Jump to content


Photo

Atheism Mental Anguish

emotional

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:04 AM

If this is the picture you guys have of atheists, that puts some things into perspective. :)

I think atheists inhabit a whole range of dispositions. From the kind/caring to the self-serving. Conservative to liberal.

Personally I prefer to discuss the worldview and what actions logically flow from it.

For example: the hopping ranting atheist in the video claimed Hitler was a Christian but were his motives rooted in the teachings of Christ? You can say you believe anything you want but it doesn't always follow.

I like atheists to ponder an illustration... You see the neighbor's wife routinely doning fresh bruises. She's timid and skittish, especially around her husband but the husband regularly claims how loving and caring he is toward his wife. Do you take his claim at face value?

Hitler took photo ops at churches and had 'bishops' who supported him... then on to his philosophy of evolution and gassing of inferiors... do we take the use of religious symbols, church doorway pics and clergy supporters at face value?

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:12 AM

You are viewed by myself as an agnostic and in my view will never be considered an atheist. Atheism from our finite information data base does not make sense.

With all due respect, Mike, I don't think this goes far enough. I'm not sure if the term was coined here but I think all atheists/agnostics are really crypto-theists. They need all the foundational logic, that only flows rationally from a biblical perspective, to be true. It does not flow from their atheism/scientism.

If they were truly agnostic their judgement would not be just.

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:20 PM

Righto!

 

The concept of God is available in his mind otherwise he would not be able to deny God could exist. Either way his conclusion is illogical unless he thinks he is "all knowing.." Putting on my hat as a therapist, I would say that atheism is a  psychotic disorder.

 

"Neurotics are people  that dream of castles in the sky. Psychotis live in those castles!"  lol wink.png

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean by  your " If they were truly agnostic their judgement would not be just."


 



#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:37 PM

To be clear to any atheist lurkers. This isn't a critique on proselytizing in principle. It's the incoherence of atheism + proselytizing.

It was probably a release for his anger to reach that tipping point. The guy obviously spent a lot of time stewing over his 'conviction'.

Satan is incapable of restraining his own impetuous nature. Allowing sensibility among his adherents is not an option. He desires to showcase the foolishness of his followers.

 

Totally agree, he kinda admits it by his statement that theists were the ones who gave him a hard time at school, which can be hard (I know), but he really does need to let it go. Perhaps that is what fuels (at least in part), his atheism?

 

 

Good post, btw.

 

Thanks, thought I was merely expanding on yours ;)

 

 

 

I agree. Strange as it may sound, but I do not think atheism can replace some of the aspects you theists find in your religion. As a consequence I do not propose to proselytize atheism. I’ll be content to portrait it as ‘not all bad’. That acceptance would be enough for me. (Note I still argue for teaching evolution and similar matter since I believe it to be the most plausible theory/hypothesis of our past. The impact on some specific religions is a side effect.)

 

I’m not really interested in what some random guy says on youtube, but reading the comments here I should probably check it out once.

 

PS: Proselytize is a new word for me, so if I used it wrong, you can disregard my comment. “to convert (someone) from one religious faith to another”

 

Proselytize was a new word for me too ;)



#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:46 PM

I am not sure I understand what you mean by  your " If they were truly agnostic their judgement would not be just."

Did you ever hear the saying...

God doesn't believe in atheists.

Likewise, scripture tells us that people will be without excuse (Romans 1;20)... Therefore "I wasn't sure if you existed..." won't hold water on the day they stand before The Lord.

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:50 PM

Proselytize was a new word for me too ;)

:D It took me about ten tries to get the spelling right :D

#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:04 PM

I even tried claiming that God was the only atheist but they didn't get it.  Reminds me of what Jesus said. We played funeal but you didn't like that. So we played wedding but you didn't ;ike that. Oh well. I think we are dealing with a bunch of Jobs. wink.png  lol



#28 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:51 PM

The guy in the video was clearly on some sort of drug.



#29 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 September 2013 - 07:46 AM

For example: the hopping ranting atheist in the video claimed Hitler was a Christian but were his motives rooted in the teachings of Christ? You can say you believe anything you want but it doesn't always follow.

I'm aware of (some of) the propaganda he used to justify his actions. I do not believe anyone of us believes the same things he did.

 

Can you explain the term crypto-theist to me. I do not find a good explanation online and I am unable to reply to your claim of me being one. :)



#30 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 September 2013 - 10:43 AM

I dare say that most of the alleged atheists that come here want us to respect them and their atheism. Obviously for varying reasons they have decided to create the idea there is no God.   Let's consider there not being a God an hypotheis.  What are their suport theories and hypothesis?  When questioned,  they often  give the state of the world. They often muse, "If God is such a loving being, why would He allow all the violence and poverty?" Of course there is an answer for that but that's another story.  

 

Atheism in the sense it is used has little to do with there being or not being a God. Do a thought  experiment. Try and make something disappear by commanding it to do so. I have tested that hypothesis and it has failed miserably every time I have tried it.  I have even done it with mean spirited obnoxious people. They still exist.. My conclusion, "I do not have the ability to determine who  can exist by thinking they do or don't exist." So if I claim to be an atheist, I am claiming powers I don't have. How can I believe I do have those powers?  The answer is "free will coupled with an act of creativity."  By caveat I can  create the idea out of thin air.  

 

Atheism ends up being s a power struggle with others that don't believe they nor the atheists have powers that would approach God level. That is the insanity of their idea.   Atheism  is a negative that expects a positive response. How can one hold on to such an illogical, nonsensical premise when there is a less demanding point of view (agnosticism)? It's commonly called "self righteousness." We all have the power of free choice. We can't win a power stuggle with an equal--especially when one or both us is  unreasonable.  

 

Most human beings that claim atheism proceed from the same premise violently aggressive people proceed from.  A person that murders another  believes his victim should not exist. Ultimately the person that murders functions with the same premise as an atheist. "This being I want to murder does not have the right to exist. How can I make that a reality?" If you are thinking I am being extreme, consider the numerous dysfunctional behavior, fighting, violence, and wars going on around us.  

 

Most of us have had to deal with bully's in our life. A person claiming atheism is a consummate bully. Unfortunately, in my experience as well as the experience of others I have consulted with, bully's often won't let you walk away from them. Apparently they think there is something wrong with their victim's existence. Bully's often peruse you even if you run from them.  Therefore, I conclude, the best thing to do is stand up to them.  

 

Personally, I have extended the hand of friendship to many of those claiming to be atheists.  I don't think they   realize the lie that is at the core of their atheism (that atheism  is a form of bullying). As most of us are well aware, only a few of them  have softened their views. I conclude my (our) friendship with them  is not worth them softening their view. To them their idea that a specific being we commonly call God can't exist is more important than a good relationship with  those of us known to exist by their own admission. Do we treat them in kind?  Do we claim a being they believe exists can't exist? Hardly!



#31 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 September 2013 - 01:29 AM

1. To make the hypothesis comparison for there being a God.:

 

- Test a: I set the default hypothesis as there is no God. If I can find evidence that disagrees with this statement I can accept the alternative hypothesis "there is a God". Evidence to reject the default hypothesis results in a strong conclusion. Not rejecting the default hypothesis results in a weak conclusion.

- Test b: If I set the default hypothesis as there is a God, I need to search for evidence there is no God before I can reject that statement and accept the alternative hypothesis "there is no God". The lack of evidence for there not being a God leads to a weak conclusion (both mathematically speaking) that there is a God.

 

The proposed "violence and poverty" argument you quoted is an argument used in the second test setting in an attempt to go from "there is a God" to "there is no God". That is indeed another story and probably unconvincing enough to reject the default hypothesis. It has nothing to do in the first test setting though.

 

2. I tried above to explain the difference between an atheist and an atheist. You claim atheists are solely those that have conducted the second test, while ignoring those that used the first test to determine whether there is god or not.

 

3. "Atheism ends up being s a power struggle with others that don't believe they nor the atheists have powers that would approach God level. That is the insanity of their idea."

You're gonna have to explain that some more.

 

4. Completely wrong comparison. A murder knows his victim exists, and wishes it otherwise. An atheist doesn't know God exists, and the term "atheist" doesn't claim intend whether an atheist should or should not wish that a God exists.

 

5. Basically you are saying my existence as an atheist is offensive to you. And you feel you should stand up to me. Did I understand that correct?

 

6. How can you ask people to be your friend while at the same time you ask them to betray themselves? If tomorrow you would declare yourself atheist or agnostic or something else, you would not gain more friendship that you would today by holding on to your worldview of Christian. On the contrary, instead I would be questioning your honesty. We are who we are, our actions, posts on this forum define who we are, not the label put under your picture.

I'm really not sure whether you have accepted the agnostic claiming part of me, in one post you state that you see me as an agnostic, in another you make me doubt that again.



#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 September 2013 - 05:31 AM

For example: the hopping ranting atheist in the video claimed Hitler was a Christian but were his motives rooted in the teachings of Christ? You can say you believe anything you want but it doesn't always follow.

I'm aware of (some of) the propaganda he used to justify his actions. I do not believe anyone of us believes the same things he did.

 

Can you explain the term crypto-theist to me. I do not find a good explanation online and I am unable to reply to your claim of me being one. smile.png

 

The term “Crypto Theist”, as far as I can recall, was coined in either Greg Bahnsen’s formal debate “The Great God Debate” (with Atheist Apologist Gordon Stein), or his radio debate with Atheist apologist George Smith; in which, using his “Transcendental argument for the existence of God”, Bahnsen argued that atheist really DO know God (or know OF God), but they ignore, repress, or basically deny the existence of God. And as Adam points out, the Apostle Paul gave reference to this in his letter to the Romans back around 30 A.D. (?)

 

See more about Greg Bahnsen at: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Greg_Bahnsen (Links to debates are at the botom of the page)

See more about the “Transcendental Argument” at:

http://en.wikipedia....xistence_of_God


 



#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 September 2013 - 06:39 AM

...

4. Completely wrong comparison. A murder knows his victim exists, and wishes it otherwise. An atheist doesn't know God exists, and the term "atheist" doesn't claim intend whether an atheist should or should not wish that a God exists.

 

Actually, an atheist is someone that claims he knows that God does not exist. Otherwise he just would be an agnostic. I know from other debates that atheists like to blur the distinction between those two positions for some reasons. But they actually do have two different postulates:

1. Atheist: claims to believe/know that their is no God / are no Gods. 
2. Agnostic: claims he doesn't know whether there any God / gods. There is a beta position as well, which says that whether God exists isn't actually knowable.  



#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 September 2013 - 01:13 PM

Fjuri

When I was younger than you, I worked at a  very prestigious law firm. The partners had some very important and well known clients (corporations mostly). One major client was Honeywell/ ENIAC. The guys that were credited with the invention of the commonly used digital circuitry for the computer were affiliated with Honeywell.   The law firm I worked for represented Honeywell/ ENIAC in a case called, Honeywell/ ENIAC vs Sperry Rand.

 

The men credited with the invention of the first digital computer  were Prespert Eckher and John Maulchy. Had the firm won, these guys would have  benefitted from license fees for every computer legally made. That would have made them probably wealthier than Bill Gates.
 
Because of a time coponent and the fact that they built the computer for the Anerican Defense Department, the circuitry design (considered by the guys their "inrelectual property") was put into the pubic domain.

 

One day I came to work and was greeted by some posters of the Disney Company's intelectual property Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Snow White, Pinocho et al peforming acts which might normally result in the procreation of the species.

 

Snow White and Pinochio were in compromising positions and Snow White was  quoted as telling Pnochio  "Lie to me. Lie to me!" I will leave the rest to your imagionation.  The posters were funny but..

 

Obviously, The Disney Company did not appreciate the posters and considered them abuse of their "intellectual property." The guys that were printing the posters were making a small fortune. The posters were selling  very  well especially to college students.  Disney got a restraining order.

 

The company I worked for decided to represent the publishers of the posters. That's why I decided I did not want to be a lawyer.

 

 

Obviously, the Disney characters are "real." Millions of people enjoy them. In my mind it was wrong to "abuse" Disney's creation.  My point being, no one pickets Disney World claiming to be aMickey Mouse (that is to say there is no Mickey Mouse).

 

One of the things down played by evolution is  our mental life. Mickey Mouse exists in the mental life of Millions of people.  I respect that. Can you imagine anti-Mickey Mouse protesters outside of Disney World? I think they would be laughed to scorn. Can't you just hear them chanting;"Mickey Mouse does not exist! Mickey Mouse does not exist!..." lol smile.png

 

Consider God a Christian's and my personal "itellectual proerty." That makes our disagreement beteen you and me.

You are disrespecting my "intellectual property." If you don't respect  what I create--you don't respect me. It is difficult, if not impossible to be a friend with someone who acts in a disrespectful manner (a bully).

 

 

You mis-understood me if, you think I am tryng to convice you there is a God. I am honestlhy only trying to convice you there is a me.

 

 

In relationships compromises are the order of the day. We don't stop at a red light  because it is red but, because it symbolizes respect for another that "believes" (or has faith) he can "safely" proceed though an intersection because there has been a prior agreeent with others for him to do so when his light turns green.

 

 

I have compromised. I respect that you don't know whether there is a God external to your mind. To prove that He exists external to your mind  is a Job for the Being you think does not exist--not me. I have a hard enough time proving I exist to you.

 

I have compromised. I believe you are an agnostic. I have created respect for you and affection for you in my mind. That's the only place I believe I  can create it.  I do not know how to make that real to you. I would think the only way to benefit from that is to eventually developing trust (faith) in me (that I am your friend).

 

The question gets down to what two autonimous creators are going to create for each other? Right now you seem to think that your version of the truth is more important to you than me. I freely state  that you are more importan to me than my verion of the truth (my belief in an external God).  The Bible says (a credible source to me and probably not to you)  that if I want to be in good standing with God, I have to love and respect who He created (you--although I know you do not believe He created you--again I respect your created idea out of respect for you). That's what the term or word Christian means to me. It as no negative connotation.

 

Forgiveness was created by God because we are more imortant to Him than the "wrongs" (sin) we can do. So, what are you going to create for your brother(s)--me? Are you going to claim your version of the truth is more important than me?  It's either a bully or an equal. There is no me without you. I already believe you exist. So, whether you believe in me or not I will continue to believe in you and hope God will cconvince you to believe in me (us) someday. No you are not a PStryder. You are more reasonable. ;)



#35 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 14 September 2013 - 04:21 PM

I recently made a post with this video but wanted to make a thread about it too

 

Mod Edit: Video embed deleted for profanity per Youtube video Rule #2.

 

So for a group of people who are meant to be more logical / rational than most why does this guy act as he does?

 

Seems like an emotional outburst to me, perhaps that has something to do with the foundation of atheism being emotional rather than anything to do with logic, (consider there is no evidence for atheism, then how can one claim logic when there is no evidence for the position one holds?)

There are also examples of mantal anguish because of religious belief.  You can't just make generalizations about a whole group because of a few outliers.



#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 September 2013 - 07:52 PM

There are also examples of mantal anguish because of religious belief.  You can't just make generalizations about a whole group because of a few outliers.

 

Was I making generalisations about atheists? Perhaps you could point it out to me ;)



#37 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 September 2013 - 02:03 AM

The term “Crypto Theist”, as far as I can recall, was coined in either Greg Bahnsen’s formal debate “The Great God Debate” (with Atheist Apologist Gordon Stein), or his radio debate with Atheist apologist George Smith; in which, using his “Transcendental argument for the existence of God”, Bahnsen argued that atheist really DO know God (or know OF God), but they ignore, repress, or basically deny the existence of God. And as Adam points out, the Apostle Paul gave reference to this in his letter to the Romans back around 30 A.D. (?)

So as I understand Greg Bahnsen correctly, a Crypto-theist is a person who consciously does not believe in god, but subconsciously he does.

So even if an atheist knows God or knows of God, the repressing/ignoring/denying is a subconscious thing and he is not consciously aware of it. Thus allowing for the logical choice for test setting from my other post that strong evidence for God is required for us to be convinced of Him?

 

Actually, an atheist is someone that claims he knows that God does not exist. Otherwise he just would be an agnostic. I know from other debates that atheists like to blur the distinction between those two positions for some reasons. But they actually do have two different postulates:

1. Atheist: claims to believe/know that their is no God / are no Gods. 
2. Agnostic: claims he doesn't know whether there any God / gods. There is a beta position as well, which says that whether God exists isn't actually knowable.  

"Atheists like to blur the distinction between those two positions for some reasons." Can it be that the atheists actually know what they believe and the insistence of theist on defining the atheist position is actually a strawman? There are Young Earth, Old Earth, Yehovian, Orthodox, ... flavours within Christianity. Must every atheist have the same flavour? All Christians believe in God and Jesus. All atheists believe there is no God. Some claim that God cannot possibly exist, other claim "No God" is the default position and haven't been convinced otherwise.

 

One of the things down played by evolution is  our mental life. Mickey Mouse exists in the mental life of Millions of people.  I respect that. Can you imagine anti-Mickey Mouse protesters outside of Disney World? I think they would be laughed to scorn. Can't you just hear them chanting;"Mickey Mouse does not exist! Mickey Mouse does not exist!..." lol smile.png

 

Consider God a Christian's and my personal "itellectual proerty." That makes our disagreement beteen you and me.

You are disrespecting my "intellectual property." If you don't respect  what I create--you don't respect me. It is difficult, if not impossible to be a friend with someone who acts in a disrespectful manner (a bully).

 

 

You mis-understood me if, you think I am tryng to convice you there is a God. I am honestlhy only trying to convice you there is a me.

 

 

In relationships compromises are the order of the day. We don't stop at a red light  because it is red but, because it symbolizes respect for another that "believes" (or has faith) he can "safely" proceed though an intersection because there has been a prior agreeent with others for him to do so when his light turns green.

 

 

I have compromised. I respect that you don't know whether there is a God external to your mind. To prove that He exists external to your mind  is a Job for the Being you think does not exist--not me. I have a hard enough time proving I exist to you.

 

I have compromised. I believe you are an agnostic. I have created respect for you and affection for you in my mind. That's the only place I believe I  can create it.  I do not know how to make that real to you. I would think the only way to benefit from that is to eventually developing trust (faith) in me (that I am your friend).

 

The question gets down to what two autonimous creators are going to create for each other? Right now you seem to think that your version of the truth is more important to you than me. I freely state  that you are more importan to me than my verion of the truth (my belief in an external God).  The Bible says (a credible source to me and probably not to you)  that if I want to be in good standing with God, I have to love and respect who He created (you--although I know you do not believe He created you--again I respect your created idea out of respect for you). That's what the term or word Christian means to me. It as no negative connotation.

 

Forgiveness was created by God because we are more imortant to Him than the "wrongs" (sin) we can do. So, what are you going to create for your brother(s)--me? Are you going to claim your version of the truth is more important than me?  It's either a bully or an equal. There is no me without you. I already believe you exist. So, whether you believe in me or not I will continue to believe in you and hope God will cconvince you to believe in me (us) someday. No you are not a PStryder. You are more reasonable. wink.png

I have on multiple occasions admitted my respect for religions and religious people. I have admitted the logical conclusions and similarities between our faiths. These were my "compromises". Respect and equality you had from the beginning, you didn't have to earn it. You could lose it though. ;) Not believing the same as you is not the same as disrespecting your intellectual property.

However, my definition of what Atheism entails is part of my core knowledge and not so easily changed. I should not be more important to you then your version of the truth. Part of that version of the truth is defining who you are. Would I be more important then that, it would seem to imply you make me more important then you, which is wrong (imho).

Before I make myself too unclear: To me, I'm more important than you. To you, I expect yourself to be more important then me. That does not mean we cannot talk and interact as equals. You have idea's that are right and wrong, I have idea's that are right and wrong. We can both learn from each other if we are open to it. As I said before, if we do not focus on the issue about what we fundamentally different belief, but rather its consequences and different approaches to mutual problems we will understand each other and part ways as friends. (At least that's how I see it)

 

As Adam Nagy said:

Personally I prefer to discuss the worldview and what actions logically flow from it.



#38 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 September 2013 - 03:19 AM

Fjuri
Choose.  Bully or
equal?



#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 September 2013 - 04:45 AM

There are also examples of mantal anguish because of religious belief. You can't just make generalizations about a whole group because of a few outliers

A belief is a belief  Take  yes or no.  Trouble is some of our ideas can conflict with others we hold. we  can  also  believe  one idea stronger than another . Emotional  disturbance is thought  to be caused  by conflicts between personally held ideas. 

 

For example a car cuts you off and you say to yourself it shouldn't have happened. It could have caused an accident. The event itself did not cause your anger. It was the conflict in your mind  between two opposing ideas--what happened and what you think more strongly should not  have happened.  Once something happens it slips irretrievably  and unchangeably into the past. Anger is caused not by the event but your denial by an internal belief that the event should not have happened. Again, The anger was not caused by the external event  but by your conflicting ideas.--how strongly you deny the external reality. Nor coud it have caused an accident if it didn't.

 

Basically you have to lie to yourself to cause anger.



#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2013 - 05:29 AM

As Adam Nagy said:

Personally I prefer to discuss the worldview and what actions logically flow from it.

 

Like killing the genetically inferior due to evolutionary beliefs? ;) gotcha.gif






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users