Could the belief in god considered a mental illness ?

a reply to: cooperton

Puddles form by random chance

Well obviously they are angels hiding in plain sight, much like pigeons and those pocket mints no one actually remembers picking up.

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.

Can you explain in your own words why I should? Or do you just blindly believe that my refusal to provide such evidence is proof that the quoted content and accompanying links are worthless?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Well obviously they are angels hiding in plain sight, much like pigeons and those pocket mints no one actually remembers picking up.

Stop avoiding the question. What is the evidence to show any of those million-year-old dates? The burden of proof is on you.

Regardless, here's the evidence I compiled that proves otherwise, and shows, for example, that dinosaurs lived alongside humans, which disproves all of those million-year-old dates:

Evidence for co-existence of humans and dinosaurs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Well obviously they are angels hiding in plain sight, much like pigeons and those pocket mints no one actually remembers picking up.

Stop avoiding the question. What is the evidence to show any of those million-year-old dates? The burden of proof is on you.

Regardless, here's the evidence I compiled that proves otherwise, and shows, for example, that dinosaurs lived alongside humans, which disproves all of those million-year-old dates:

Evidence for co-existence of humans and dinosaurs

"the burden of proof is on you"

is internet code for

"I cant actually find any concrete discrepancies in the data that I didn't bother to study before I challenged your submission"

Your collection of "evidence" is an art gallery made by early humans who perhaps encountered large reptiles, close descendants of jurassic species that were on the verge of total extinction and may have survived to today. It has nothing to do with a higher power or some intelligent cosmic agency. Drawing any correlation based on those images would be premature to say the least.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

"the burden of proof is on you"

is internet code for

"I cant actually find any concrete discrepancies in the data that I didn't bother to study before I challenged your submission"

I looked extensively. I once thought the same as you, but empirical evidence showed me those dates you show are totally wrong. Carbon dating data on dinosaurs shows they aren't that old and your dates are bogus. Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones also reinforces that same notion.

Do you admit you cant dig up any conclusive evidence for any of those dates you pulled off that sci-fi blog?

originally posted by: cooperton

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?

So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ? What if 4000 years ago, a guy said something like "We will never be able to fly like birds, it is obvious the gods never intended for us to fly like birds". You see, that's a very weak argument. And maybe we will never be able to build something as complex as the things you have cited, so what ? It doesn't prove anything.

And I am not even against the idea of an intelligent designer, but so far I haven't seen any element of proof or some strong evidence that there is an intelligent designer. The problem is so many people have preconceived ideas about the things they are supposed to search for. They look for things that reinforce their preconceived ideas. I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. I haven't set my mind on anything particular regarding these questions. But I do think that the theory of evolution is the right theory, because the evidence is overwhelming and it is a theory that explains so many different things.

If you want us to forget about evolution, you have to build your own theory, a better theory, that explains much more things and makes much more sense than evolution. Saying "look how complex the eye is", and "look there are drawings of what looks like dinosaurs" and "it is written in the bible", all that doesn't make up a theory.

Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.

a reply to: cooperton

I looked extensively. I once thought the same as you, but empirical evidence showed me those dates you show are totally wrong. Carbon dating data on dinosaurs shows they aren't that old and your dates are bogus. Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones also reinforces that same notion.

Do you admit you cant dig up any conclusive evidence for any of those dates you pulled off that sci-fi blog?

The "sci fi blog" I quoted from was Wikipedia.

originally posted by: gosseyn

So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ? What if 4000 years ago, a guy said something like "We will never be able to fly like birds, it is obvious the gods never intended for us to fly like birds".

Intelligent humans can make machines that can take off from the ground and fly. Random chance can not.

maybe we will never be able to build something as complex as the things you have cited, so what ?

The point is that if humans cant recreate it, what makes us think random chance would be able to create it?

And I am not even against the idea of an intelligent designer, but so far I haven't seen any element of proof or some strong evidence that there is an intelligent designer.

All physical laws are examples of intelligent design upholding the universe as we know it.

The problem is so many people have preconceived ideas about the things they are supposed to search for. They look for things that reinforce their preconceived ideas.

I have searched for the truth without bias and have made it the main purpose of my life. Evolution is not possible. I once thought otherwise but that's because I blindly trusted the 'experts', but you have to address the empirical evidence on your own. Notice how I ask Tzarchasm for observable evidence for his evolutionary timeline and he totally avoids the burden of proof, it's because there is no conclusive data that supports it.

Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.

what do you suppose came first - consciousness or matter?

originally posted by: Lysergic
How do I know which of these voices belongs to God?

That depends on how much '___' you've taken today.


a reply to: gosseyn
Homoseuxalty was in the DSM until 1973, ironically.

The DSM-II considered homosexuality as one form of paraphilia, but in the seventh printing of DSM-II homosexuality had shifted to another classification, which is sexual orientation disturbance. This major change had been preceded by increasing activities of the LGBT community in the 1960s, specifically the Stonewall riots in 1969. These activities continued in 1970 with the following predominant events:

As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the APA began in 1970, when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled: "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you." This activism occurred in the context of a broader anti-psychiatry movement that had come to the fore in the 1960s and was challenging the legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis. Anti-psychiatry activists protested at the same APA conventions, with some shared slogans and intellectual foundations. Presented with data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder. After a vote by the APA trustees in 1973, and confirmed by the wider APA membership in 1974, the diagnosis was replaced with the category of "sexual orientation disturbance".

1973 – On 15 October the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry Federal Council declares homosexuality not an illness – the first such body in the world to do so; in December the American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II), based largely on the research and advocacy of Evelyn Hooker.

a reply to: cooperton
What came first?
Neither..... the seer and the seen arise as one seamless happening.

The Father and Son are one.... without a second.

originally posted by: gosseyn
in reply to: cooperton

So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ?

Nature didn't do it, (the forces of) nature didn't accomplish what you are referring to (cause machinery like hearts and lungs to emerge).

It's a baseless nonsensical assumption of yours that flies in the face of everything we know about (the forces of) nature and cause and effect (involving inductive reasoning).

Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.

A Creator creating the machinery and technology that makes up life makes a whole lot more sense than assuming and claiming that 'nature did it' (nature accomplished it), so why should anyone believe you that you are asking for something that makes sense if you're already so eager to roll with or accept something so nonsensical while rejecting the most sensible/reasonable conclusion by induction or argument of induction by telling yourself there is no "strong evidence" for it?

Your bias in favor of impossible fantasies is quite obvious, you don't sound very open minded regarding the evidence and applying inductive reasoning properly regarding these subjects.

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: gosseyn
in reply to: cooperton

So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ?

Nature didn't do it, (the forces of) nature didn't accomplish what you are referring to (cause machinery like hearts and lungs to emerge).

It's a baseless nonsensical assumption of yours that flies in the face of everything we know about (the forces of) nature and cause and effect (involving inductive reasoning).

Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.

A Creator creating the machinery and technology that makes up life makes a whole lot more sense than assuming and claiming that 'nature did it' (nature accomplished it), so why should anyone believe you that you are asking for something that makes sense if you're already so eager to roll with or accept something so nonsensical while rejecting the most sensible/reasonable conclusion by induction or argument of induction by telling yourself there is no "strong evidence" for it?

Your bias in favor of impossible fantasies is quite obvious, you don't sound very open minded regarding the evidence and applying inductive reasoning properly regarding these subjects.

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

So, answer me this. How many religions are there out there? All rubbish yes, but all claim to be the real religion. Why is your religion real? Do you have any proof that your religion is more real than any other?

Of course you do not! It's all belief. You will say your religion is the real one. A muslim will say theirs is the real one, a Mormon will says theirs is the real one and in and on and on!

That in itself tells you it's just belief. Yes, you try and justify that belief, but fail horribly at every turn.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

So, answer me this. How many religions are there out there?

Thousands, many of which do not teach about a personal God or Creator. Some of which, especially in Eastern religions, teach that (Mother) 'Nature did it'. It is from here evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines originated, as referred to by Darwin himself regarding a certain Greek philosopher and Mother Nature (Gaia) worshipper (Aristotle).

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

All rubbish yes, but all claim to be the real religion. Why is your religion real? Do you have any proof that your religion is more real than any other?

I assume you mean "right" rather than "real", cause the latter would imply you're merely asking about existence, rather than whether or not it's (more) right/correct? Throughout my lifetime I have accumulated proof/evidence in the form of knowledge (facts) regarding the subject of which religion is right, which helps me to determin which religion is right and why. But since you've already decided that I do not have such evidence, I guess there's little point in me going through it with you (the playlist I linked above, in particular the second halve that follows after the video linked above, does cover some of it though, for anyone actually interested in not dismissing it ahead of time or out of hand).

Of course you do not! It's all belief. You will say your religion is the real one. A muslim will say theirs is the real one, a Mormon will says theirs is the real one and in and on and on!

Yes yes, disagreements galore, you can find disagreements in other fields as well, doesn't tell you much about which ones are applying blind belief or not, or who got it right.

That in itself tells you it's just belief. Yes, you try and justify that belief, but fail horribly at every turn.

That would be your belief/opinion (the bolded part). As is possibly the notion that all belief is automatically blind, or must be blind (conflating all forms of belief with credulity). I don't feel like I have to succeed in this regards in your eyes (your opinion) anyway. I already feel quite justified in my opinions regarding these subjects and know quite well on what evidence they are based on and how and why I have come to the conclusions I have come to. Don't need your approval, agreement, praise or recommendation to come to my conclusions and/or to be honest about them or my justifications.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: gosseyn

So basically, you compare what nature has accomplished to what humans can do today ? What if 4000 years ago, a guy said something like "We will never be able to fly like birds, it is obvious the gods never intended for us to fly like birds".

Intelligent humans can make machines that can take off from the ground and fly. Random chance can not.

maybe we will never be able to build something as complex as the things you have cited, so what ?

The point is that if humans cant recreate it, what makes us think random chance would be able to create it?

And I am not even against the idea of an intelligent designer, but so far I haven't seen any element of proof or some strong evidence that there is an intelligent designer.

All physical laws are examples of intelligent design upholding the universe as we know it.

The problem is so many people have preconceived ideas about the things they are supposed to search for. They look for things that reinforce their preconceived ideas.

I have searched for the truth without bias and have made it the main purpose of my life. Evolution is not possible. I once thought otherwise but that's because I blindly trusted the 'experts', but you have to address the empirical evidence on your own. Notice how I ask Tzarchasm for observable evidence for his evolutionary timeline and he totally avoids the burden of proof, it's because there is no conclusive data that supports it.

Again, I am open minded. I am just asking for something that makes sense.

What do we really know about random chance ? The thing is that it is "random", so how are you able to define what random chance can or cannot achieve beforehand ? And "random chance" is merely a name we give to a process we don't understand. Randomness doesn't really exist, it's just that we are not able to see and understand all the mechanisms of the process.

And the point is that we thought we couldn't fly, but then one day we could fly. Using what humans can or cannot achieve at this point is a very weak argument. Humans only existed for a very brief moment in the history of this planet. And science is even younger..

Saying "god did it" is not an answer. It creates more questions than it solves. You have a whole lot to explain about the intelligent designer. So it's just magic and so it means that we can't comprehend it ? And that's all ? Occam's razor and all that..

what do you suppose came first - consciousness or matter?

Well, does it really matter ? Evolution still explains a whole lot. Even Hoffman in his theory of "conscious realism" doesn't reject the theory of evolution, because he knows it's too strong to be rejected that easily, and yet his theory is really out there and if he felt it was needed, he would have ditched the theory of evolution without hesitation. And yet in his theory, consciousness is more fundamental than in any theory I have ever heard about. But that's not what you do, you reject the theory of evolution completely and you put nothing in its place. So, what exactly is your theory ?

a reply to: whereislogic

So what evidence do you have that your religion is the real or right religion? And i am not talking about belief, I am talking about evidence. What evidence cor example tells you that your religion is right, and Islam is wrong?

You do realise that if you were born and brought up in a Muslim country, you would be saying how Islam is the right religion?

a reply to: Jay-morris

You are not forced to worship the Muslim faith in an Islamic state. It is merely the politically defined state religion, sure in these states the government, education system and laws are shaped by Islam but even in places like Saudi Arabia which i have personally visited as long as you respect their laws, customs and traditions i am not required to practice the faith.

I have friends who were "brought up in a Muslim country" who do not follow the faith.

One of my co-workers is a girl from Turkey and she says the rejection of Islam is common in that particular country among young women.

a reply to: Jay-morris
Voltaire said: “Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”:
You should seek out your own "evidence"?, I hope you never need it.
It takes most people a life time of difficult tests, and is tricky to share with people who refuse to consider it.

www.gotquestions.org...

If you have ever suffered someone who spins truth (a witch or wizard), you will beg to know what is real, and can be driven into a psychotic state through cognitive dissonance.
without being acquainted with the the idea of spiritual truth, one puts one self in grave danger in the here and now.

Don't get gaslighted by a Narc.
Being redeemed of shame and speaking only truth, is your only defense from literal hell on earth.

Can the belief in God be considered a mental illness ?
I think not, it is the only defense against the only really dangerous mentally ill people.
this is quite well explained in the literature.

If truth is relative, then we are all mentally ill relative to each other.
In this case, those that are ill enough to believe in God. are the safest to be around when the s*it hits the fan.
Those that believe what is spun is truth, are in great jeopardy, from those who believe that they are not accountable to spiritual truth.
This can poison the well and turn an army of good people against each other.

Science has not scratch the surface of these problems.
In a post truth age, we must all practice intense discernment as to not fall prey to illusions.

Believing in God is the alignment of intention to defend truths not of a scientific nature.
Proving scientifically that people should be kind to each other is not possible.
Science could even argue that we shouldn't.

If you want your own evidence, try speaking only truth as if you believed you where accountable to God.
You will find those who don't will become angry with you.
Be careful with this. Don't let them figure out what you are doing, or you may be attacked.

a reply to: Jay-morris

A widely respected religious figure, Jesus Christ, indicated that false religion produces bad works, just as a “rotten tree produces worthless fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-17) What fruit does false religion yield?

False Religion . . .

▪ MEDDLES IN WAR AND POLITICS: “Across Asia and beyond,” says the journal Asiaweek, “power-hungry leaders are cynically manipulating people’s religious sentiments for their own needs.” As a result, the journal warns: “The world threatens to sink into madness.” A prominent religious leader in the United States declared: “You’ve got to kill the terrorists before the killing stops.” His solution? “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord.” By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44) How many religions can you think of whose members engage in war?

When a religion condones military service (like Islam, most denominations within Christendom, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shintoism, etc.) I recognize it as a false religion (not right).

What good fruit should true religion produce?​—Matthew 7:17.

True Religion . . .

▪ PRACTICES LOVE: True worshippers are “no part of the world,” are not divided by race or culture, and display ‘love among themselves.’ (John 13:35; 17:16; Acts 10:34, 35) Rather than killing one another, they are willing to die for one another.​—1 John 3:16.

Just one clue as to how to differentiate. More reasons and evidence can be found in the playlist I already linked.

Looks like the video above is missing some parts, this version should be more complete (actually it seems it has the more relevant parts in it regarding the differentiation process I spoke about above; after 23 minutes):

Stand Firm Against Nazi Assault (documentary)

a reply to: gosseyn
Check out what this guy has to say about the phrases 'Nature did it' vs 'God did it', especially after 6 minutes:

What he says regarding those who say 'nature did it' counts just as much for those who make the same argument, claim or hold to the same belief/opinion, without spelling it out with that exact phrase (or the willingness to spell it out honestly or admit that that's their belief, claim or argument; even sometimes trying to distract from it by focussing on the other phrase, appealing to agnosticism when needed as an excuse to avoid justifying their belief that 'nature did it' to themselves or others that might challenge their beliefs as being blind, not based on the evidence, what the facts are pointing towards, i.e. "baseless" and "nonsensical").

Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

...
Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces. [whereislogic: i.e. 'nature did it']

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.*

[Footnotes]

...

Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.

DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!

...

Just to make sure one remembers which phenomena we are searching a cause for (as per Newton's rule I):

Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist plus context in regards to inductive reasoning on well-established facts)

And yet mankind cannot design life without relying on the fundamental methods that nature developed without human aid. Or any other aid for that matter. We can't make self replicating machines or artificial intelligence, we can't engineer the next step in human evolution or build a god, we can't even defeat a simple virus contracted from eating raw meat. We can barely get off this rock for a few months without killing ourselves. But we want to act like we are proof of some cosmic hyperintelligent force? Some grand universal design that can't succeed without us? Please. This is all human ego at work.

Assumptions, assumptions...

So many assumptions, and yet one thinks that their assumptions, are more 'true' than the other's ?

They have 'truth', 'knowledge', and 'facts', that somehow escape everybody else ?

Am kinda surprised that nobody else notices, wha ?

Anywho: it's nice to see the good members being civil and respectful.