Religion as a mental disorder

[RebeccaFog]

If we call this my religion, then I believe we have proved that Religion IS a mental disorder!

Check and Mate.   

[Aurelius]

If we call this my religion, then I believe we have proved that Religion IS a mental disorder!

Check and Mate.   

Before you knock my king off the board, have you ever considered that we proved that it is YOU that has a mental disorder?

No worries, the delusional tent is a large one. Come on inside, there's pleny of room in here

[RebeccaFog]

You can't prove anything. If I barely understood what you and Lisagurl were saying, then the only ones who exist are each of you and not the other.  Therefore, I exist, but no one else does. If only I exist, then it's not possible for you to prove I have a mental disorder. It's also not possible for you to collect a paycheck or to order an article through a mail order catalog.

In case we do all exist, however, yes. I think you did prove that I have a mental disorder. But don't get full of yourselves. You're not the first.

[Aurelius]

You can't prove anything. If I barely understood what you and Lisagurl were saying, then the only ones who exist are each of you and not the other.  Therefore, I exist, but no one else does. If only I exist, then it's not possible for you to prove I have a mental disorder. It's also not possible for you to collect a paycheck or to order an article through a mail order catalog.

In case we do all exist, however, yes. I think you did prove that I have a mental disorder. But don't get full of yourselves. You're not the first.

Actually that was the whole premise of my argument...her view simply put is that do not believe in something abstract, ie things not perceived through senses, which to say only things in the physical world. With this logic, there is no reason to believe/disbelieve God, there is no physical proof, only something we imagine.
My argument is that this logic applies to EVERYTHING. Everything we sense in the physical world is percieved through our senses, which is relative to the perceiver. Example your time is different than my time in realtivistic theory. We cannot prove or disprove the chair I am sitting on, so why apply this logic to God as well?
I am oversimplifying the problem, and I sure Lisa will point out all my flaws. But in a nutshell, that's how I see it. So I say "God cannot be proven or disproven, but it makes me a hell of alot happier believing he does. Therefore, for me, God exists".

Chris

[Sephirah]

I am oversimplifying the problem, and I sure Lisa will point out all my flaws. But in a nutshell, that's how I see it. So I say "God cannot be proven or disproven, but it makes me a hell of alot happier believing he does. Therefore, for me, God exists".

Chris

I don't usually comment too much on religious stuff, but I have to say that I rather like that idea.

It's always been my view that if the individual finds belief in a God, or Gods/Goddesses, to be of comfort, if it gives them peace and meaning in their life, and allows them to conduct their lives in such a way that they enrich themselves and those around them by living their lives the best way they know how through those beliefs... then whether any actual esoteric deity exists in any quantifiable way is, in my opinion, largely irrelevent... and nor is it my place to judge anyone for believing either way, since I do not have a complete schematic for the way the universe works.

I believe perception shapes subjective reality, and that each person's experience of reality can only ever be subjective. I can be hypnotised to believe I am eating an apple, when I am munching on an onion. I can be led to think that I am tasting, seeing, and feeling an apple, when anyone else would see it as an onion... in my subjective reality... it would be an apple. Period. And no amount of telling me it was an onion would change that. To me, the subjective reality of the scenario would be that I was chowing down on Granny Smith's finest.

But it would be no less real to me than the person sat laughing at the 'dumb girl on the stage, tricked into munching an onion with apparent relish'.

[Aurelius]

Going way off subject, has anybody ever played with the "translate" option? I can understand why things get lost in translation sometimes. Not to pick on anybody, I use my own words:

Actually that was the whole premise of my argument...her view simply put is that do not believe in something abstract, ie things not perceived through senses, which to say only things in the physical world. With this logic, there is no reason to believe/disbelieve God, there is no physical proof, only something we imagine.
My argument is that this logic applies to EVERYTHING. Everything we sense in the physical world is percieved through our senses, which is relative to the perceiver. Example your time is different than my time in realtivistic theory. We cannot prove or disprove the chair I am sitting on, so why apply this logic to God as well?
I am oversimplifying the problem, and I sure Lisa will point out all my flaws. But in a nutshell, that's how I see it. So I say "God cannot be proven or disproven, but it makes me a hell of alot happier believing he does. Therefore, for me, God exists

Translated into German:

Wirklich die war die vollständige Voraussetzung meines Arguments..., das ihre einfach gesetzte Ansicht, das nicht an etwas Auszug glauben, die IE-Sachen ist, die nicht durch Richtungen empfunden werden, die nur Sachen in der körperlichen Welt sagen. Mit dieser Logik gibt es, keinen Grund zu glauben/bezweifelt Gott, dort ist kein körperlicher Beweis, nur etwas wir sich vorstellen. Mein Argument ist, dass diese Logik auf ALLES zutrifft. Alles, das wir in der körperlichen Welt abfragen, wird durch unsere Richtungen empfunden, die im Verhältnis zu dem Wahrnehmenden ist. Beispiel Ihre Zeit ist unterschiedlich als meine Zeit in der realtivistic Theorie. Wir können den Stuhl nicht prüfen oder widerlegen, den ich an sitze, also warum anwenden diese Logik am Gott außerdem? Ich vereinfache das Problem allzu, und I sicherer Lisa unterstreicht alle meine Fehler. Aber in kurzen Worten, that' s, wie ich es sehe. So sage ich " Gott kann nicht nachgewiesen werden oder disproven, aber es bildet mich, den eine Hölle viel glücklicher des Glaubens er tut. Folglich für mich, existiert Gott

And translated back again:

Actually that which the whole premise OF my argument... view simply PUT is that DO emergency believe in something abstract ago, IE things emergency perceived through senses, which tons say only things into the physical world. With this logic, there is NO reason ton believe/disbelieve God, there is NO physical proof, only something incoming goods imagine. My argument is that this logic applies ton EVERYTHING. Everything incoming goods scythe into the physical world is percieved through our senses, which is relative tons the more perceiver. Example your time is different than my time in realtivistic theory. Incoming goods CAN emergency prove or disprove the chair I at sitting on, thus why apply this logic tons of God as wave? I to oversimplifying the problem, and I sure Lisa wants POINT out all my flaws. But in A groove-brightly, that' s how I lake it. Thus I say " God CAN emergency fuel element proven or disproven, but it makes ME A brightly OF alot more happier believing he does. Therefore, for ME, God exists

I can only say "huh?" Is "A Groove-brightly" mean "nutshell" in German? When did I ever talk about "incoming goods"? How much can incoming goods scythe if scythe they could?

May my perceived God help those who do not speak english. That would suck.

Chris

[Lisbeth]

How does a random number generator generate anything besides a random number?

Random number generators generate "pseudo-random numbers." That is, given the same starting parameters, they always produce the same number. In order to produce something that looks like a random number, they are always seeded with a parameter that the user doesn't know the value of, like the time of day in milliseconds or with whatever junk is present in a spot of computer memory.

Thanks Lisbeth, for spoiling my oh-so clever use of nomenclature .

Any time, my dear.

Proof or disprove this theory. Please show objectivity, without throwing stones or rioting in the halls.

1. To believe in something with no empirical or logical proof is a delusion. (given)

2. Whatever is not a delusion is reality. (definition)

3. The existence or non-existence of god cannot be proved. (common knowledge)

4. Believing that god exists is a delusion. (1 & 3, conjunction)

5. God does not exist. (2 & 4, conjunction)

6. Believing that god does not exist is a delusion. (1 & 3, conjunction)

7. God does exist. (2 & 6, conjunction)

8. Because god both exists and does not exist, the given premise that believing  in something with no empirical or logical proof is a delusion is false. (5 & 7, ((A & not(A)) implies anything))

[lisagurl]

It does not matter what people believe. What matters is any action taken on behalf of your beliefs. You might not believe you are sitting on a chair but if it is taken away you fall on your ass.

[Aurelius]

It does not matter what people believe. What matters is any action taken on behalf of your beliefs. You might not believe you are sitting on a chair but if it is taken away you fall on your ass.

Once again Lisa, could not agree with you more. It is a helpful mental exercise, something akin to taking my brain to the gym and leaving my emotions at home.

[NicholeW.]

In a nutshell

Aber in kurzen Worten

But in A groove-brightly

The translation by the machine generated "translator" was actually quite accurate "in a few words" is what the middle quote actually says.

"But in A groove-brightly" appears to have nothing to do with an idiom in either German or English. Perhaps it's what the machine itself is "reading" in both sets of words!

Idiomatic expressions are always the most difficult to translate, simply because they are idiomatic and have a linguistic history that adds a nuance and meaning to a speaker of the language that no machine can as yet be programmed to emulate.

I mean, when you think about it, Chris, you don't really place your words in a nutshell when you write some of them, do you? When you examine the English it makes no literal sense and yet the idiom is used constantly. Just as well say "in a few words." or, I suppose for that matter "in a groove, brightly."

I don't think we have to go quite as far as you did in proving that point. Don't we daily see that words are always subject to the previous experience and knowledge, ignorance, feelings and ways of making sense of things that are inherently involved in the life of the person who hears them, but may run afoul of the intention of the original speaker?

Communication seems to me tenuous at best. Although I'd submit to what Lisa says in this much: an embrace, although it might be uncomfortable for some reason to the embraced one, can seldom be mis-read as a dismissal or a signal of hostility.

I believe there are some human languages that we interpret mostly quite well. Verbal communication not being among them as frequently as others. And verbal philosophical discussions, religious discussions and political discussion being probably the largest points at which we make no contact with our interlocutors.

As I, ironically , discussed in my blog this morning, I tend to agree with Leia and probably you about the measure of religious beliefs being, as long as they do not physically harm another or dismiss them out-of-hand (how would the translator translate and re-translate that phrase,) a matter of comfort and what feels best to the individual.

At base I suspect that "religion" is truly what the Latin meant: "a binding of human to deity" in ways that also suggest a sub-text that covers the binding of us all into a web of friendship and mutuality. We long for company and interaction. That seems an ineradicable part of being human.

Nichole

[Fox]

Hmm how best to comment on this. As a very scientificaly minded and analytical person I tend to believe strongly in what my senses tell me is around me and what can be proven with logic or highly agreed upon if you don't like proven. However I realize that I am a highly falible being and that I do not have all the answers of the universe at my command and never shall. Thus I hold an open minded belief system because I do not like to make judgements on an issue without obtaining a signifigant amount of data first ie I am not going to tell anyone there religon is right or wrong. On another note I much of my belief system revovles around energy in one form or another. Mental energy is a form of energy thus one of the reason the mind can do some amazing things so you can say i believe in the power of belief and disbeilf itself. Thus if enough people agree on a broad opinion enough they pool their mental energy together and can possibly bring about the exsistence of what they believe in. Thus I believe that many dietes are brought about through mass belief sense a diety may merealy be a mass of energy with a sentientce. On a side not however a defeniton such as religon itself is merely an opinion what is your defenition of religon. I hold a different defenition of belief versus religon as i hold religon as being the active whorship of something and not a belief structure. Thus I have belief but not religon. 

[Aurelius]

In a nutshell

Aber in kurzen Worten

But in A groove-brightly

The translation by the machine generated "translator" was actually quite accurate "in a few words" is what the middle quote actually says.

"But in A groove-brightly" appears to have nothing to do with an idiom in either German or English. Perhaps it's what the machine itself is "reading" in both sets of words!

Idiomatic expressions are always the most difficult to translate, simply because they are idiomatic and have a linguistic history that adds a nuance and meaning to a speaker of the language that no machine can as yet be programmed to emulate.

I mean, when you think about it, Chris, you don't really place your words in a nutshell when you write some of them, do you? When you examine the English it makes no literal sense and yet the idiom is used constantly. Just as well say "in a few words." or, I suppose for that matter "in a groove, brightly."

I don't think we have to go quite as far as you did in proving that point. Don't we daily see that words are always subject to the previous experience and knowledge, ignorance, feelings and ways of making sense of things that are inherently involved in the life of the person who hears them, but may run afoul of the intention of the original speaker?

Communication seems to me tenuous at best. Although I'd submit to what Lisa says in this much: an embrace, although it might be uncomfortable for some reason to the embraced one, can seldom be mis-read as a dismissal or a signal of hostility.

I believe there are some human languages that we interpret mostly quite well. Verbal communication not being among them as frequently as others. And verbal philosophical discussions, religious discussions and political discussion being probably the largest points at which we make no contact with our interlocutors.

As I, ironically , discussed in my blog this morning, I tend to agree with Leia and probably you about the measure of religious beliefs being, as long as they do not physically harm another or dismiss them out-of-hand (how would the translator translate and re-translate that phrase,) a matter of comfort and what feels best to the individual.

At base I suspect that "religion" is truly what the Latin meant: "a binding of human to deity" in ways that also suggest a sub-text that covers the binding of us all into a web of friendship and mutuality. We long for company and interaction. That seems an ineradicable part of being human.

Nichole

It is very nice to allow objective discussion on this topic, with no one view or opinion the same. I posted this subject in such a way not to ask "Prove God exists/doesn't exist" overtly, although that's really what we would end up talking about. And I posted it in philosophy, not spirituality, in attempt to void emotion from the issue. About the one thing we all agreed on (whether God or gods exists) is that the problem is unsolvable, and up to the individual. All seems to have worked, that is a healthy discussion, and I can say for my own part I learned alot from everybody and got a good "workout"...I hope everyone else did, too.

One note on the translation...I know what you mean. From my very rusty German I know to be wary of telling a German that I am warm: "Ich bin Warm". "Warm", in their slang, means homosexual, with a homosexual male being "Warm Bruder", or "Warm Brother". It is meant to be an insulting and derogatory slur, not a proclaimation (like saying the "f" word vice the "g" word). I may be wrong with this, it has, afterall, been a couple decades since high school...but you get my point.

Chris

[Kendall]

I remember the old argument that just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't real. The old example was "air".

Now days, we have instruments that can "see" and analyze air. So I guess that example is out of the window.

I guess one can see just like "dark matter" or "black holes" though evidence of these unseen objects are compounding quickly.

Though they are getting close.


Once we could say "planets outside our solar system" until ...

[Aurelius]

Only to take a stab at my own beliefs, there is also that old saying "If God did not exist, we would make him up". Refute the implications of that one...I cannot.
As the mysteries of the universe are uncovered and made known to us, one step at a time, I wonder if these discoveries will one day uncover the mysteries of our beliefs. So it is my view that if we did one day actually prove that God did or didn't exist, we'd make something else up that we couldn't prove or disprove. Just human nature I guess.

Chris

[Fox]

We don't actually have to make something up we cannot prove or disprove because as soon as we prove or disprove a particualr theory we discover a new one we didn't know about before. There are unknown number of forces at work in the universe and we have probably only uncovered but a mere fraction of them. One of my fathers favorite quotes is "the more we known the more we know we don't know" I tend to agree with this as new data and theories are constanly being discovered and the universe is constanly changing.

[lisagurl]

"If God did not exist, we would make him up".

I had a funny physics professor, every time someone asked a difficult question that could involve metaphysics or the unknown he would say " Because God made it that way".  Kind of a metaphor for I do not know.

[Aurelius]

" Because God made it that way". 

My mother would always use that for the mysteries of birds and bees