Evil Inherent in All and Active in a %

[Veritas Aequitas]

No you weren't. You were using it as a metaphor for causal factors for thoughts in one's head.

The causal chain that your metaphor suggested was: zombie ants -> thoughts -> behaviors

Your interpretation is off.

What I had expressed was;
"zombie parasites" [metaphor - zombie ants] -> thoughts [theistic, God, illusion] -> behaviors [theistic - good & EVIL]

That's the exact same sequence of events that I put forth!

How is my interpretation "off" ?

Note the 'zombie ants' is in bracket, thus itself is not a casual factor.

[TimeSeeker]

Your interpretation is off.

What I had expressed was;
"zombie parasites" [metaphor - zombie ants] -> thoughts [theistic, God, illusion] -> behaviors [theistic - good & EVIL]

That's the exact same sequence of events that I put forth!

How is my interpretation "off" ?

Note the 'zombie ants' is in bracket.

Down to nitpicking I see.

You are still making a causal claim! Whether you label the yet-unidentified causal phenomenon "zombie parasites" or "zombie ants" is just linguistic masturbation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That's the exact same sequence of events that I put forth!

How is my interpretation "off" ?

Note the 'zombie ants' is in bracket.

Down to nitpicking I see.

You are still making a causal claim! Irrespective of how you label the phenomenon.

The causal factor are "zombie parasites" [neural turbulence] in the human brain not the metaphorical zombie-ants.

[TimeSeeker]

Note the 'zombie ants' is in bracket.

Down to nitpicking I see.

You are still making a causal claim! Irrespective of how you label the phenomenon.

The causal factor are "zombie parasites" [neural turbulence] in the human brain not the metaphorical zombie-ants.

Again. You are a stickler for labels.

'neural turbulence' is not an empirically isolated phenomenon.

It's a causal notion YOU MADE UP. And then you gave it two silly names: zombie parasites and zombie ants.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Down to nitpicking I see.

You are still making a causal claim! Irrespective of how you label the phenomenon.

The causal factor are "zombie parasites" [neural turbulence] in the human brain not the metaphorical zombie-ants.

Again. You are a stickler for labels.

'neural turbulence' is not an empirically isolated phenomenon.

It's a causal notion YOU MADE UP.

You are shifty and always shift from the original issue, note you interpreted my point wrongly earlier,

In this case I am using Scientific studies [zombie ants] as a metaphor to theistic behaviors.

No you weren't. You were using it as a metaphor for causal factors for thoughts in one's head.

My latter expression is to support my original point, i.e.
"I am using Scientific studies [zombie ants] as a metaphor to theistic behaviors."

[TimeSeeker]

"I am using Scientific studies [zombie ants] as a metaphor to theistic behaviors."

Now you are confusing yourself even further. Scientific studies are not metaphors. "Zombie ants" may be metaphors for the phenomena studied by science.

Either way if your metaphors and your causal claims are scientifically backed - show us the studies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again. You are a stickler for labels.

'neural turbulence' is not an empirically isolated phenomenon.

It's a causal notion YOU MADE UP. And then you gave it two silly names: zombie parasites and zombie ants.

So what!

• Turbulent:
  being in a state of agitation or tumult; disturbed:
  characterized by, or showing disturbance, disorder, etc.:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/turbulent

'neural turbulence' in this case is any disorder and disturbance within the activities of the neurons in the brain.
If a person suffer a stroke, there is some kind of neural turbulence [disturbance or disorder].

I agree the onus is on my to explain the concept in detail in relevance to the point I am making. But I am not bothered with that in this case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"I am using Scientific studies [zombie ants] as a metaphor to theistic behaviors."

Now you are confusing yourself even further. Scientific studies are not metaphors. "Zombie ants" may be metaphors for the phenomena studied by science.

Either way if your metaphors and your causal claims are scientifically backed - show us the studies.

I have already done in another post;
here again,

These Brain Worms Turn Ants Into Death-Seeking Zombies
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... g-zombies/

My hypothesis is;
Theists are like zombies i.e. being compelled to believe in something is real [i.e. God] when actually it is an illusion and an impossibility.
There must be something happening in the brain that cause this irrational behavior, i.e. some sort of neural turbulence I labelled metaphorically as 'zombie parasites' like the zombied-ants.

In extreme cases, theists are compelled unconsciously to be suicide bombers with the false belief [deluded] they will be heavily rewarded in heaven with eternal life and virgins.

[TimeSeeker]

So what!

• Turbulent:
  being in a state of agitation or tumult; disturbed:
  characterized by, or showing disturbance, disorder, etc.:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/turbulent

You are seriously saying "so what!" ?!?!!? Well it kinda matters if you are focusing on the root cause or the symptom (effect)!

'neural turbulence' in this case is any disorder and disturbance within the activities of the neurons in the brain.
If a person suffer a stroke, there is some kind of neural turbulence [disturbance or disorder].

Q.E.D you don't understand that the CAUSE of a stroke is typically blood clots or haemorrhaging.
The 'neural turbulence' is CAUSED BY and is a SYMPTOM OF an underlying issue.

And in the case of psychological phenomena it necessarily means that you don't even have a clue whether you are dealing with a univariate or a multi-variate problem. Do you have one causal factor or 25?!?!?

It basically means that you don't understand what "the problem" really is. And so IF your "solution" works it's going to be some dumb fucking luck.

The flip side of the coin is that you are more likely to cause more damage than you are to "fix" anything.

Iatrogenics 101! You are a fragilista! I can only hope we have enough checks in place to keep people like you way from the big red buttons.

https://fs.blog/2013/07/the-fragilista/

If you are to come anywhere near applied ethics first you need to familiarise yourself with this principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[Veritas Aequitas]

So what!

• Turbulent:
  being in a state of agitation or tumult; disturbed:
  characterized by, or showing disturbance, disorder, etc.:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/turbulent

You are seriously saying "so what!" ?!?!!? Well it kinda matters if you are focusing on the root cause or the symptom (effect)!

'neural turbulence' in this case is any disorder and disturbance within the activities of the neurons in the brain.
If a person suffer a stroke, there is some kind of neural turbulence [disturbance or disorder].

Q.E.D you don't understand that the CAUSE of a stroke is typically blood clots or haemorrhaging.
The 'neural turbulence' is CAUSED BY and is a SYMPTOM OF an underlying issue.

And in the case of psychological phenomena it necessarily means that you don't even have a clue whether you are dealing with a univariate or a multi-variate problem. Do you have one causal factor or 25?!?!?

It basically means that you don't understand what "the problem" really is. And so IF your "solution" works it's going to be some dumb fucking luck.

The flip side of the coin is that you are more likely to cause more damage than you are to "fix" anything.

Iatrogenics 101! You are a fragilista! I can only hope we have enough checks in place to keep people like you way from the big red buttons.

https://fs.blog/2013/07/the-fragilista/

You above views are very childish.
You are the one with the one-track mind which I have to 'educate' [having to feed you with information all the time].

I mentioned 'neural turbulence' and you straight away jump to your preconceived ideas and bias.

I have already stated my approach is always holistic and systematic without exception. It is in a limited forum post like this I am restricted to discuss limited points at any one time.

[TimeSeeker]

In extreme cases, theists are compelled unconsciously to be suicide bombers with the false belief [deluded] they will be heavily rewarded in heaven with eternal life and virgins.

The compelling is normally done by a 3rd party. Who use such people's naïveté and leverage their beliefs for their own agendas!

It is economics 101. People who have nothing to live for (because their life sucks) make a trade-off that the rewards in the afterlife are better.
So the IDEA of a better life is sufficient to convince them to exit THIS life. How much does your life have to suck for you to even make this bet?!?!?

[TimeSeeker]

You above views are very childish.
You are the one with the one-track mind which I have to 'educate' [having to feed you with information all the time].

I mentioned 'neural turbulence' and you straight away jump to your preconceived ideas and bias.

I have already stated my approach is always holistic and systematic without exception. It is in a limited forum post like this I am restricted to discuss limited points at any one time.

If this is how you approach "holism" I am not sure you have worked on, or tried to understand any sufficiently complex system.
You haven't been humbled by complexity yet. And you DEFINITELY do not understand root-cause analysis OR risk management.

Your entire framework is one elaborate rationalisation exercise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In extreme cases, theists are compelled unconsciously to be suicide bombers with the false belief [deluded] they will be heavily rewarded in heaven with eternal life and virgins.

The compelling is normally done by a 3rd party. Who use such people's naïveté and leverage their beliefs for their own agendas!

It is economics 101. People who have nothing to live for (because their life sucks) make a trade-off that the rewards in the afterlife are better.
So the IDEA of a better life is sufficient to convince them to exit THIS life. How much does your life have to suck for you to even make this bet?!?!?

Your views above are too shallow and narrow.

3rd parties are involved in various such cases but that is not the root cause.
The root cause is the pre-existing very active 'zombie parasites' in the brain of these people that allow the 3rd parties to exploit their weaknesses.

Fact is there are many cases where these zombied-people act on their own or in a group with the same compulsions and are directly inspired by the holy texts on their own.
See.. I have to fill in for your knowledge gap.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You above views are very childish.
You are the one with the one-track mind which I have to 'educate' [having to feed you with information all the time].

I mentioned 'neural turbulence' and you straight away jump to your preconceived ideas and bias.

I have already stated my approach is always holistic and systematic without exception. It is in a limited forum post like this I am restricted to discuss limited points at any one time.

If this is how you approach "holism" I am not sure you have worked on, or tried to understand any sufficiently complex system.
You haven't been humbled by complexity yet. And you DEFINITELY do not understand root-cause analysis OR risk management.

Your entire framework is one elaborate rationalisation exercise.

How can you jumped into conclusion when you do not know or been told what I have been through and experienced?

You jumped to conclusion just to console your self-esteem?

[TimeSeeker]

Your views above are too shallow and narrow.

3rd parties are involved in various such cases but that is not the root cause.
The root cause is the pre-existing very active 'zombie parasites' in the brain of these people that allow the 3rd parties to exploit their weaknesses.

Fact is there are many cases where these zombied-people act on their own or in a group with the same compulsions and are directly inspired by the holy texts on their own.
See.. I have to fill in for your knowledge gap.

And he admits to it being a causal claim!

Good.

Because the burden of proof is now on you to provide the scientific evidence for your causal claim , BUT (and this is the part I care about) I want to see your own efforts in FALSIFYING your own conclusion.

The part you clearly haven't yet figured out is that science subtracts bullshit. It doesn't pile it on. And so your "broad and wide" views are just that...
Bullshit in need of a scientific broom...