Christian (especially Catholic and Orthodox) do you believe in the real presense?

[rangrz]

By definition, 3.5 billion people on Earth are of below average I.Q.

...

 

[Portillo]

Actually, ants in a glass farm can rudimentarily detect and respond to perturbations coming from outside the farm, and can coordinate their behavior accordingly. In other words, in their own little ant way, they can 'see' (or at least 'perceive' in some way) their human overlords. Also, I feel compelled to remind you that ant farms are made of glass - so naturally, the ants can literally see us with ease one way or the other.

Im sure theres at least one ant out there who thinks that nothing exists outside of his little world. Much like many humans.

 

[KamMoye]

Infracted!

 

[P A]

Im sure theres at least one ant out there who thinks that nothing exists outside of his little world. Much like many humans.

Well, okay, I guess. But, as I explained, your analogy sucks no matter which way you try to slice it. Ants can (in)directly detect and effectively respond to the presence/actions of their 'gods.' By definition, humans are incapable of such interaction with their purported overlord(s), at least most of the time, in most (if not all) prominent world religions.

 

[panic in paradise]

By definition, 3.5 billion people on Earth are of below average I.Q.

...

know how to keep a nations IQ as low as possible?

answer everything for them.

 

[Lysdexic]

Look what we have here, another atheist who gets angry at a God he doesnt believe exists.

Not mad at all - more bemused by what appears to me to be delusional people.

God is a role playing game with the silliest set of rules I've ever seen.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

Or is it getting mad at an empirically observed human being who is stupid and delusional.

I'll take a stupid and delusional man who acts with kindness and charity over some hyper-rational, amoral asshole any day of the week. But hey, I think the quality of a man's life is important, and demanding perfect adherence to any system (including one that is demonstrably true and of high utility) is a fool's errand.

I've never met such a person.

Head on over to PD sometime.

A sense of community, of belonging; perceived redemption for past misdeeds through vindication in the name of a higher cause; etc

Yeah, but the mental health system isn't 100% effective, and you can't force this one someone. Especially some misanthrope who has come to identify so closely with their alienation, and rejects most of society's values. They're not going to be cooperative, and even if they try to do it, their efforts invariably fail because they can't relate to the people around them, and find so many things about them to be the personification of the abstractions they hate. Later on, even if it doesn't work out perfectly, they become theistic and take up religious activity and charity over their previous nihilism, thievery, and suicidal tendencies (perhaps their mind just broke from it all). Was losing part of their critical thinking capacity (due to adopting some incorrect axioms) really that bad compared to the gains of approaching, and reacting to, the world in healthier way?

should be abandoned

We're not talking about 'should', it's not like one can simply decide to do this. It's something that happens (and the reverse happens too, but there's a 0% chance of you finding that development problematic) in the real world.

 

[P A]

I'll take a stupid and delusional man who acts with kindness and charity over some hyper-rational, amoral asshole any day of the week.

I hate to break it to you, but more self-professedly religious people have killed explicitly in the name of their own 'delusional' systems of belief than have any rationalists known to human history. And you can spare me the "but Mal-Pol Pot-Stalin-Hitler" line - nothing in the way of rational discourse steered them toward the perpetration of mass terror - rather, the obvious culprit was their monomaniacal devotion to poorly substantiated, abstruse ideas (sound familiar?), with perhaps a little good-old-fashioned racism/nationalism and paranoia to boot.

Was losing part of their critical thinking capacity (due to adopting some incorrect axioms) really that bad compared to the gains of approaching, and reacting to, the world in healthier way?

As I've made clear in other threads, I'm of the opinion that this sort of twisted logic reveals a profound degree of cynicism and smacks far more of a conniving snake-oil huckster than a true seeker or a humanitarian ethicist. "The schmucks bought it, even though they couldn't tell the difference between the fantasy and the real thing! But, hey, it made them feel better, so what's the difference, right?"

Yeah, but the mental health system isn't 100% effective, and you can't force this one someone.

As opposed to, say, homeopathy or faith healing, which are 0% effective, right? Am I missing something, or did your post completely skirt around the issue raised immediately prior to the sentence you quoted re. the perceived similarity of mechanism between religious devotion and fascism wrt to mental health? Ends don't usually justify means by default, especially not when it comes to deliberately misleading someone for their own (perceived) benefit [see above]. But that's a fundamental difference between you and me that we are unlikely to resolve: I don't believe that dispensing snake-oil of any kind is to be socially condoned until it is made clear by what mechanism(s) it purports to be effective, the specific indications for which it is intended, and, most importantly, the actual ingredients that comprise its 'special formula.' It's not just a matter of principle - it's a matter of fact that deliberately misleading people (also known as lying) for the common good is - in the absence of immediate danger [see brackets below] - generally regarded as vile behavior, no matter what the imagined positive consequences may be. It amounts to a colossal breach of implicit trust; it is, in a word, a cheat.

[This maxim is, of course, not applicable in the case of, say, a would-be axe-murderer who would like to know someone's address - that's a completely different matter, morally and otherwise]

 

[panic in paradise]

isnt this a "spirituality" forum too? it seems posting about spirituality in here is only to be meet with 'tit for tat'.

and as far as philosophy, this place has become a joke for such discussion as well.

 

[P A]

As always, thank you for sharing your valued opinion, PiP.

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

and as far as philosophy, this place has become a joke for such discussion as well.

Start a discussion; lets have a debate!

 

[panic in paradise]

Start a discussion; lets have a debate!

that would be too easy.

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

It would - It's almost 2 am here: so I'm not really in the mood anyway!

 

[rangrz]

I'll take a stupid and delusional man who acts with kindness and charity over some hyper-rational, amoral asshole any day of the week. But hey, I think the quality of a man's life is important, and demanding perfect adherence to any system (including one that is demonstrably true and of high utility) is a fool's errand.

What is hyper rational? Either something is rational or not.

Nor does being rational imply amoral.

 

[Portillo]

I hate to break it to you, but more self-professedly religious people have killed explicitly in the name of their own 'delusional' systems of belief than have any rationalists known to human history. And you can spare me the "but Mal-Pol Pot-Stalin-Hitler" line - nothing in the way of rational discourse steered them toward the perpetration of mass terror - rather, the obvious culprit was their monomaniacal devotion to poorly substantiated, abstruse ideas (sound familiar?), with perhaps a little good-old-fashioned racism/nationalism and paranoia to boot.

Violence in the name of religion is exaggerated. The Inquisition killed 2000 people over a period of 400 years, the Salem witch trials killed 19. Horrible crimes yes, but not world historical crimes against humanity like they are portrayed in popular atheist books. Communism killed over 120 million, yet alot of people probably think its cool to be a communist.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I hate to break it to you, but more self-professedly religious people have killed explicitly in the name of their own 'delusional' systems of belief than have any rationalists known to human history. And you can spare me the "but Mal-Pol Pot-Stalin-Hitler" line - nothing in the way of rational discourse steered them toward the perpetration of mass terror - rather, the obvious culprit was their monomaniacal devotion to poorly substantiated, abstruse ideas (sound familiar?), with perhaps a little good-old-fashioned racism/nationalism and paranoia to boot.

That was a snipe at the sociopathy/4chan etiquette displayed in rangrz posts . Stop trying to turn everything I say into some cartoonish abstraction.

My scenario was not an abstraction. It was a case history of a living person, in the real world. There was no deliberate misleading of any one at any point either.


I had a point by point thing written up, but it's not worth it. Attempting communication with you is frustrating, and I'm not sure it's good for me. I assume you're a well meaning dude, and it's a case of you being unable to address what folks actually say, rather than being unwilling. So good luck to you.

Oh, and I don't wanna dodge your question, I'd think it ludicrous to claim that no man has ever received a psychological boon from becoming a fascist. I do not think that feeling better exonerates any activity they take because of their fascism, their behavior should still be measured by the same moral metric as anyone else.

What is hyper rational? Either something is rational or not.

I meant to say that there are some realms of human activity, such as interpresonal relationships, where it is appropriate to use emotion and intuition (i.e. the mechanisms built into our mind to handle just these situations), rather than respond how an aspie, or smart-person-straw-man (see small screen portrayals of "intellectuals" like Spock, House, Doc Martin, Bones, whatever the characters names are in Big Bang Theory, etc.) would respond. The latter making up the "hyper-rational." I may have made a semantic error in choosing that terminology, suggest a better turn of phrase if you'd like. I'd rather not dwell on it though.

 

[panic in paradise]

"hyper rational" is "overly cautious'', or so responsible and logical as far as what is socially expected, that ones personal equivalence stands no chance of being discovered; otherwise you might be labeled insane. legally, though, insane is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results; which is what we seem to be doing as humanity.

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”
― Stephen Hawking

 

[Mu-ham-mad]

Perhaps it is imagined (what isn't?!) but I see a definite trend in the fact that a Christian seeks discussion with those of an anti-Christian persuasion. The duality of good and bad; right and wrong ethics are clearly displayed, I feel. [But perhaps it is imagined; I've imagined some very strange things in the past few minutes!]

 

[rangrz]

NKB:I'm not as much of a sociopath as you may think. But ah well, many people get the wrong impression of me.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I admit, "as much of a sociopath" got a chuckle out of me. Don't worry, I would never accuse of being a kind, sensitive man, or or anything like that. Shall I call you a man who does not deviate from standard behavioral acceptability thresholds for members of secular society, but in no way attempts to exceed the minimum when they coincide with what Nietzsche called slave morality?

(Bit rusty on my Nietzsche, but I think what I said works.)