Beliefs or Lack Thereof: Q&A

Status
Not open for further replies.
Believing-gaf:

The bible says that it is god's word and not an interpretation. How do you feel about this? 2 Peter 1:20-21


I'm curious about this because the bible also says that you can't take away from what is said in it nor shall you add on to it. How do you feel when people do this?
 
A general question:

Why do many atheists take a 'rational' logic-based position in regards to religion, but not within their daily lives. I see a lot of non-evidenced self-loathing, hate, nationalism, and what have you. Why not apply the same rational logic used to form your stance on religion to the stance you take in other aspects of life?

Or to rephrase, the logic to take your stance on religion can be used to take a more logical stance on any given topic, why not apply it to all of the things you encounter?
 
A general question:

Why do many atheists take a 'rational' logic-based position in regards to religion, but not within their daily lives. I see a lot of non-evidenced self-loathing, hate, nationalism, and what have you. Why not apply the same rational logic used to form your stance on religion to the stance you take in other aspects of life?

Because it's easy to aspire to, and not so easy to do.
 
A general question:

Why do many atheists take a 'rational' logic-based position in regards to religion, but not within their daily lives. I see a lot of non-evidenced self-loathing, hate, nationalism, and what have you. Why not apply the same rational logic used to form your stance on religion to the stance you take in other aspects of life?

Great question! In the strictest sense, trying to claim the word "rational" is hypocritical because of some of the things you mentioned. (Especially true in my case because of non-evidenced self-loathing. I'm the best at that.) I prefer the term "skeptical," in the context of science and religion, simply meaning that claims need to be critically evaluated and compared to evidence in order to determine whether they're true or false.
 
So this is a bit general, but for anyone who believes in free will I would be very interested in hearing their perspectives on our knowledge of how diseases and medicines and other chemicals seemingly modify a person's behavior and personality.

In my concept:

Free will is the choice of act. It is a tie between the "self" (not to be confused with identity) and the brain mechanisms.
So for those with advanced mental diseases, it is not a loss of free will. Maybe a incarcerated 'self' due to brain damage, with a fragmented identity, that can't enact its choices.
And even if someone could act without proper brain feedback it would hardly be considered a "living" person anyway.

An interesting exemple of study would be those with alien hands. To which level the brain controls the impulses of the identity-less side, or if that side has a self at all. But we are waaay far on the mind road still.


---

Seems like the OP is invisible by the way, so many snide questions.
 
In general how you manifest that desire seems to depend on your own upbringing and environment - if you are bought up with good morals as well as a good environment; you tend to channel that inner desire in a positive way for yourself and others around you, from my personal experience anyway.
Well, that is true in a civil society. However, in a state of anarchy, your most immediate needs are those of your own. In order to fulfill those needs, your actions have to be innately selfish, either for yourself or for your family unit.

(I would make the argument that being "nice" is just another survival tool to make sure you're not ostracized/exiled from society, and therefore cut off from physical/emotional resources, but that just leads to the whole "is anyone ever truly good?" debate, which is circular and pointless)
 
A general question:

Why do many atheists take a 'rational' logic-based position in regards to religion, but not within their daily lives. I see a lot of non-evidenced self-loathing, hate, nationalism, and what have you. Why not apply the same rational logic used to form your stance on religion to the stance you take in other aspects of life?

What makes you think we don't?

But to humour you;

Because the rational logical approach requires a lot of cognitive effort.

It's not possible to re-examine every facet of our lives with the critical thinking microscope - and for less used, less important beliefs that have a smaller impact on our lives, it's probable that we'll let it go unexamined, or rote learnt, even though it's contradictory to the rest of our beliefs and understandings.

Indeed... it's very much part of human nature.

It's not so much that we're 'good' at holding multiple incongruent and contradictory beliefs (although that is what we do)... so much as it is - the way we learn and store memory and knowledge, means that we have to go back and update our memory and knowledge with new thoughts on them... and we're just not particularly good at doing that in an efficient manner.
 
Or to rephrase, the logic to take your stance on religion can be used to take a more logical stance on any given topic, why not apply it to all of the things you encounter?

I can't really think of anything i wouldn't take a logical scientific stance on.
 
Great question! In the strictest sense, trying to claim the word "rational" is hypocritical because of some of the things you mentioned. (Especially true in my case because of non-evidenced self-loathing. I'm the best at that.) I prefer the term "skeptical," in the context of science and religion, simply meaning that claims need to be critically evaluated and compared to evidence in order to determine whether they're true or false.

I want to add to that previous question. I think religious and non-religious people can agree that religion has had its share of bad things to lay at its feet. At the same time, we can also agree that almost every ideology has had a history of murder and death behind it. I've heard some atheist believe that anything good from religion also has a secular parallel. Fair enough, but many will not admit the same for the evil acts as well, despite numerous examples. For a group that prides themselves on logic and critical thinking, that seems to be illogical and disingenuous. What gives?
 
I want to add to that previous question. I think religious and non-religious people can agree that religion has had its share of bad things to lay at its feet. At the same time, we can also agree that almost every ideology has had a history of murder and death behind it. I've heard some atheist believe that anything good from religion also has a secular parallel. Fair enough, but many will not admit the same for the evil acts as well, despite numerous examples. For a group that prides themselves on logic and critical thinking, that seems to be illogical and disingenuous. What gives?
The argument goes that no one has ever used atheism as a stepping stone to commit a crime. There is no collective "atheist" identity (unlike Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc), because atheism is the default state. No one goes "today I will murder someone in the name of my disbelief in the existence of gods".

However, just going by GAF, some people really do act like assholes just because they identify themselves as atheist. It's alright though, because religious people are fair targets.
 
I always love how these kinds of threads always become centered exclusively around Christianity.
It's interesting because the only religious people or rather theists I've seen here have been associated with christianity or islam, I don't think I've seen a single buddhist or hindu in my time at GAF tbh.
 
For a group that prides themselves on logic and critical thinking, that seems to be illogical and disingenuous.

examples are needed.

It's interesting because the only religious people or rather theists I've seen here have been associated with christianity or islam, I don't think I've seen a single buddhist or hindu in my time at GAF tbh.

Ex-Hindu yo.

it's because christanity and islam are the main religions. normally, people tend to focus on the majorities.
 
I want to add to that previous question. I think religious and non-religious people can agree that religion has had its share of bad things to lay at its feet. At the same time, we can also agree that almost every ideology has had a history of murder and death behind it. I've heard some atheist believe that anything good from religion also has a secular parallel. Fair enough, but many will not admit the same for the evil acts as well, despite numerous examples. For a group that prides themselves on logic and critical thinking, that seems to be illogical and disingenuous. What gives?

I think a big part of that comes down to some of the nitty-gritty details of what atheism really is. In its strictest sense, it means "lacking a belief in a god or gods." That means you have agnostic atheists, explicit atheists, and even some who practice a religion but don't necessarily hold their beliefs with sincerity. It's hard to blame anything specifically on atheism because peoples' actions are motivated by the concepts they do believe in, rather than the ones they don't. It's distinct from being anti-religious or anti-theistic, as may be the case with various communist regimes.

I always love how these kinds of threads always become centered exclusively around Christianity.

Well, now's your chance to grill the atheists! Or the Buddhists! Or whomever!
 
when you guys talk about personal relationships with god, what exactly does that entail?

Do you literally hear his voice in your head? Or do you ask him for signs and then you see those signs the next day?
Well, first of all, I want to say as a critique of modern Christianity that personal relationship with God is never stressed and hardly even exists in scripture. The overwhelming focus is connection to God through community and his underlying guidance of his people as they encourage and teach one another and testify about him to one another.

Following him alone, hearing from him alone, taking action alone is repeatedly explained as being wide open to demonic influence or self-deceit. A consistent understanding of what the Holy Spirit speaks is a discernment explained as only being developed through communal observation as you sacrificially serve one another in love.

That said, to describe my personal experience, it is most often a matter of conviction with occasional moments of clarity and specific direction. Like, say, most of the time I have some sense of the things I am doing well in with life and the things I should be working on. Those convictions stand as understood from teaching, yet also conviction from God himself. Other times, in a moment, something may be extremely highlighted so my mind is really focused on it, and if I wasn't praying at the time, I'm drawn into prayer about it. That would be one level of God speaking to me.

A greater level would be something of life direction. Like for some time my mind was kind of South Africa-centric. The plights of people there would be on my mind, talk of it would watch my attention, etc. I wasn't sure exactly why, but I had assumed it was "God calling me" and I would have something to do with the nation at some point, and this lasted about a year.

One night I was heading to my friend's house to watch the final game before the superbowl. I had watched football with him every sunday and our team had a chance of moving to the superbowl so he had made a part of it that week with many friends invited. As I was walking from my car to the house, saying hi to other friends who were also arriving, God told me to go to this ministry in town.

It wasn't audible, but the instruction was clear and strong and the words practically spilled out of my own mouth. Now I had only been to that ministry once, 4 years prior. I wasn't even sure if it was still meeting at the same time as it used to, but I knew it was God, because he does that sometimes and had before in my life (in fact, it's how I came to have the gospel explained to me through a book, but that's another story) so I told my friends sorry and skipped out on football and went.

The second I opened the door to the sanctuary, they started a presentation of a trip to South Africa they were inviting people to join, so I did. We didn't really do any preaching there, it was a humanitarian effort to help a children's AIDS clinic, build a school, make a community garden, bring clothes and food to an especially impoverished community in the mountains and do recon for how future teams will help.

God has done that sort of thing many times in my life. In fact, it seems like if I make my own plans about how to carry on with life, it all goes to shit. However, there is an even more direct form of speaking to me that has only happened a few times, where I literally had a vision wake me up in the middle of the night regarding someone I knew and some scriptural guidance. I felt insane talking to them about it later, but after would blabber on for a few minutes they explained these things that were going on in their life that they had to make decisions about which were exactly in line with what I was saying.

I know plenty of people who would want to attribute this to coincidence, some sort of accidental cold-reading, interpreting things to match or whatever, but really it was all so specific with many details and I didn't really know them or their life, just that they went to my church. Again, this sort of thing has been really rare, but it has happened. Combine that with the consistency of the other two through my entire life and in my friends lives, I don't think my faith is ending any time soon. I know about confirmation bias and all that, and it just doesn't fit my experiences.

The frustrating side of things is that I don't have any control of this. I have zero stock in the idea that if you live in a "more spiritual" way then God will speak to you more. That hasn't been the case with me whatsoever. It has always been rather up-to-him and unrelated to my lifestyle or focus overall or in the moment.
 
In my concept:

Free will is the choice of act. It is a tie between the "self" (not to be confused with identity) and the brain mechanisms.
So for those with advanced mental diseases, it is not a loss of free will. Maybe a incarcerated 'self' due to brain damage, with a fragmented identity, that can't enact its choices.
And even if someone could act without proper brain feedback it would hardly be considered a "living" person anyway.

An interesting exemple of study would be those with alien hands. To which level the brain controls the impulses of the identity-less side, or if that side has a self at all. But we are waaay far on the mind road still.


---

Seems like the OP is invisible by the way, so many snide questions.

By 'alien hands', do you mean Phantom limbs?

Yeah... that's easy enough to explain; your brain creates a neural map of your muscles and body parts in order to control them. The inputs and outputs are mapped from the nerves leading from your fingers and arms into your brain.

Severing this arm doesn't destroy the neurons in the brain that represents the arm. But because your arm is now unable to transmit new input output data, the representation of the arm in your brain can go haywire. Additionally, the nerve pathway leading up to your brain still exists; the point of the stub contains the remainder of that bio-electrical pathway, and can nonetheless be stimulated, with signals that roughly/inaccurately simulate the signals that would've been sent from your now, non-existent arm.
 
Believing-gaf:

The bible says that it is god's word and not an interpretation. How do you feel about this? 2 Peter 1:20-21


I'm curious about this because the bible also says that you can't take away from what is said in it nor shall you add on to it. How do you feel when people do this?

1. 2 Peter is referring to prophecy, the Bible is not all prophecy.

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an [h]utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this [j]utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 [k]So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.




2. Are you talking about Revelations? That book is seen by mainline theologians as a response to the fall of Rome not a prediction of end times. At least that's what I've read on the subject.
 
By 'alien hands', do you mean Phantom limbs?

Yeah... that's easy enough to explain; your brain creates a neural map of your muscles and body parts in order to control them. The inputs and outputs are mapped from the nerves leading from your fingers and arms into your brain.

Severing this arm doesn't destroy the neurons in the brain that represents the arm. But because your arm is now unable to transmit new input output data, the representation of the arm in your brain can go haywire. Additionally, the nerve pathway leading up to your brain still exists; the point of the stub contains the remainder of that bio-electrical pathway, and can nonetheless be stimulated, with signals that roughly/inaccurately simulate the signals that would've been sent from your now, non-existent arm.

No. I mean alien hands.
You know, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
 
Believing-gaf:

The bible says that it is god's word and not an interpretation. How do you feel about this? 2 Peter 1:20-21


I'm curious about this because the bible also says that you can't take away from what is said in it nor shall you add on to it. How do you feel when people do this?
2 Peter probably isn't authentic, but that goes to my belief that some of the NT (I never really paid much attention to OT, honestly) just isn't authentic.

To me, the only thing I can be certain of, as a Christian, are a few central beliefs that are universally agreed upon. Jesus, son of God, died and was resurrected, and he wants you to be a good person who loves those around you. I tend to view myself as a Christian Existentialist, a philosophy created by Sorren Kierkegaard, which essentially states that a person's idea of what being "good" is is essentially up to him, as Jesus mainly taught in parables that he left for the interpretation of the listener. Jesus didn't give us (Jesus, not Church) a bunch of rules on how to live our daily lives (very different from Judaism and Islam). He left that up to us.

What does it mean to be a good person? Especially in our modern world that is so separated from 2000 years ago? It's up to you to make those decisions in a "leap of faith", but in your heart, you know deep down when you're screwing someone over, but ultimately they are your decisions, and you must eventually answer for them.

Sorry for not being refined, but I'm stuck in MCAT prep mode, and my mind is flustered. To answer other questions, no I don't hear voices (fuck kind of stupid ass question is that?), I don't believe in creationism, I do believe in free will, and yes, I do doubt it constantly.
 
It's interesting because the only religious people or rather theists I've seen here have been associated with christianity or islam, I don't think I've seen a single buddhist or hindu in my time at GAF tbh.

Most Buddhist don't give a shit about talking about religion. Buddha himself said he wasn't divine.
 
A general question:

Why do many atheists take a 'rational' logic-based position in regards to religion, but not within their daily lives. I see a lot of non-evidenced self-loathing, hate, nationalism, and what have you. Why not apply the same rational logic used to form your stance on religion to the stance you take in other aspects of life?

Or to rephrase, the logic to take your stance on religion can be used to take a more logical stance on any given topic, why not apply it to all of the things you encounter?
I can relate to the self-loathing the most...

And you're right. There is no rational basis for it... but humans aren't entirely rational beings. Our emotions/feelings can get the best of us sometimes.

I sometimes wish I was as logical as a Vulcan but alas, I am only Human.
 
I actually find this very interesting and wish i could study it in more detail. I think alot of depends on the level of free will you're talking about. For example even when a drug changes a persons behaviour (like with dementia or any other number of mental illnesses) they are still capable of making decisions even if it isn't the usual one they would make.

So i guess the chemical balance and general workings of our brain influence the decisions we make but it isn't completely automated. Basically i think we have a limited amount of free will in essence. No doubt our decisions are influnced by the workings of our brain but i still think we are capable of making decisions and they aren't all automated.

So i guess from the perspective that free will means we can make decisions without any sort of restraint whatsoever than we probably don't have free will.

Can I ask why you think that there's a small amount of autonomy that can be effected by outside factors?


In my concept:

Free will is the choice of act. It is a tie between the "self" (not to be confused with identity) and the brain mechanisms.
So for those with advanced mental diseases, it is not a loss of free will. Maybe a incarcerated 'self' due to brain damage, with a fragmented identity, that can't enact its choices.
And even if someone could act without proper brain feedback it would hardly be considered a "living" person anyway.

An interesting exemple of study would be those with alien hands. To which level the brain controls the impulses of the identity-less side, or if that side has a self at all. But we are waaay far on the mind road still.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What I was talking about was how we can observe changes in personality in people who are on certain medications. Anti-depressents are the most obvious example.
 
Well, now's your chance to grill the atheists! Or the Buddhists! Or whomever!
I'm going to play devil's advocate here then:

Asshole Atheist GAF: What do you think you accomplish by going into threads and going "lol religion", inciting the same childish and pointless argument all over again whenever there's a thread even remotely related to religion or science? Do you feel that you're going to undo centuries of religious indoctrination and its cultural inertia with your snide remarks on the internet?
 
@Dice

Just roughly skimming... but it seems like you're just out of habit and wishfulness, attributing positive things in your life to god. Anytime something good happens... god did it.

On one hand, it's kinda humble. On the other hand, it's as if god was your personal butler and cheerleader - looking after you all the time.

... of course the work around for this very much evidently insanely egotistical thought is; god is all powerful and can be with all of us and all times.
 
Q: In terms of what you consider good and bad, what are humans naturally inclined to be, if we're naturally inclined toward anything at all?

I believe all good actions are driven by selfish motives, even selfless acts.

You do good because it makes you feel good even if there are no other direct benifits for yourself and it's not even to raise your self esteem then your brain will still reward you with the appropriate endorphines.
That and it's easy to project other people's grief and pain onto yourself , which makes you uneasy so it's best to pretend it doesn't exist or do something about it.

I also don't mind that, it takes a petty person to insist that an action has to somehow be truly selfless. (yeah I broke a rule, sue me).

I think it might also explain why people don't help those who they don't interact with or feel related to.
Foreign people, far away people, anyone who is different enough that the person who would help them wouldn't get the appropriate amount of reward hormones because their brain doesn't make the connection.
We feel bad for mammals but don't mind cooking invertebrates alive or gutting fish alive because afterall they can't communicate through sound or facial expressions or any other means that we can understand, so their pain is not real to us.

Noone gives a fuck about ethiopian children or polio other than the odd few who have been there long enough to witness it themselves and relate to these people. (and even then most turn a blind eye yet still think they are good people)

If people were inherintly good then they would prioritise helping those unfortunate people rather than spend their energy on objectively less urgent causes.
My realistic definition of a 'good' person is someone with the ability to feel good about other people's happyness. (any random people, not just those around them)
A trait not that many people seem to possess, must have something to do with how our brains function.
For the same reason I think racists and otherwise petty and jealous people are 'bad' people, and that there is a difference between random discrimination aimed at groups of people and hating an individual because of how their actions affect others. (then again that is something most racists try to hide behind...)



I find it easier to be good or considerate accepting that it's selfish, because in the end just doing good for the sake of doing good is pretty meaningless.
Nothing would be affected anywhere in the universe if we'd all die tomorrow or if we blew up the entire planet.
We are just one tiny planet and we're only around for an insignificant amount of time.

Time to break another rule: I believe religion gives comfort to people who are desperate for something to cling onto for meaning, direction and a sense of belonging and to be able to instill a bigger sense of self importance than they really should. (+those who just ape it because that's all they've known all their lives aka the wonderful human trait of tradition)

I also think the happiest people are those who don't need religion and don't worry about the meaning or validity of their existance (which plenty of atheists can worry about too) and at the same time don't need petty problems to give them a sense of direction/raison d'être -I hope the pretentious wording doesn't bother you- and just go with their base instincts.
(I don't count myself among those happy people before someone suggests it's a loaded argument)

Oh and I also believe that the idea behind religion doesn't have to be as bad as it is today, if people just use it as a mantra to better themselves without taking it so seriously or having to weave fairytales around it.
I like the idea of karma for example because it's pretty innocent and harmless in its application, and you don't have to convince yourself it's true to follow it.
But instead we just get people arguing and killing eachother over religion, I bet the guys who came up with the first herding/manipulation religion scam with good intentions would have jumped off a cliff had they known.
People take everything too far, especially religion and religious ideas, anything open for interpretation is likely to get misinterpreted and abused so I dislike religion, a lot.
 
examples are needed.

WWI, WW2, the American Revolution, the French Revolution (a lot of innocent people ended up on the guillotine) the Bolshevik revolution, the Chinese workers revolution, a lot of the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was racially and nationally motivated,

You can go down the list in human history and find where lots of shitty things were done to people where religion is not involved. It was other ideology, other causes that killed or raped or burned. It seems disingenuous to me to list the inquisition or the crusades as proof religion is evil and not acknowledge that any ideology can and has been misused to the detriment of many people.

How many innocent have died for democracy, or freedom, or the people's liberation?
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What I was talking about was how we can observe changes in personality in people who are on certain medications. Anti-depressents are the most obvious example.

Free will isn't tied to your recognition of you (identity). "I don't remember doing that" or "that wasn't me" are not contraire to free willl. In my conceptualization of course.
 
What makes you think we don't?

But to humour you;

Because the rational logical approach requires a lot of cognitive effort.

It's not possible to re-examine every facet of our lives with the critical thinking microscope - and for less used, less important beliefs that have a smaller impact on our lives, it's probable that we'll let it go unexamined, or rote learnt, even though it's contradictory to the rest of our beliefs and understandings.

Indeed... it's very much part of human nature.

It's not so much that we're 'good' at holding multiple incongruent and contradictory beliefs (although that is what we do)... so much as it is - the way we learn and store memory and knowledge, means that we have to go back and update our memory and knowledge with new thoughts on them... and we're just not particularly good at doing that in an efficient manner.

So its because it takes a lot of energy?

If it takes a lot of energy than why not find a way to lessen that toll? The cost/benefit to taking the rational road is generally in the favor of rationality (less drama, progress, etc), so wouldn't taking the time to apply that in your lives be even more of an incentive to do it, despite the energy cost?

I've seen examples on this board where one conversation will be like:

"You can disprove God like this, easy"

Than the same person will go..

" My life life sucks, I'm ugly and everyone hates me".

The kicker in the latter is that there's usually someone, or multiple people on gaf telling the subject that it can't be that bad and other means of encouragement, and I'm sure there are people in real life that will battle that sentiment.

So what takes so much effort in saying, "If these people think I am this way, than is my own perception of myself correct"?

EDIT: I use the loathing, because it's the easiest to point out on this board, and most relate-able to the demographic that posts here. There are other examples.
 
theists, what can you tell me about your personal relationship with god that distances it from common-or-garden schizophrenia or some other chemical imbalance?

ignore the angry replies
this is a very legitimate question, and im pretty sure it was covered in Religulous (the answer was that talking to god is a type of psychosis)
 
Free will isn't tied to your recognition of you (identity). "I don't remember doing that" or "that wasn't me" are not contraire to free willl. In my conceptualization of course.

I still don't understand the connection between what you're saying here and the effects we observe of people on anti-depressants. Its not like they have no memory of their time.
 
I've seen examples on this board where one conversation will be like:

"You can disprove God like this, easy"

Than the same person will go..

" My life life sucks, I'm ugly and everyone hates me".

The kicker in the latter is that there's usually someone, or multiple people on gaf telling the subject that it can't be that bad and other means of encouragement, and I'm sure there are people in real life that will battle that sentiment.

So what takes so much effort in saying, "If these people think I am this way, than is my own perception of myself correct"?

EDIT: I use the loathing, because it's the easiest to point out on this board, and most relate-able to the demographic that posts here. There are other examples.
Sure, the self-loathing requires a degree of irrationality. But do you see people supporting it? Ideally someone who has irrational negative attitudes about themselves will be brought around to a more levelheaded plane of thought.

Or in other words: everyone is irrational. But many of us attempt to minimize our irrationality. And, tangentially, rationality and emotion are not on opposite ends of a spectrum, being rational does not mean that one completely ignores their emotional impulses.
 

Oh that. Yeah... I haven't heard of it referred to as alien hand syndrome myself, but I'm familiar with the phenomena.

Brief explanation; your brain is comprised of many independent modules that are interlinked and communicate quickly, iteratively, in parallel...

So it would follow when you sever the largest interconnect between parts of the brain, that shit is going to go haywire.

What's much more impressive is that you can continue to function relatively unimpaired (although there are a few problems, with 'alien hand syndrome' been one of them) despite this severance. Although really, your left and right hemispheres have the relevant tools and strategies to compensate, and it's not as though you're two bodies, so you can't exactly act without the other half in a sense anyway!

Also, you'd expect that the parts moving your body around and the part telling you you're moving your body around could be disconnected via other means then surgical severance (i.e. tumours, and other maladies that can damage brain tissue).
 
tumblr_lrjftg5pL41qawtudo1_500.jpg
 
ignore the angry replies
this is a very legitimate question, and im pretty sure it was covered in Religulous
How is it a legitimate question? He's asking religious people, which comprise the majority of world's population (or at least report to be religious) if they are insane?
 
I still don't understand the connection between what you're saying here and the effects we observe of people on anti-depressants. Its not like they have no memory of their time.

Would you mind expanding your connection then

"but for anyone who believes in free willI would be very interested in hearing their perspectives on our knowledge of how diseases and medicines and other chemicals seemingly modify a person's behavior and personality."

I thought you were relating free will to identity.
As if: If it isn't I, who reflects, that acted or chose to act, it was not a act of free will.

---

@Zaptruder:

I know what causes it, but it's actual cognitive mechanics and if there are psychological reflexes due to the separated part are not actually "known".
 
I'm going to play devil's advocate here then:

Asshole Atheist GAF: What do you think you accomplish by going into threads and going "lol religion", inciting the same childish and pointless argument all over again whenever there's a thread even remotely related to religion or science? Do you feel that you're going to undo centuries of religious indoctrination and its cultural inertia with your snide remarks on the internet?
trollface.jpg

Not all atheists are interested in rational debate.
 
How is it a legitimate question? He's asking religious people, which comprise the majority of world's population (or at least report to be religious) if they are insane?

To phrase it a little more politely: How does one distinguish between seemingly divine phenomena like hearing the voice of God and what is technically classified as delusion? There are many documented cases of mental illness including religious themes, so it's a fair question.

Dear theists, why are you so closed minded?

Dear athiests, why are you so closed minded?

There, trolled 100%

I'm sure you're super duper proud of yourself.
 
So its because it takes a lot of energy?

If it takes a lot of energy than why not find a way to lessen that toll? The cost/benefit to taking the rational road is generally in the favor of rationality (less drama, progress, etc), so wouldn't taking the time to apply that in your lives be even more of an incentive to do it, despite the energy cost?

I've seen examples on this board where one conversation will be like:

"You can disprove God like this, easy"

Than the same person will go..

" My life life sucks, I'm ugly and everyone hates me".

The kicker in the latter is that there's usually someone, or multiple people on gaf telling the subject that it can't be that bad and other means of encouragement, and I'm sure there are people in real life that will battle that sentiment.

So what takes so much effort in saying, "If these people think I am this way, than is my own perception of myself correct"?

EDIT: I use the loathing, because it's the easiest to point out on this board, and most relate-able to the demographic that posts here. There are other examples.

As someone that has been through that long journey or updating self perception to be an accurate representation of what I am...

It's not a single thing, as it is a superstructure of beliefs and ideas (not unlike religious beliefs).

You can't change the whole lot simply at once, because it's contingent on a bunch of other beliefs and ideas - using rationality on that idea of self, will only be met with; because (all these other reasons, some which are valid and others that are not).

But yeah, it's a healthy thing to do; to have an understanding of yourself that is in line with not so much how the world percieves you (because obviously, it's natural to keep many things private to oneself for one reason or another); but rather how the world would percieve you, should they know your full story, without reservation.

Doesn't make it an easy or short task though - and there in lies the rub... because it's not easy, not short... requires a great deal of time and energy, without a clear insight as to the nature of the return... it's a task that not all are willing to dive headlong into without hesitation.
 
I'm sure you're super duper proud of yourself.
Honestly, I prefer honest/sarcastic trolls to trolls hiding behind the guise of maturity and rationality.
trollface.jpg

Not all atheists are interested in rational debate.
Quite aware of that, I was just wondering if they were aware of this or if this is one of those cognitive dissonance things I hear so much about when people bash religion.
 
To phrase it a little more politely: How does one distinguish between seemingly divine phenomena like hearing the voice of God and what is technically classified as delusion? There are many documented cases of mental illness including religious themes, so it's a fair question.



I'm sure you're super duper proud of yourself.
That's not what he asked, though (I understand that you're trying to not get the thread derailed, and I really appreciate that). He didn't say anything about voices or visions, just a vague term like "personal relationship with God", which could mean many things.
 
Would you mind expanding your connection then

"but for anyone who believes in free willI would be very interested in hearing their perspectives on our knowledge of how diseases and medicines and other chemicals seemingly modify a person's behavior and personality."

I thought you were relating free will to identity.
As if: If it isn't I, who reflects, that acted or chose to act, it was not a act of free will.

Free will is usually contrasted with determinism. If determinism says that our actions are purely result of previous actions and interactions then free will says that there is a non-causal agent that makes decisions.
Yet someone who's personality seems to change while on medication is seemingly exhibiting determinism: there is a cause of the change in their behavior.
 
Sure, the self-loathing requires a degree of irrationality. But do you see people supporting it? Ideally someone who has irrational negative attitudes about themselves will be brought around to a more levelheaded plane of thought.

Or in other words: everyone is irrational. But many of us attempt to minimize our irrationality. And, tangentially, rationality and emotion are not on opposite ends of a spectrum, being rational does not mean that one completely ignores their emotional impulses.

1. No I don't see people supporting it, that's why I think it doesn't make sense for someone to revel, as you say in their life as it is.

2. I agree everybody is irrational, but if we can look at one facet of our life and change it, we can change other facets of our life by focusing on it, even if it is temporary.

3. I agree that being rational does not mean one ignores their emotional impulses, but that does not mean one can not take a more rational approach to them.

I can't think of another question, I'll take some time for the next one.
 
Or in other words: everyone is irrational. But many of us attempt to minimize our irrationality. And, tangentially, rationality and emotion are not on opposite ends of a spectrum, being rational does not mean that one completely ignores their emotional impulses.

Indeed.

To put it in a brief succint manner; emotions are the quick acting thinking processes of the brain. The pangs of emotions we feel are there to urge us to action.

Logic, rationality, reason... are the slow acting thinking processes of the brain. They are used in reflection to update our understanding of the world and the things in it, so that we can exercise greater efficacy in our actions and their desired impact on the world.

But been that we must ultimately act from moment to moment... it is ultimately emotion that controls us. But the best is emotion that is honed and refined by logic and reason.
 
Indeed.

To put it in a brief succint manner; emotions are the quick acting thinking processes of the brain. The pangs of emotions we feel are there to urge us to action.

Logic, rationality, reason... are the slow acting thinking processes of the brain. They are used in reflection to update our understanding of the world and the things in it, so that we can exercise greater efficacy in our actions and their desired impact on the world.

But been that we must ultimately act from moment to moment... it is ultimately emotion that controls us. But the best is emotion that is honed and refined by logic and reason.

I agree with this the most, I think. I hold that emotion is actually rational at its core: emotion's purpose is to give positive or negative weight to possible courses of action, and the form that that weight takes is based on previous gathered information and experience.
 
2. Are you talking about Revelations? That book is seen by mainline theologians as a response to the fall of Rome not a prediction of end times. At least that's what I've read on the subject.

I believe what is stated in Revelations is just a reiteration of what is said in Deuteronomy 4:2? (Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. King James version)?
 
ignore the angry replies
this is a very legitimate question, and im pretty sure it was covered in Religulous (the answer was that talking to god is a type of psychosis)
If religious belief is indistinguishable from these chemical imbalances, why hasn't science presented a physiological explanation or treatment for it?
 
Q: How much of your life is determined by convenience and how much is determined by morality?

Related Q: Did you believe eating meat is moral? If not, do you eat meat? If you do, why? and how can that be morally defensible? (However difficult it is to avoid meat, you still have a choice. And so the choice to eat meat is one of convenience over morality.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom