Neuroscientists say brains of Apple fanatics the same as religious fanatics

[Malthus]

Your Apple fanaticism must be blinding you - to the fact that any serious response to the bullshit pseudo-science "theory" in the OP is, predictably, going to result in you being trolled. 

I can see the torches, pitchforks, pleated pants, and latte brigade up in arms already.

Would not one of these be more appropriate than a torch, pitchfork, pleated pants, or latte?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CDhg45g4-aQ/R1-MY9eFZaI/AAAAAAAAAHI/m7gMUCtDVx4/s400/yap+trolling+lures.jpg

I suppose you could put one *in* a latte ... or in a pair of pleated pants.

[Pat]

Soft sciences are crap. They don't have to be, but they are.

So do something about it.

[The Brain]

Soft sciences are crap. They don't have to be, but they are.

So do something about it.

I need more plutonium.

[Pat]

 

[grumbler]

BTW I might add, the best (and the most honest) argument for religion I've heard is that if you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you believe in everything. There is some sense to that...

You may believe that, but I don't. 

It is actually one of the most dishonest arguments for religion I have ever heard; the old "if you don't think A, you must think B (which is worse)".

[DGuller]

BTW I might add, the best (and the most honest) argument for religion I've heard is that if you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you believe in everything. There is some sense to that...

There is some sense to that, of the "non" variety.

P.S.  Thanks to grumbler for parsing that wall of text.

[Berkut]

BTW I might add, the best (and the most honest) argument for religion I've heard is that if you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you believe in everything. There is some sense to that...

You may believe that, but I don't. 

It is actually one of the most dishonest arguments for religion I have ever heard; the old "if you don't think A, you must think B (which is worse)".

Not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, it fails at answering the question of which religion one should believe anyway!

[grumbler]

Not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, it fails at answering the question of which religion one should believe anyway!

If I understand the argument correctly, if you don't believe in (e.g.) Catholicism, you believe in everything (including, e.g., Catholicism).  Kinda wacky, but that's religion for you! 

[Pat]

BTW I might add, the best (and the most honest) argument for religion I've heard is that if you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you believe in everything. There is some sense to that...

There is some sense to that, of the "non" variety.

P.S.  Thanks to grumbler for parsing that wall of text.

12 lines a wall of text for you?

BTW I might add, the best (and the most honest) argument for religion I've heard is that if you don't believe in religion, that doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you believe in everything. There is some sense to that...

You may believe that, but I don't. 

It is actually one of the most dishonest arguments for religion I have ever heard; the old "if you don't think A, you must think B (which is worse)".

Not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, it fails at answering the question of which religion one should believe anyway!

Presumably anything would be better than modernity, if you can't stand modernity.

[Pat]

Not to mention that even if it were a valid argument, it fails at answering the question of which religion one should believe anyway!

If I understand the argument correctly, if you don't believe in (e.g.) Catholicism, you believe in everything (including, e.g., Catholicism).  Kinda wacky, but that's religion for you! 

You don't understand it correctly, they mean that it makes it possible to believe in everything no matter how silly, i.e. stuff like the excesses of the '68 left.

[DGuller]

12 lines a wall of text for you?

By Internet standards that's Great Wall of China, and it's 15 lines on my work screen.  Anything with paragraphs over 3-4 lines is so annoying to read that I'm not going to bother, unless it's written by Minsky or equivalent.  You're not quite in his class, sorry.

[Pat]

  Okay.

[Berkut]

12 lines a wall of text for you?

By Internet standards that's Great Wall of China, and it's 15 lines on my work screen.  Anything with paragraphs over 3-4 lines is so annoying to read that I'm not going to bother, unless it's written by Minsky or equivalent.  You're not quite in his class, sorry.

Would you read my wall of text???

[DGuller]

12 lines a wall of text for you?

By Internet standards that's Great Wall of China, and it's 15 lines on my work screen.  Anything with paragraphs over 3-4 lines is so annoying to read that I'm not going to bother, unless it's written by Minsky or equivalent.  You're not quite in his class, sorry.

Would you read my wall of text???

  I'll allow you an extra line or two once in a while, but only if you don't abuse it.

[The Brain]

I keep my posts short and sweet. Keeps me popular.