Some circles have come to the conclusion that religious belief is a mental disorder that, with treatment, can be cured like any other. The reasoning: to believe in something with no empirical or logical proof of its existence is a delusion. To have a delusion is to be delusional, which is a condition of sickness of the brain: ie, mentally ill.
Proof or disprove this theory. Please show objectivity, without throwing stones or rioting in the halls.
Quotea condition of sickness of the brain
Is deja vu a sickness? Of course not. Humans are not perfect machines. Some scientists have said genes are responsible for the spiritual experience. I myself never experienced a spiritual event. The facts are we even have a blind spot in the middle of our eye but the brain fills it in. People perceive differently hence we all have a personal reality.
I am in my library at my desk with a key board and screen with symbols in front of me. My experience is the temperature of the room the sun coming in the window etc. I need to look at the keys as I type because I can not visualize them nor can I visualize real people attached to the writing on my screen. You might believe I am real but I do not have the same feeling of this screen. The same thing with religion, people put ideas above their physical senses and live in that abstract world first.
I prefer to spend most of my attention and actions dealing with things of my physical senses not my imagination.
I don't feel that religion is a mental disorder
because people experience life differently. There is nothing wrong with believing in a concept that can't be proved. Columbus believed the world was round before it was fashionable or proved. There are concepts that you can know without proof. For instance, I know for a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have no proof of that.
The part that is a mental disorder is when you believe that your way is the only way and that others must fit or bend to your ideal of what society and culture should be.
The reason that I consider that attitude a mental disorder is that the people who think that way are denying the fact that there are other people with other valid viewpoints that may differ. It is purposely blinding one's self to the evidence that is all around us. If you don't believe that the world is full of evidence that each person has a unique and valid point of view, then you are very selfish and even cruel, in that you can hurt others by attempting to control their thoughts, feelings, and lives. That, to me, is a disorder.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 01:06:46 PM
The reasoning: to believe in something with no empirical or logical proof of its existence is a delusion. To have a delusion is to be delusional, which is a condition of sickness of the brain: ie, mentally ill.
I don't think you want to go there. The same reasoning makes GID a delusion also.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 08, 2008, 02:20:29 PM
Quotea condition of sickness of the brain
Is deja vu a sickness? Of course not. Humans are not perfect machines. Some scientists have said genes are responsible for the spiritual experience. I myself never experienced a spiritual event. The facts are we even have a blind spot in the middle of our eye but the brain fills it in. People perceive differently hence we all have a personal reality.
I am in my library at my desk with a key board and screen with symbols in front of me. My experience is the temperature of the room the sun coming in the window etc. I need to look at the keys as I type because I can not visualize them nor can I visualize real people attached to the writing on my screen. You might believe I am real but I do not have the same feeling of this screen. The same thing with religion, people put ideas above their physical senses and live in that abstract world first.
I prefer to spend most of my attention and actions dealing with things of my physical senses not my imagination.
Nonetheless you are interacting and receiving stimuli on the computer screen from what can only be an intelligence not your own. The interaction is the sensory perception and is abstract but very real, not just a concept that cannot be proved. If you agree the man or woman you meet in the store is real, the interaction (intelligence) they have with you should provide empirical evidence that that type of interaction (intelligence) could only come from a like being. When you read history or the newspaper you see the words on the page and believe that they describe a real event, even though you cannot experience it, you have to imagine it...this requires abstract thinking.
Posted on: November 08, 2008, 05:29:34 pm
Quote from: Lisbeth on November 08, 2008, 04:16:01 PM
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 01:06:46 PM
The reasoning: to believe in something with no empirical or logical proof of its existence is a delusion. To have a delusion is to be delusional, which is a condition of sickness of the brain: ie, mentally ill.
I don't think you want to go there. The same reasoning makes GID a delusion also.
For the record, being religious and GID, I myself am not going there. My point is to think about things we believe/disbelieve. Otherwise we remain mired in our own potential dogmas.
But very good point about GID as a delusion...that is the point of these discussions.
Quoteintelligence not your own
Artificial, I have spoken to machines.
Quotecould only come from a like being
Not true all franchise are alike there are not human behavior only trained monkeys.
QuoteWhen you read history or the newspaper you see the words on the page and believe that they describe a real event,
No they are a single perception and not the true event. I rarely find two historical accounts of an event the same. As newspapers slant the news to be entertaining or in favor of a business relation. I can only imagine what an event was like that I did not experience. Then my faulty mind has created it.
Posted on: November 08, 2008, 10:03:24 pm
QuoteI don't think you want to go there. The same reasoning makes GID a delusion also.
GID is a delusion. I changed my body because I did not like the factory model. I do not think there are gender identities only the ones we are taught. Some day everyone will be able to just be themselves without cultural demands.
Machines cannot think abstractly, you cannot share abstract ideas with machine. But you can with another person via machine. When does agreed v. perceptive reality begin? When you speak to a person on the phone, that is vibrations through fibre optic cable. When you see someone on the street, that is light reflecting to your eyes (and I might add it is the light you see, not the real object itself as it is, stars for instance). When you touch, that is your nerve sensors to your brain.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 01:06:46 PM
Some circles have come to the conclusion that religious belief is a mental disorder that, with treatment, can be cured like any other. The reasoning: to believe in something with no empirical or logical proof of its existence is a delusion.
I didn't read the rest of this thread, but as much as I dislike religion sometimes, I can't really agree with that.
We have no proof to show to anyone that we're really male, or really female, when all the evidence is pointing the other way. Ignore my breasts, I'm a real man! Or, disregard the beard, I'm more female than you'd ever know.
That doesn't make our gender any less valid.
Religious people don't have any proof to show that their god is real. I pray to him, he listens to me! Sometimes he even talks back! Does it really matter that I can't bring him over to your house and hang out?
That doesn't make their feeling of faith any less valid.
As long as it's not going to hurt somebody, I don't think it's our place to judge it as a disorder.
Through out the history of human kind, a belief in a higher or supreme power has been well documented. Imagine seeing your first tornado. You know nothing of thunderheads or downdrafts or cyclonic winds. What would you possibly be thinking. It is a god. Ah Ha, your first belief and the religion of the wind god is born. Humans have used this kind of thinking to explain the unexplained. That is what religion is; an explanation of something unexplained.
Faith is what separates humanity from the rest of the animals. In my opinion, humans are more than simply biological machines. We are, I believe, synergistic beings.
Faith, I believe, springs from, or is a by-product of sentience and self-awareness. Whatever that faith is in, is up to the individual. Without faith, most places would never have been discovered by the pioneering explorers who had faith that something out there to find.
Religion is just another kind of faith.
That's all I really want to say on the issue.
Right. As long as they don't hurt anybody, it isn't a disorder. When they do start hurting or controlling others it becomes a disorder. But then, anyone who hurts or attempts to control others has a disorder whether or not they are religious.
Quoteyou cannot share abstract ideas with machine
Abstract ideas can come from a random number generator. I do not put much worth in the abstract. I prefer logic based on reason and fact.
QuoteWhen you speak to a person on the phone, that is vibrations through fiber optic cable.
No the vibrations are changed to electric impulses then overlapped onto a frequencies of light then turned back to electrical impulse then to sound vibrations. In any case you can not smell that person or observe their shaken foot or the way they clean their nails etc. they are a ghost of a person.
Posted on: November 08, 2008, 10:53:22 pm
QuoteFaith is what separates humanity from the rest of the animals
My dog has faith that I will feed her. You never heard of faithful animals?
Quote from: Leiandra on November 08, 2008, 09:52:40 PM
Faith is what separates humanity from the rest of the animals. In my opinion, humans are more than simply biological machines. We are, I believe, synergistic beings.
I disagree. I feel that what separates us from the rest of the animals are the walls of our houses; and the fact that animals unfairly suffer only death, but not taxes.
Oddly, I have faith that animals know there's something more. Of course, they can't communicate it. Everything is intuitive. Animals are good with intuition. Intuition is where you find God.
How does a random number generator generate anything besides a random number?
Technical flaws, but you understood my point.
My question still stands, shaking feet or nail clippings, it is all sensory perception no matter what medium. When does real become real? When can we all agree that something is real? The sight you see is not the same thing I see...the angle is different, the light took longer to reach my eyes, etc. We cannot even agree on the time...your clock runs at a different rate than mine. So what does logic say about what time it is? If logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, it is no longer logic. Only what's relative.
Quote from: Rebis on November 08, 2008, 10:05:06 PM
I disagree. I feel that what separates us from the rest of the animals are the walls of our houses; and the fact that animals unfairly suffer only death, but not taxes.
But many other species of animals build dwellings... nests, dams, hives... the difference is that humans place things in those dwellings because they appeal to the sense of aesthetic, a trait other animals don't seem to possess, and not because they're necessary for the dwelling to function.
Quote from: Rebis on November 08, 2008, 10:05:06 PM
Everything is intuitive. Animals are good with intuition. Intuition is where you find God.
I'd disagree with that. I think animals are good with
instinct, from an evolutionary perspective. Instinct is a different thing to intuition.
I think in essence, the problem I have with pure logic is I can only come up with relative answers. Nothing is universally real on that path.
Quote from: Leiandra on November 08, 2008, 10:12:37 PM
Quote from: Rebis on November 08, 2008, 10:05:06 PM
Everything is intuitive. Animals are good with intuition. Intuition is where you find God.
I'd disagree with that. I think animals are good with instinct, from an evolutionary perspective. Instinct is a different thing to intuition.
aren't instinct and intuition the same, almost?
How come nobody ever asks if mental disorders cause religion?
"My dog has faith that I will feed her. You never heard of faithful animals?"
No, that is something we call faith because it is akin to what humans feel...the way we describe anything in nature that is not ourselves. How do you know the dog feels faith? Repetition of approximate time and measure of feeding builds habit. God never came down and spoke with me, but nonetheless I believe he exists.
For the life of me cannot figure out how to extract quotes...this is annoying.
Quote from: Rebis on November 08, 2008, 10:16:24 PM
aren't instinct and intuition the same, almost?
I guess that goes on what you believe, what you have faith in. ;)
In my opinion, no, they're not. Instinct is a process based on need... you have the instinct to feed when you're hungry, to drink when you're thirsty, to mate in order to maintain your population... it's a more primal biological function than intuition, which requires some measure of emotion and empathy.
Intuition is, in my view, based on being aware of other sentient beings and how they function in order to predict a likely outcome for a given scenario... and to do that you have to be aware of yourself and how you function. Other animals, I would guess, don't have sufficient self-awareness to develop intuition.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 10:20:16 PM
For the life of me cannot figure out how to extract quotes...this is annoying.
Honey, just click on the 'quote' button on whichever person's post you want to quote. That will insert it into the Post Reply window. Then you can remove whichever parts you don't want.
Or use the quote tags:
[quote=The person who made the quote]What they said[/quote]
Have you ever noticed the 'God' spelt backwards is 'Dog'. Or maybe it is the other way round?
Quote from: lisagurl on November 08, 2008, 09:09:40 PM
GID is a delusion. I changed my body because I did not like the factory model. I do not think there are gender identities only the ones we are taught. Some day everyone will be able to just be themselves without cultural demands.
I guess it's good to know that you believe you have
Delusional Disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 10:08:01 PM
When does real become real? When can we all agree that something is real? The sight you see is not the same thing I see...the angle is different, the light took longer to reach my eyes, etc. We cannot even agree on the time...your clock runs at a different rate than mine. So what does logic say about what time it is? If logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, it is no longer logic. Only what's relative.
We can't. Descartes proved positively his own existence, as we each can prove our own, with "I think, therefore I am", but by doing that he made the proving the existence of everything else impossible - so far anyway, it's still one of the fundamental "questions that need answering" in western philosophy. So with that in mind, religion and belief in god are just an extension of the problem of somehow proving that everything we experience is not just a delusion. We choose to what extent we want to believe external stimuli, from the actual nerve impulses we get from our senses, further out to peak experiences and the like, based on our belief systems. We could all be in the matrix. You all could be a figment of my deranged mind as I lie in a coma somewhere. But on the other hand you could all be as real as I am. I have no way of proving or disproving either supposition. The same is true of spiritual experiences, and ultimately of god or gods.
I agree with Rebis though: The delusion (and danger) comes when you choose either supposition purely through assumption, since neither can be proved, and then start to force that choice on others. I mean, either all of the rest of what I experience is a delusion or it isn't. Lets say I choose the former, and take the position that none of you are real, that all of this is in my head. I can then do whatever I want to other people - I can be cruel and sadistic, violent and murderous even - it doesn't matter, 'cause everything is just a movie in my head anyway. You'd all have me locked away so fast it would make my head spin. But extend that same reasoning to fundamentalist religion, which also cannot be proved or disproved either way, and it becomes "manifest destiny" and "biblical inerrancy" and all sorts of things.
Belief in god is not a delusion - I choose to believe that my body and experiences are real. By the same token one might choose to believe that whatever supernatural experiences you have are real. But belief that you are correct in that belief, that everybody is incorrect in their beliefs is delusional, or at the least it is profoundly unsound reasoning.
~Simone.
Good point Simone. I need to read Descartes, but he's still too far down the reading list, so many books, so little time ::)
Absolute certainty is a danger in any way shape, or form is a dangerous world view to oneself or others. But being pretty sure is a sane way to go without driving yourself crazy whether God is really spelled Dog, which is what it sometimes boils down to. That's why I lean more towards the empirical nowadays, sometimes expressed as common sense. Logic can often be too...unlogical, and a path that goes in circles, or has no end.
That's my story n' I'm stickin' to it!
Chris
Aurelius: :P
... which is a completely logical and valid response. ;D
Posted on: 09 November 2008, 05:27:36
So if you go with the empirical, meaning external, observable data, how can you determine whether any of that data is "real" or "true"? You can't be sure that some agent isn't interfering with the transmission of the information as it makes its way from wherever it originated to where the essential "you" who experiences it are. For that matter, you can never be sure that your memories of past data have not been altered in some way, so even comparing and updating "knowledge" becomes problematic. Relying on "facts" is not nearly as solid as we think it is. ;D
~Simone.
Quote from: Lisbeth on November 08, 2008, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: lisagurl on November 08, 2008, 09:09:40 PM
GID is a delusion. I changed my body because I did not like the factory model. I do not think there are gender identities only the ones we are taught. Some day everyone will be able to just be themselves without cultural demands.
I guess it's good to know that you believe you have Delusional Disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
delusion (dĭ-lū'zhən)
n.
The act or process of deluding.
The state of being deluded.
A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
[Middle English delusioun, from Latin dēlūsiō, dēlūsiōn-, from dēlūsus, past participle of dēlūdere, to delude. See delude.]
delusional de·lu'sion·al adj.
I did not say Delusional Disorder I said delusional. The physical fact is our body. A mental feeling has no proof. In the physical world a mental belief that is false is a delusion. In my case I did not like my body. I have no feelings of gender either way. Culture is what defines gender behavior not inborn instructions. Many that transition feel that they prefer to live in the culture as a certain identity. As for me I do not like the binary culture and avoid situations that demand gender behavior. I prefer a less aggressive approach as I have little use for most people and their identity.
That would be funny if they added religion to the DSM.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 10:08:01 PM
How does a random number generator generate anything besides a random number?
Technical flaws, but you understood my point.
My question still stands, shaking feet or nail clippings, it is all sensory perception no matter what medium. When does real become real? When can we all agree that something is real? The sight you see is not the same thing I see...the angle is different, the light took longer to reach my eyes, etc. We cannot even agree on the time...your clock runs at a different rate than mine. So what does logic say about what time it is? If logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, it is no longer logic. Only what's relative.
A number generator can randomly pick anything out of a memory just as abstract thought uses the memory to put things together.
QuoteWhen does real become real?
I consider my senses a test of the real Physical world. Not my imagination. I know I have faulty senses and they do not sense all that there is. However they have a higher probability giving information that is consistence with logic, reason and experience. With those I have control of some of the physical world as with my imagination I do not.
Whiich is precisely why I covered my flanks on this argument:
A) I am not certain, only pretty sure...both empirical and logical wind up going in circles.
B) I lean towards empirical to live daily life and in dealing with daily situations ie; common sense.
C) Logic is cool, but I won't follow it when it jumps off the bridge. Pure logic IS relativity. Logically, I should have killed myself. But I didn't.
D) I do believe in Truth, but that is a matter of faith. Everything else is relative. That Truth is an abstract idea, with no proof empirical or logical... has nothing to do with personal morals, values, etc or judging others. It only has to do with my place in the universe.
Which brings me to a point. No, I am not trying to pick on Lisagurl, with her view, but after arguing with her I have come up with this conclusion why I disagree; the reason I have to live part of my life in the abstract ie believe in God.
When people are put to the test, an extreme example would be the holocaust, the very few not being gassed outright and in concetration camp noticed something. People who believed in SOMETHING were the ones who tended to do better, and maybe survive longer. Not give up as easily. This is because they believed not just in God, but that there was a Supreme Good at work in the universe, and that no matter what happened to them that everything would be for that good. There was a spiritual bond that transcended them through adversity, and made it easier to bear. The ones who had weak belief or believed in nothing did not have this, and their minds and bodies, on average, gave up much sooner. "Give-up-itis" in the parliance of Vietnam POW's. No, this is not a 100% argument, only a broad one. Nor am I saying that non-believers are incapable of such strength. I am only illustrating a positive to belief v. non-belief in general terms, in which there is evidence.
Yes, I know this is an argument on Purpose. Some say there is purpose because we humans make up purpose. It cannot be proven one way or another. Belief that there is something better in the "heavens" does NOT mean we shouldn't work hard to make this world better (once again covering a flank), but if you ever read CS Lewis's argument for his belief, in the paraphrased words of dour Puddleglum under enchantment from an evil witch, trying to trick him (through relative logic) into believing his homeland was a delusion:
"I can't say if Narnia is real, no I can't, but it is sure alot better than this horrible place. I'd rather live in that wonderful, happy delusion and know there is something better and good to look forward to than just this unhappy kingdom."
I may not be right, there may be no God; but I stand with Puddleglum :D
Chris
QuoteI do believe in Truth, but that is a matter of faith
Mathematically there are no absolutes. Abstract thought based on some evidence tells us the possibility of 10 or 11 dimensions. I know there are things I do not know from the evidence of making mistakes. I can only experiment and use past success to control my environment. Beliefs and faith are just entertainments and sure it helps people live. That does not make it real in the physical world.
If religion is a mental disorder, the world is frakking mad....
I'm jewish, its a core part of my identity and social self. I'm proud of this,and while i accept others can choose not to belive in god in a his various forms, i dont quite agree...
Quote from: lisagurl on November 09, 2008, 11:20:54 AM
QuoteI do believe in Truth, but that is a matter of faith
Mathematically there are no absolutes. Abstract thought based on some evidence tells us the possibility of 10 or 11 dimensions. I know there are things I do not know from the evidence of making mistakes. I can only experiment and use past success to control my environment. Beliefs and faith are just entertainments and sure it helps people live. That does not make it real in the physical world.
"I believe in God, just in case"-->Einstein
Quote"I believe in God, just in case"-->Einstein
I have read many books about Einstein and his definition of God is the same as mine. That is very different than your belief. You left out the whole paragraph that the quote is taken from.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 09, 2008, 11:34:36 AM
Quote"I believe in God, just in case"-->Einstein
I have read many books about Einstein and his definition of God is the same as mine. That is very different than your belief. You left out the whole paragraph that the quote is taken from.
I don't even know what the paragraph said, only the quote I used to shoot from the hip. You usually have that advantage on me, I am only using my own education and my own thoughts. If it is faulty, then I recant. I can't argue that. But I still disagree.
The whole problem I have with this definition is the very logic. Using pure logic, I can say that the person sitting in the room with me may not exist. It is only my perception via my senses. My brain may be faulty, but that makes the physical world faulty as there are no alternatives. The same perception applied to the other person on the other end of your computer, the logic only spirals down into relativity progressively. The physical world in this logic cannot be the only answer to our existence. The logic that makes the metaphysical faulty is the same logic that makes the physical faulty.
Posted on: November 09, 2008, 12:56:48 pm
Lisagurl by the way, I am only pressing this issue because A) I don't understand (your view) and B) I am learning from you. If you want to drop it I understand. I don't grab onto you like a pitbull, only ideas I struggle to understand. We are probably not ever going to agree, but I still get to look at things (or at least try) from your point of view. That's how I learn.
Chris
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 10:08:01 PM
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.
QuoteIt is only my perception via my senses.
Yes that is probably the best answer. Your senses view the empirical world. There has been many studies, experiments, history, experiences and information about the physical empirical world. Using that information we can control and predict the probability of events. Yes events can only be observed through our senses and perception. Some times their are facts and things not observed or things happen that are not accounted for. However we can use the probability odds to our advantage.
Now the more removed you are from the observation the less the odds of it being successful. If I have a friend in 3D and observe all my senses can I can tell a lot about them without a word spoken. Add words and the fact that they are physically there, adds more responsibility to my ability to control and predict what is happening is much greater than looking at a screen of symbols with no proof that a person is really there or that if it is a person that anything the screen words say have any kind of verification. The probability is much less that the person is in physical reality and if they are it is not my physical reality so it is more ghost like and not worthy of my full attention or for me to risk anything.
Posted on: November 09, 2008, 03:14:16 pm
Quotewhatever junk is present in a spot of computer memory
Such is abstract thought. Then you apply logic to those junks throw out the things that make no reason and put the rest together to create an abstract thought. All that can be done with artificial intelligences. MIT is on the cutting edge.
Quote from: Lisbeth on November 09, 2008, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 10:08:01 PM
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 :laugh:.
Posted on: November 09, 2008, 04:01:13 pm
"However we can use the probability odds to our advantage."
Sounds like quantum physics.
I agree, we all have to cultivate our own garden as we percieve it, and grow what happiness we can.
Quote from: Ken/Kendra on November 09, 2008, 10:45:12 AM
That would be funny if they added religion to the DSM.
This is the best thing I've read all day. :laugh: Thanks
Posted on: November 09, 2008, 07:33:55 pm
Quote from: Aurelius on November 09, 2008, 11:08:08 AM
"I can't say if Narnia is real, no I can't, but it is sure alot better than this horrible place. I'd rather live in that wonderful, happy delusion and know there is something better and good to look forward to than just this unhappy kingdom."
I may not be right, there may be no God; but I stand with Puddleglum :D
Chris
I believe the planets of the apes is real. Not in a make believe way. Sometimes when it comes up in conversation, people get all weirded out by the way I don't think of it as fiction.
"Get yer stinkin paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"
I can see that. But you mean real as a possibility, as a metaphor for real events, or that apes are really running the show? Or something else?
I believe that it all happened exactly as it did in the original movies. I don't know how to get there, though. It could be in our distant past and humans regained the upper hand, or it could be in the distant future.
Since the planet exploded in the 2nd movie, maybe there's a possibility that the solar system was reset and we're on our way back to the future where the planet will explode again just because stupid human taylor decides no one deserves to live. Taylor is rude. They should have sewn his mouth shut.
I almost forgot, I identify with the apes.
Quote from: Rebis on November 09, 2008, 06:47:59 PM
I believe that it all happened exactly as it did in the original movies. I don't know how to get there, though. It could be in our distant past and humans regained the upper hand, or it could be in the distant future.
Since the planet exploded in the 2nd movie, maybe there's a possibility that the solar system was reset and we're on our way back to the future where the planet will explode again just because stupid human taylor decides no one deserves to live. Taylor is rude. They should have sewn his mouth shut.
I almost forgot, I identify with the apes.
You're right, I can see why that would weird people out.
If we call this my religion, then I believe we have proved that Religion IS a mental disorder!
Check and Mate. :)
Quote from: Rebis on November 09, 2008, 10:12:51 PM
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? :D
No worries, the delusional tent is a large one. Come on inside, there's pleny of room in here :icon_woowoo:
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.
Quote from: Rebis on November 09, 2008, 10:29:28 PM
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
Quote from: Aurelius on November 09, 2008, 10:47:30 PM
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'.
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
Quote from: Aurelius on November 09, 2008, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: Lisbeth on November 09, 2008, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 10:08:01 PM
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 :laugh:.
Any time, my dear.
Quote from: Aurelius on November 08, 2008, 01:06:46 PM
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))
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.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 10, 2008, 10:25:02 AM
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.
QuoteIn a nutshell
QuoteAber in kurzen Worten
QuoteBut 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
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.
Quote from: Nichole on November 10, 2008, 10:56:51 AM
QuoteIn a nutshell
QuoteAber in kurzen Worten
QuoteBut 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
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.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fasymptotia.com%2Fwp-images%2F2007%2F01%2Fmain_visible_lg.jpg&hash=3d0343921d4daca5c8fe41583db2149e1bd7023a)
Once we could say "planets outside our solar system" until ...
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.spaceref.com%2Fnews%2F2005%2Fphot-14a-05-preview.jpg&hash=bb1f49492d3421d37715e97ab269d8982c598e83)
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pramod.ch%2Fwp-content%2F050401_FIRST_PLANET_02.jpg&hash=e7a9821a713d85c678bcbd76a92dc3a0e1a4e359)
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
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.
Quote"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.
Quote from: lisagurl on November 10, 2008, 08:30:29 PM
" Because God made it that way".
My mother would always use that for the mysteries of birds and bees