually I have had way more courses in psychology than you think I have. And the reason I took all those extra courses was to help me understand what I was suffering, and develop methods in which to deal with it.
In the last four years of earning my last degree, I took six psychology courses, two in the 200s, two in the 300s, and two more in the 400s. And that is not including the four previous courses I had in previous degrees. Then there are the two AA I earned while in the US Navy.
And it seems coupled with my many decades of life experience that I actually understand psychology better than you do. Your specialty is basically ONLY focused into thinking and memory. Mine was focusing into abnormal psychology such as bipolar, schizophrenia, PTSD, depression, dissociative, etc. Completely different paths. Completely different understandings.
Furthermore, I have always had the habit of first asking any psych doctor/therapist/clinician what their religious beliefs are. If they say they do believe in a sky-faerie, I leave and request another one. As far as I am concerned, ANY psych doctor/therapist/clinician that does have religious beliefs, should never be allowed anywhere near any person.
rmfr
Well great, but I'm currently taking courses in the 500s and above. Mind sharing which courses those were?
Saying I'm only focused on cognition, as if it were limitation, is very misguided. Open a textbook in abnormal psychology, and you'll find that most treatments are cognitive.
Courses you MAY be taking, but learning you are most certainly NOT.
And we already know your main focus isn't cognition. Your biggest focus is the attempt of reconciling your failing cognition stuck on faith, by discarding proven facts just because they make you feel itchy inside. This is exactly the kind of bigotry on top of another bigotry that should be banned from ever practicing. If you keep 'studying', as you call it, you're eventually going to ruin lives, my guess them being mostly christian ones.
Notice your lapse in logic. Suppose I did take such courses, and did not learn. At most that would make you equal to me, since you haven't studied, and therefore haven't learned.
But what I'm seeing here, is someone who hasn't studied, but thinks they've learned.
@breezy
"But what I'm seeing here, is someone who hasn't studied, but thinks they've learned"
You are talking to the same guy that admitted he had no knowledge of Islam and had not read more than 2-3 pages (i think even that is a lie) of the Quran then 2 posts later started telling me how it's the same as every other book and start pointing out it's flaws to me. It's best not to get in an argument with someone like this but, that's just my advice.
You are implying one has to be an expert on unicorns before they can disbelieve the claim they exist. No book can be used to validate the claims in it, that is axiomatic, and to claim otherwise is irrational, as this would mean claims that wizards and magic were real could be validated by citing sections of Harry Potter, what you;re doing is claiming that only experts on the Harry Potter books can offer valid opinions on its claims, this is absurd.
By the way you disbelieve John's religious book, and he yours, one assumes you're both experts on both books then? Also that you are comparable experts on every religious book ever written, otherwise t your claim would indicate absurd hypocrisy.
You guys do make laugh fair play.
Now since like John you have an aversion to answering but not asking questions, perhaps you can address mine as I have asked several times.
!) Are there ever any circumstances when it would be morally acceptable to rape a nine year old girl?
"we already know your main focus isn't cognition. Your biggest focus is the attempt of reconciling your failing cognition stuck on faith, by discarding proven facts just because they make you feel itchy inside"
Precisely correct. All the education in the world is wasted as long as he remains so closed minded.
John,
Damn! You would force me to look this up in my records. And you probably already know I ain't got the best filing/cataloguing system.
Thanks. Made me realize my school records were a fond trip down memory lane.
And I found out I took more psychology courses than I thought I did. Damn! I thought it was only about seven or eight. Wow! Fourteen?! I was a gluten for punishment I guess. Probably forgot the one I took while my family was still alive.
FYI: AA = Associate's in Arts; ASc = Associate's in Science; BSc = Baccalaureate in Science; MSc = Master's in Science; ScD = Science Doctorate.
US Navy CLEP Courses (CLEP = College Level Equivalency Program)
1979-1981
Introductory Child Psychology (AA)
Intermediate Child Psychology (AA)
(and never finished) Advanced Child Psychology (AA)
You have to remember, these were based on courses over 40 years ago (in the 70s).
================================================================================
Before Family's Death
At University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Go Heels!!)
1983-1989 (ASc and double BSc @ NCSU. Yes. I was attending NCSU and UNC-CH concurrently)
PSYC 64. First-Year Seminar: Prejudice and Stereotyping.
This course explores the psychological underpinnings of prejudice and discrimination.
PSYC 70. First-Year Seminar: Critical Thinking in Psychology and Beyond: How to Use Your Brain.
This course focuses on the development of critical thinking skills. Students will learn about the scientific method and common thinking errors that impede logic. Emphasis is placed on applying critical thinking skills to beliefs and controversies in psychology and to common superstitions, pseudoscience, and other confusing issues of our time.
PSYC 101. General Psychology. (everyone has to start with this one)
A survey of major principles of psychology and an introduction to scientific modes of thought about behavior. Students participate in ongoing psychological research in the department. PSYC 101 is a prerequisite for all psychology courses.
PSYC 190. Special Topics in Psychology.
An undergraduate seminar course that is designed to be a participatory intellectual adventure on an advanced, emergent, and stimulating topic within a selected discipline in psychology. This course does not count as credit towards the psychology major.
PSYC 242. Introduction to Clinical Psychology. (Special Permission)
Overview of clinical psychology: history, scientific basis, and major activities and concerns, including assessment, psychotherapy and other psychological interventions, community psychology, ethics, and professional practice.
PSYC 245. Abnormal Psychology. (Special Permission)
Major forms of behavior disorders in children and adults, with an emphasis on description, causation, and treatment.
================================================================================
After Family's Death
At University of New Mexico at Albuquerque
2006-2013 (MSc and ScD)
PSY 200. Statistical Principles. (3)
Presentation of basic principles of description and interpretation of data. Provides acquaintance with statistical principles appropriate to liberal arts education, as well as a basis for further work in data analysis. Students planning graduate study in any field are advised to also take 302.
PSY 271. Social Psychology. (3)
Study of social influence: perception of oneself and others, attitudes, conformity, attraction, altruism, aggression, and groups.
PSY 332. Abnormal Behavior. (3)
Review of the historical, scientific and ethical issues in the field of psychopathology. Categorization of deviant behavior, theories of abnormal behavior, systems of therapy and relevant research are covered.
PSY 342. Evolution and Human Behavior [Evolution, Brain and Behavior]. (3)
This course provides an introduction to the evolutionary study of human behavior, from key biological concepts to current theories and findings on the evolution of psychological processes.
PSY 373. The Psychology of Horror. (3)
This course explores the emotion of horror both from the standpoint of theoretical and empirical work on emotion and from the standpoint of critical approaches to the phenomenon of horror in art.
PSY 434. Behavior Therapies. (3)
A survey of clinical behavior therapies, including techniques based upon learning theory, self-control, cognitive and social psychological principles. Emphasis is upon treatment outcome research and the practical application of methods to clients’ life problems.
PSY 433. Depression: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prevention. (3)
This seminar examines research on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of clinical depressions and mania.
PSY 450. Special Topics in Psychology. (1-3, no limit)
Study of any psychological topic not otherwise included in the curriculum upon expression of mutual interest by students and faculty.
At my suggestion, we specifically focused into the many disorders within PTSD.
Again. Thanks, John. This trip brought back some very fond memories. Some so fond I had happy tears (meaning, yes, I cried).
rmfr
That seems like a pretty descent list; I'm not sure where your constant disagreement with my comments stems from then. If you're interest below are most of the courses I've taken thus far. My university bases courses on a 1000 scale rather than 100:
-PSY 2012. General Psychology (duh).
-EXP 3604. Cognitive Psychology
-CLP 3143. Abnormal Psychology.
-ZOO 3744. Neurobiology.
-PSB 3002. Physiological Psychology.
-PSB 3441. Psychobiological Aspects of Drugs.
-PPE 3003. Personality Theory & Research.
-PSB 4240C. Neuropsychology.
-PSY 2023. Psychology Cornerstone.
-PSY 3204C. Statistical Methods in Psychology.
-DEP 2004. Developmental Psychology.
-EXP 3640. Psychology of Language.
-SOP 3742. Psychology of Women.
-PSY 4604. History and Systems in Psychology
-CLP 3302. Clinical Psychology.
-EXP 3204. Sensation and Perception.
-PSY 3213. Research Methods in Psychology.
-PSY 4049. Psychology Capstone.
-EDF 6141. Human Intelligence.
Courses which I'll be taking in August:
-PHI 5327. Topics in Cognitive Science.
-ZOO 5748. Clinical Neuroanatomy.
-PHI 4935. Topics in Philosophy of Mind.
-PHI 5340. Research Methods in Cognitive Science.
-SPA 6417. Cognitive and Communicative Disorders
And another reason to disagree. Those numbers do not mean a damn thing. NCSU used to, USED TO, use the 1000s method. The now use the 100s method. Oh, BTW, it is a numbering METHOD, not a scale.
The determination of the method is dependent on how many courses in the "1" level are taught. If there are more than 100 of them (00-99) then the university will use the 1000s method. Thus, they can have a thousand classes at the "1" level (000-999). Like any university would. NCSU used to have some fields that had over 100 classes at the 1, 2, 3, or 4 level.
And you wonder why I disagree so much. You cannot even Cognitive the reason between using a 100s method or 1000s method. It is not a scale, it is just how the university decides to number the courses it offers.
rmfr
Edit: clarified a word...
Duh, I told you my university uses 1000 instead of 100 so you're aware that they are synonymous. It's as if you make up reasons to disagree.
Your reactions certainly reveal something about how your mind works and perceives the word.
@Breezy
One could also argue that it's your choice of the word(s), that reflects your inner workings and preconceptions. But as a student of psychology you probably already know that. I only wonder if you ever stop and try to apply your assertions to your own mind as well.
Where was it stated, that for a student of psychology, one's own mind is the best test subject for exploring all the ugly sides of our psyche? My memory is failing me here...
EDIT: changed "psychologist" to "student of psychology"
Should have done so to begin with. This is what I was referring to. You specifically said it was a scale.
I said it was a method. Two completely different concepts.
rmfr
Its a scale between 1000-9000. Each thousand point represents a new academic level. 1000-2000 are lower division courses. 3000-4000 are upper division. 5000+ are graduate courses.
"Your reactions certainly reveal something about how your mind works and perceives the word."
You mean objectively, and without superstion.
" I'm not sure where your constant disagreement with my comments stems from then."
Could it perhaps be your denial o scientific facts in favour of superstitious religious beliefs? Yes that'll be it I'm sure.
So you're a student in psychology then. No expertise in evolution at all, in fact no formal training in evolution, yet you claim to have outsmarted Darwin, or Professor Richard Dawkins who has spent his entire life, almost 50 years at the top of that field.
Yet you bleat that people on here aren't "qualified" to question your opinions as a STUDENT of psychology. Funny how that bias in favour of your abilities only cuts one way with you. Tell us more about the Dunning Kruger effect, as I've clearly misunderstood it, with my middling intellect, and mediocre formal education.
I know, how about you cite half a dozen of the most prestigious associations of psychology that share your view that life didn't evolve, but was magic'd instantly into existence from clay?
I'm all agog with anticipation.
The fact that I'm a student, already makes me more knowledgeable than you in all these areas.
Nice straw man fallacy since I never claimed any expertise. Not the first time you've tried this lie to evade the point either. You're not disagreeing with me, but the entire scientific world's findings over the last 160 years, including giants like Darwin.
Now since you're back to displaying a cognitive bias in favour of your qualifications as a STUDENT, why not answer the question? List a dozen prestigious psychology associations that agree with you that species evolution didn't happen, as humans were created instantly using magic by a deity.
As I've stated innumerable times. You're the one boasting you know better than the entire scientific world in a field you have zero qualifications in, not me.
That's the Dunning Kruger effect writ large again, despite your dishonest red herring.
How would you know what the entire scientific community believes, if you're not in that community like me?
You've already said you get your scientific information from the daily news.
"How would you know what the entire scientific community believes, if you're not in that community like me?"
I never said i knew what they believed, I sad "You're not disagreeing with me, but the entire scientific world's findings over the last 160 years, including giants like Darwin." Do you think they have kept this some sort of insider secret? Really John. So now you're implying some sort of inside information, fine then you should have no problem explaining why your denials of evolution are only shared by creationist and not at all by any valid scientific findings.
John "You've already said you get your scientific information from the daily news."
Come off it John, even for you that;;s dishonest, and not even close to what I have claimed, you really are a pathological liar. Do you seriously think species evolution could be falsified and it not be world news? Are you being deliberately obtuse John?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on John even by your standards this is pitiful stuff. You keep claiming expertise on here, then ignore it when anyone points out your claims are entirely at odds with all the experts in the relevant scientific field.
1) Do you now deny that your creationist denials of species evolution are at odds with the scientific world that accepts species evolution as a fact?
2) If you're claiming expertise in psychology then it's reasonable to ask you to list some prestigious associations within that field that agree with your claims that species evolution is false?
3) Are you a young earth creationist? Do you deny the validity of things like radio carbon dating techniques for example?
4) How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way refute or contradict any part of your religious beliefs? try showing some integrity here John and if there is only one admit it. The fact you ignore this question just shows you are afraid of how the answer will make your denials look.
How long can you dodge such questions and hope to be taken seriously John? You boast about being a scientist yet deny scientific facts in favour of superstitious religious beliefs. Not only that but you make claims for expertise on here as if that makes any difference to how science validates scientific facts like species evolution.
It's the same thing. In order to know who I'm disagreeing with, you have to know what they believe. But if you never said you knew what they believe, then there's nothing to talk about.
I see not one answer to any of my questions there?
Evolution is a scientific fact, established by a weight of evidenced that puts it beyond any reasonable doubt. You deny this, the scientific world accepts it. What I believe about it is irrelevant. You keep trying to make this about me, but it won't work because that's specious nonsense. The fact you keep ignoring my questions proves that at some level you know this, else you'd not fear the answers. If you didn't fear them then you'd have freely given candid answers. Scientists do not limit debate on order to chase their own agenda. You're not a scientist John, not even close, and it has little to do with knowledge or intellect. Bias and science are anathema to each other, and faith and bias are synonymous with each other. There are world class scientists who are theists, but they always draw a line between what they believe and what they can evidence, you donlt even know there is a line at the moment.
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
Francis Collins head of the human genome project.
I may find his religious beliefs as irrational as yours, but he does at least grasp where science ends and faith begins.
I look forward to you crying to the mods I'm spamming again...
1) Do you now deny that your creationist denials of species evolution are at odds with the scientific world that accepts species evolution as a fact?
2) If you're claiming expertise in psychology then it's reasonable to ask you to list some prestigious associations within that field that agree with your claims that species evolution is false?
3) Are you a young earth creationist? Do you deny the validity of things like radio carbon dating techniques for example?
4) How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way refute or contradict any part of your religious beliefs? try showing some integrity here John and if there is only one admit it. The fact you ignore this question just shows you are afraid of how the answer will make your denials look.
Then what is a scientist? Because if it is someone involved in research using the tools and methods of science, then I am a scientist.
The question is, are you a scientist? And if you're not, then why speak on behalf of a community that you're not a part of?
I just told you this is not about me. Scientific facts are valid independently of what I think, why are you pretending I haven't said this?
1) Do you now deny that your creationist denials of species evolution are at odds with the scientific world that accepts species evolution as a fact?
2) If you're claiming expertise in psychology then it's reasonable to ask you to list some prestigious associations within that field that agree with your claims that species evolution is false?
3) Are you a young earth creationist? Do you deny the validity of things like radio carbon dating techniques for example?
4) How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way refute or contradict any part of your religious beliefs? try showing some integrity here John and if there is only one admit it. The fact you ignore this question just shows you are afraid of how the answer will make your denials look.
Breezy "what is a scientist?"
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."
Francis Collins head of the human genome project.
The intelligence profile that I've been working on this summer just got graded today. I thought I'd share the teacher's comments with you, because the contrast is funny.
I have a non-scientific atheist describing me one way; and then I have an actual research scientist, author, and graduate professor describing me another. This was a course on human intelligence, so I'll let the irony of that settle in.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Pages