It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

page: 18
19
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn

originally posted by: rom12345
a reply to: gosseyn
Colors do exist outside our brains, in the form of light frequency, which is an apt analogy.
It could be argued that our entire conscious experience is a flawed hallucination.
Perhaps the finest of these is that of God. If we could prove the non existence of God, we would also in a way prove that we do not exists.
But we know we do.
Many people have a beef with God, and so exhaust their powers of deduction to prove he is not real.
In my view, this is not needed.
We should not seek to blame God for the gift of physics.
In this world you can only very seldom think/pray your way out of blunt force trauma.
Much of the suffering, people seek to blame God for, it the product of "Man" in a fallen state.
God is not in the business of preventing it, in fact, I believe the plan to be, that we though our own will, refrain from causing suffering. Which is a very big ask, when we often are unaware of consequences of our actions.

Those who do not hold God above their own reason frankly scare the hell out of me.

If we concede that our brains are indeed full of fiction, what do we do with that ?

We could certainly produce a nihilistic philosophy, but some prefer to have faith.
Real or not, having faith that there is meaning, is what brings hope, which produces the stability of mind to not either commit atrocity or suicide.


No, colors don't exist outside of our brain.

A 700nm wavelength does not equal red. The red experience only exists inside of our brain. Just like coffee doesn't "smell coffee". There is no intrinsic "red quality" to a 700nm photon wavelength, it's only inside our brain, it is the way our brain translates reality. We are able to tell if the eyes of a dog or a cat are able to catch this or that wavelength, but we have no way of knowing if they experience "red" with a 700nm wavelength just like the majority of humans. In fact, science is unable to tell us what is exactly happening when we experience the red or the yellow color, or a smell, or a sound, it is even literally called The hard problem of consciousness.


How we perceive a physical property is not a qualifying factor in how that property is measured and recorded. It is a fascinating exercise in human neurology but irrelevant to chemical composition and relationship with physics.




posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I am not sure I understand what you wanted to say here. Do you want to say that it's like an infrared camera ? Our eyes are unable to catch the wavelength that correspond to what we call infrared, so we have built cameras that can catch infrared. But since our eyes are unable to catch those wavelength, it would be useless to build a screen that can emit infrared light to let us see what the camera has caught. So, what we do is we translate the infrared information to something we can see, usually warm is red and cold is blue(because fire is usually red and ice is usually light blue). What we see is not the reality as it really happens, but a translated view of what happens. There are cameras that chose another translation, like black and white(warm is white and cold is black)..



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 06:28 AM
link   
When life plays out,
the story is both ancient and familiar,
If only we had listened.
If only pride did not interfere.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

but you are wrong , we know they experience a spectrum of blue and yellow because of the numbers of cones they have which allow them to see colours , in the case of dogs they have two cones compared to the three we humans have . We also know they see colour because of the way the eye is constructed among animals .
The eye being made up of rods and cones, the cones allow us to see colour and the same cones are present in most animals
however dogs lack the cone that defines red and green
the way eyes process visual information and send signals to the brain comes from light passing through the eye and being processed by the brain

its the cones that transfer visual information into colour , your consciousness doesn't really have any affect on the processing of this information , its an automatic process carried out by the eye and brain.

Unless of course you have some abnormality with your visual cortex then I doubt your consciousness has an affect directly on your vision and perception of colour .

I think there is a misunderstanding , the Shrimp cant see colours we cant , it can see hues of colours that we cant differentiate between through the wavelengths of the spectrum of light

All the colours are contained within the spectrum of light, its just that shrimp has 12 cones instead of the human 3 and can differentiate between closer wavelengths between colours meaning it has more hues of colours
not colours that humans haven't seen before .

Anything outside of the visible spectrum is beyond our understanding in terms of visibility of colour
Gamma rays for example have no colour




edit on 7-2-2020 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn

but you are wrong , we know they experience a spectrum of blue and yellow because of the numbers of cones they have which allow them to see colours , in the case of dogs they have two cones compared to the three we humans have . We also know they see colour because of the way the eye is constructed among animals .
The eye being made up of rods and cones, the cones allow us to see colour and the same cones are present in most animals
however dogs lack the cone that defines red and green
the way eyes process visual information and send signals to the brain comes from light passing through the eye and being processed by the brain

its the cones that transfer visual information into colour , your consciousness doesn't really have any affect on the processing of this information , its an automatic process carried out by the eye and brain.

Unless of course you have some abnormality with your visual cortex then I doubt your consciousness has an affect directly on your vision and perception of colour .

I think there is a misunderstanding , the Shrimp cant see colours we cant , it can see hues of colours that we cant differentiate between through the wavelengths of the spectrum of light

All the colours are contained within the spectrum of light, its just that shrimp has 12 cones instead of the human 3 and can differentiate between closer wavelengths between colours meaning it has more hues of colours
not colours that humans haven't seen before .





It's not the eyes that see, it's the brain. The eyes are just receptors, and we have no idea how their brain chose to interpret the data sent by the eyes. It's the brain that constructs the image, not the eyes. You seem to believe that colors are hard coded into photons, it's not the case. Photons are just photons, and they vibrate at certain speeds, that's all they do. There is no color information integrated into photons. There is not a red photon and a blue photon and a green photon. A given eye is able to catch photons vibrating at certain speeds, then sends that information to the brain. What the brain does with that data, we don't know. As humans, because we are the same species and we have the same brain functions, we are able to discuss about red, and green, and blue. But we have no idea how a dog's brain interprets the same data. So when you say a dog is able to see blue and yellow, that's wrong. What you can say is that their eyes are able to catch this or that photon speed, and that's all we know. It is again the hard problem of consciousness. We don't know what happens, we don't know how and why data about vibrating photons turns into a conscious experience we call red and blue and green. So to assume that a dog or a cat can "see red or blue or green" is fundamentally wrong.

I talked above about the example of an infrared camera. It is an analogy to show that data can be interpreted in many different ways.

Again, there is no intrinsic color information attached to photons. If you think that's the case, then tell me how.
edit on 7-2-2020 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

clearly you just ignored the part that I said its the cones that change photons of light into colour information
the brain then reassembles that electronic signal into images in the visual cortex
that is how the eye works, the EYE changes the light photons into its respective colours based on the wavelengths being reflected into the eye picked uyp by the three types of Cones, the short wave , medium wave and long wave , each differentiates a different colour range along the visible spectrum.
Consciousness has no affect on the colour detected by your eyes

this was discovered by russian scientist who discovered dogs have two cones instead of three
meaning they can only process light into blue and yellow spectrum as they lack the cones that work for green or red

Cones

Light photons, or white light , contains the entire visible spectrum we see with our eyes
depending on the energy of the photon will determine its wavelength and corresponding colour .


You can interpret infra red in many ways sure, but its not visible light to the human eye

It is not fundamentally wrong , its a fact that we experience colours becayse the properties of the human eye are the same across the species , unless you have a visual impairment such as Dichromes , or trichromes or any other form of colour blindness

we know exactly why we see light in various colours and its objective emperical evidence that proved this
light photons are emitted with varying energy which then dictates its wavelength and its colour on the spectrum.

These arent subjective states they are objective.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 10:21 AM
link   
the study conducted which then showed dogs have two cones and can see in colour

Colour cues proved to be more informative for dogs than brightness



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: gosseyn


Consciousness has no affect on the colour detected by your eyes


You clearly don't understand.

The eyes don't detect colors, they detect light wavelengths, they detect photons vibrating at certain speeds. This information is sent to the brain, then the brain constructs an image based on this data. How exactly the brain does that ? It is a mystery for now. The brain creates arbitrary sensations that we call red, blue and yellow, etc. based on these different wavelengths. These sensations that we call colors only exist in our brain, our human brain.

I try to keep it simple and short.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I find it truly amazing that we interpret harmonious colors and sound as beauty. There is an arrangement of this already present for us to appreciate.
edit on 00000021205212America/Chicago07 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345
I find it truly amazing that we interpret harmonious colors and sound as beauty. There is an arrangement of this already present for us to appreciate.


It is such a fine-tuned system it is beyond the capabilities of random chance. Within the precise 400nm spectrum of visible light exists all sightliness of visible objects. All objects, with maybe some exceptions, reflect a particular frequency within this small spectrum to allow them to be visible.

Again bringing forth the analogy that retina, optic nerve, and visual cortex coming to be at random would be like a camera being invented by a gorilla. We have to forfeit the idea of meaninglessness due to the fact that the system is so purposefully contrived to have living beings inhabit it with seamless precision.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: rom12345
I find it truly amazing that we interpret harmonious colors and sound as beauty. There is an arrangement of this already present for us to appreciate.


It is such a fine-tuned system it is beyond the capabilities of random chance. Within the precise 400nm spectrum of visible light exists all sightliness of visible objects. All objects, with maybe some exceptions, reflect a particular frequency within this small spectrum to allow them to be visible.

Again bringing forth the analogy that retina, optic nerve, and visual cortex coming to be at random would be like a camera being invented by a gorilla. We have to forfeit the idea of meaninglessness due to the fact that the system is so purposefully contrived to have living beings inhabit it with seamless precision.


Well then if it's the work of an intelligent entity, it's bad work. Why does the eye age so fast and we need glasses after some decades ? Why aren't we able to see all light, but just a tiny part of it ? Why is the eye so fragile in general ?

But if you don't explain things with the theory of evolution, how do you explain things ? And why can't you just tell yourself that evolution is exactly the tool that this intelligent entity has conceived to produce us ? Why do you need to deny evolution so hardly ?
edit on 7-2-2020 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn


I am not sure I understand what you wanted to say here. Do you want to say that it's like an infrared camera ? Our eyes are unable to catch the wavelength that correspond to what we call infrared, so we have built cameras that can catch infrared. But since our eyes are unable to catch those wavelength, it would be useless to build a screen that can emit infrared light to let us see what the camera has caught. So, what we do is we translate the infrared information to something we can see, usually warm is red and cold is blue(because fire is usually red and ice is usually light blue). What we see is not the reality as it really happens, but a translated view of what happens. There are cameras that chose another translation, like black and white(warm is white and cold is black)..


That's another way to say it. My point is that just because there is a plethora of information that escapes our direct senses, does not mean it is beyond our ability to detect and measure that information using sufficient translation devices. The alternative is that we can't trust any form of methodological investigation because ultimately we rely on our senses to conduct such efforts.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: rom12345
I find it truly amazing that we interpret harmonious colors and sound as beauty. There is an arrangement of this already present for us to appreciate.


It is such a fine-tuned system it is beyond the capabilities of random chance. Within the precise 400nm spectrum of visible light exists all sightliness of visible objects. All objects, with maybe some exceptions, reflect a particular frequency within this small spectrum to allow them to be visible.

Again bringing forth the analogy that retina, optic nerve, and visual cortex coming to be at random would be like a camera being invented by a gorilla. We have to forfeit the idea of meaninglessness due to the fact that the system is so purposefully contrived to have living beings inhabit it with seamless precision.


You are the only one translating having "no god" as having "no meaning". Insisting that we must choose between god or nihilism is malarkey.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn
I totally agree that evolution is the tool of the material world.
Living entities however emerge as separated fragments of something that is not evolving.
Evolution seems to go from a disordered state toward this ordered something.
Life seems to continuously try to defy death, and it evolves.
Perhaps not an orthodox view, but I see no contradictions that would eliminate what is perceived of as God
If evolution is true, which seem very possible, then it is God's work.
If it is false, at this stage of the game, where all trapped in a wicked illusion.

After a while this is a semantic argument.
To capitalize or not to capitalize,
is that the question ?
I use the capital G as a pronoun in the 0th person.
edit on 0000002011721America/Chicago07 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn

Well then if it's the work of an intelligent entity, it's bad work. Why does the eye age so fast and we need glasses after some decades ?


Eyes can last for over 100 years. Do you know any Nikon cameras that can work continually for over 100 years?



Why aren't we able to see all light, but just a tiny part of it ?


We see exactly what we need to see.



But if you don't explain things with the theory of evolution, how do you explain things ?


Consciousness as the primordial cause of things, Creator of matter. As per the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics


And why can't you just tell yourself that evolution is exactly the tool that this intelligent entity has conceived to produce us ? Why do you need to deny evolution so hardly ?


Because it's not based in empirical evidence. Despite millions of generations of fruit flies and mice in the lab we have not observed one instance of an organism gradually evolving into another organism. It relies on random chance and not purposeful intelligent intention. The intelligence in the system is most evident by the immense complexity involved with biological and cosmological systems.
edit on 7-2-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345


Evolution seems to go from a disordered state toward this ordered something.
Life seems to continuously try to defy death, and it evolves.


Yes and no.


1. Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse
When: 305 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 10 % of all species on the planet

2. The Lau Event
When: 424 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 30 % of all species on the planet

3. Cambrian-Ordovician Extinction Event
When: 488 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 40 % of all species on the planet

4. End-Ediacaran Extinction Event
When: 542 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 50 %+ of all species on the planet

5. Ordovician-Silurian Extinction
When: 443 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 60 % to 80% of all species on the planet

6. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction
When: 199-215 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 65 % to 80% of all species on the planet

7. Late Devonian Extinction
When: 375-360 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 70 to 75 % of all species on the planet

8. Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction
When: 65 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 75% of all species on the planet

9. Permian-Triassic Extinction
When: 252 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 90-95 % of all species on the planet


The Carboniferous rainforest collapse (CRC) was a minor extinction event that occurred around 305 million years ago in the Carboniferous period. It altered the vast coal forests that covered the equatorial region of Euramerica (Europe and America). This event may have fragmented the forests into isolated 'islands', which in turn caused dwarfism and, shortly after, extinction of many plant and animal species. Following the event, coal-forming tropical forests continued in large areas of the Earth, but their extent and composition were changed.

The Lau event was the last of three relatively minor mass extinctions (the Ireviken, Mulde, and Lau events) during the Silurian period. It had a major effect on the conodont fauna, but barely scathed the graptolites. It coincided with a global low point in sea level, is closely followed by an excursion in geochemical isotopes in the ensuing late Ludfordian faunal stage and a change in depositional regime

The Cambrian–Ordovician extinction event occurred approximately 488 million years ago (m.y.a.). This early Phanerozoic Eon extinction event eliminated many brachiopods and conodonts, and severely reduced the number of trilobite species. The Period in the Cambrian extinction in which most of the extinction occurred was the Caerfai Period. It was preceded by the less-documented (but probably more extensive) End-Botomian extinction event around 517 million years ago and the Dresbachian extinction event about 502 million years ago.

The Late Devonian extinction was one of five major extinction events in the history of life on Earth. A major extinction, the Kellwasser event, occurred at the boundary that marks the beginning of the last phase of the Devonian period, the Famennian faunal stage (the Frasnian–Famennian boundary), about 376–360 million years ago. Overall, 19% of all families and 50% of all genera became extinct. A second, distinct mass extinction, the Hangenberg event, closed the Devonian period.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, also known as the P–Tr extinction, the P–T extinction, the End-Permian Extinction, and colloquially as the Great Dying, formed the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, approximately 252 million years ago. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It was the largest known mass extinction of insects. Some 57% of all biological families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of land-dwelling life took significantly longer than after any other extinction event, possibly up to 10 million years.


Evolution is not a clear cut process, but a cut throat competition depending heavily on circumstance and genetic lottery.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
1. Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse
When: 305 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 10 % of all species on the planet

2. The Lau Event
When: 424 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 30 % of all species on the planet

3. Cambrian-Ordovician Extinction Event
When: 488 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 40 % of all species on the planet

4. End-Ediacaran Extinction Event
When: 542 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 50 %+ of all species on the planet

5. Ordovician-Silurian Extinction
When: 443 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 60 % to 80% of all species on the planet

6. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction
When: 199-215 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 65 % to 80% of all species on the planet

7. Late Devonian Extinction
When: 375-360 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 70 to 75 % of all species on the planet

8. Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction
When: 65 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 75% of all species on the planet

9. Permian-Triassic Extinction
When: 252 Million Years Ago
Death Toll Estimate: 90-95 % of all species on the planet


What's the empirical evidence for any of this? You can't just post this stuff without observable explanation. Might as well be saying "God did it".



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Wikipedia has a comprehensive bibliography for each of the events listed.
edit on 7-2-2020 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton


Eyes can last for over 100 years. Do you know any Nikon cameras that can work continually for over 100 years?


That's the weakest argument against evolution I have ever heard.

But you are like the puddle of water in the story of the puddle of water :

A puddle of water says to itself "this hole in the ground espouses my shapes so perfectly, it's as if this hole was made for me by an intelligent designer !", but what the puddle of water doesn't realize is that it is the puddle of water that espouses the shape of the hole in the ground, not the other way around. In other words, if you find that this world is too perfect to be true, it's just that we have evolved to be adapted to it after many trials and errors.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn

That's the weakest argument against evolution I have ever heard.

But you are like the puddle of water in the story of the puddle of water :

A puddle of water says to itself "this hole in the ground espouses my shapes so perfectly, it's as if this hole was made for me by an intelligent designer !", but what the puddle of water doesn't realize is that it is the puddle of water that espouses the shape of the hole in the ground, not the other way around. In other words, if you find that this world is too perfect to be true, it's just that we have evolved to be adapted to it after many trials and errors.


Puddles can form by random chance. Complex biological organs cannot.

The human heart can pump non-stop for over 100 years. No known human-made pump can compare. It is also self-repairing which can not be matched by even the best human engineering.

The lungs are an ideal gas-exchange medium that filters itself and can also last for over 100 years. It selectively intakes necessary molecules, while filtering out undesirable chemicals that will be coughed out or handled by the liver.

Veins and arteries are like a mega highway with over 60,000 miles of length. Each human's circulatory system could therefore wrap around the earth more than 2 times. These ensure that all parts of the body get proper sustenance. They are also self repairing. Much better than any highway work I have ever seen conducted by intelligent human beings.

So how exactly do you suppose the human vessel is equatable to a puddle?


originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Wikipedia has a comprehensive bibliography for each of the events listed.


Which you believe blindly. Can you explain in your own words the specific observable evidence that conclusively proves those assertions? They are bold assertions which require extensive evidence.
edit on 7-2-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join