Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 16:16:30 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 16:16:30 GMT
Everyone is a skeptic until it happens to you. Until what happens to you? Credulity?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 16:42:31 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 16:42:31 GMT
BTW, "As above, so below" is a dogmatic statement which depends on faith, not reason. I use both Faith plus reason = faith. People commonly try to rationalize their faith.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 0:08:38 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 25, 2014 0:08:38 GMT
I have no choice then. Its obvious these "spiritualists" are deluded, and this insatiable mental disorder should be treated immediately. Lobotomy yes? As results vary with drugs. We'd better get started... there is MUCH work to do. Should I grab cross to burn on the way there?
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 3:16:50 GMT
Post by peter2 on Feb 25, 2014 3:16:50 GMT
Fortunately DSM-V has various categories that allow pharmaceutical treatment of your condition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5 V62.89 (Z65.8) Religious or Spiritual Problem This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is a religious or spiritual problem. Examples include distressing experiences that involve loss or questioning of faith, problems associated with conversion to a new faith, or questioning of spiritual values that may not necessarily be related to an organized church or religious institution. And if client objects to being treated that is another mental disorder (but not of the doctor) V15.81 (Z91.19) Nonadherence to Medical Treatment This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is nonadherence to an important aspect of treatment for a mental disorder or another medical condition. Reason for such nonadherence may include discomfort resulting from treatment (e.g., medication side effects), expense of treatment, personal value judgments or religious or cultural beliefs about the proposed treatment, age-related debility, and the presence of a mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, personality disorder). This category should be used only when the problem is sufficiently severe to warrant independent clinical attention and does not meet diagnostic criteria for psychological factors affecting other medical conditions. And if all else fails there is :Unspecified Mental Disorder 300.9 (F99)
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 4:15:23 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 25, 2014 4:15:23 GMT
Fortunately DSM-V has various categories that allow pharmaceutical treatment of your condition. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5 V62.89 (Z65.8) Religious or Spiritual Problem This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is a religious or spiritual problem. Examples include distressing experiences that involve loss or questioning of faith, problems associated with conversion to a new faith, or questioning of spiritual values that may not necessarily be related to an organized church or religious institution. And if client objects to being treated that is another mental disorder (but not of the doctor) V15.81 (Z91.19) Nonadherence to Medical Treatment This category can be used when the focus of clinical attention is nonadherence to an important aspect of treatment for a mental disorder or another medical condition. Reason for such nonadherence may include discomfort resulting from treatment (e.g., medication side effects), expense of treatment, personal value judgments or religious or cultural beliefs about the proposed treatment, age-related debility, and the presence of a mental disorder (e.g., schizophrenia, personality disorder). This category should be used only when the problem is sufficiently severe to warrant independent clinical attention and does not meet diagnostic criteria for psychological factors affecting other medical conditions. And if all else fails there is :Unspecified Mental Disorder 300.9 (F99) True salvation! HAHA Seriously though... That's scary.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 7:07:25 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 25, 2014 7:07:25 GMT
I have no choice then. Its obvious these "spiritualists" are deluded, and this insatiable mental disorder should be treated immediately. Lobotomy yes? As results vary with drugs. We'd better get started... there is MUCH work to do. Should I grab cross to burn on the way there? I once wrote that anybody who believes the world is only 6,000 years old is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked ... I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself
Richard Dawkins The same allowance may be extended to the wider issue.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 13:53:10 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 25, 2014 13:53:10 GMT
I have no choice then. Its obvious these "spiritualists" are deluded, and this insatiable mental disorder should be treated immediately. Lobotomy yes? As results vary with drugs. We'd better get started... there is MUCH work to do. Should I grab cross to burn on the way there? I once wrote that anybody who believes the world is only 6,000 years old is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked ... I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself
Richard Dawkins The same allowance may be extended to the wider issue. I use both equally. Granted this was a long hard road for me to get up, but these thoughts aren't widely accepted and as you are quoting its a fight the whole way. The reasons it was hard for me wasn't because one is this, and the other is that. It was simply not big enough to have a ton of people help me up those steps. I was lucky to find this website and many others I talk on daily to discuss such things. Things are changing though, and scholarly fields are looking at spiritual ones for answers and vice versa. This aspect is even reaching certain studies of science and physics in school. I recall a teacher had his students write an essay about hell asking: is it exothermic or endothermic? With the right motivation and a open enough mind we can discover many things previously impossible, as we no longer face the gallows to think (mostly). Here is the winning student of that project.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 20:32:31 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 25, 2014 20:32:31 GMT
I once wrote that anybody who believes the world is only 6,000 years old is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked ... I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself
Richard Dawkins The same allowance may be extended to the wider issue. I use both equally. Both what?
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 21:08:18 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 25, 2014 21:08:18 GMT
Sciences and spirituality.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 22:05:10 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 25, 2014 22:05:10 GMT
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 25, 2014 23:08:07 GMT
Post by peter2 on Feb 25, 2014 23:08:07 GMT
It is perhaps worth separating science into a spectrum of subject matter such as:
- materialistic science - science of non-material energies e.g. quantum foam (a modern term for aether) - science of consciousness - science of life.
Thus it may be seen that religion, in its philosophical sense, is an initial addressing of the more subtle sciences.
Then we may consider that those that believe only in materialistic science are thereby required to reject the subject matter that engages philosophical religion and the more subtle sciences.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 0:30:59 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2014 0:30:59 GMT
... those that believe only in materialistic science ... Such as? I fear you may be setting up a straw man.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 0:55:47 GMT
Post by peter2 on Feb 26, 2014 0:55:47 GMT
... those that believe only in materialistic science ... Such as? I fear you may be setting up a straw man. Do you then make the counter proposition that no human believes only in material existence? One of the corollaries of belief only in materialistic science is that material substances are a proper means for treating humans suffering from spiritual difficulties.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 1:04:17 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2014 1:04:17 GMT
Such as? I fear you may be setting up a straw man. Do you then make the counter proposition that no human believes only in material existence? My question stands: "Such as?" What humans are you talking about? Give a real and specific example so as we can be clear as to whose and what opinions we are dealing.
Let us be well assured of the matter of fact, before we trouble ourselves with enquiring into the cause
Bernard Fontenelle
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 1:39:49 GMT
Post by peter2 on Feb 26, 2014 1:39:49 GMT
The materialists I have tested personally for their beliefs would wish to maintain their privacy.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 3:47:39 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2014 3:47:39 GMT
The materialists I have tested personally for their beliefs would wish to maintain their privacy. I was not asking you to breach a confidence. Putting aside the reality, let alone the value or otherwise, of your "testing," are there none that believe only in "materialistic science" that you can identify in the public domain?
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 5:37:38 GMT
Post by peter2 on Feb 26, 2014 5:37:38 GMT
The thread was intended as a philosophical discussion. Why was that so difficult?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 6:07:58 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 26, 2014 6:07:58 GMT
The thread was intended as a philosophical discussion. Why was that so difficult? Not difficult at all, as I see it. We have been discussing the three major branches of Philosophy — Epistemology, Logic and Metaphysics.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 6:17:52 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 26, 2014 6:17:52 GMT
The thread was intended as a philosophical discussion. Why was that so difficult? Not difficult at all, as I see it. We have been discussing the three major branches of Philosophy — Epistemology, Logic and Metaphysics. Of course leaving out paranormal and parapsychology views which was the topic at hand. So far you have only discussed how a spiritual perspective is a delusional one. No loss to me other then the time as I have found my beleif, but it is a lot more of a loss for you.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 26, 2014 6:20:02 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 26, 2014 6:20:02 GMT
Put simply. You cant see what's at the top, If you don't climb the ladder.
|
|