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.

 

Charles Darwin was mentally ill

page: 12
50
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Ah, the usual stima of the mentally ill.

It sounds like Darwin has bipolar II disorder. When people think of mental illness, they think of someone in a straight jacket that sits in a corner rocking back and forth thinking they are going to be killed by purple kangaroos.

But the mentally ill are all around, or are us, and function perfectly well.

In fact, as others noted, a lot of achievements are the result of mental illness, such as bipolar disorder.

In fact, during mania, bp sufferers have brilliant ideas. The thinking behind it is that the brain IS different of someone with bpd. There is more white matter on a scan. For lack of a better word, brain damaged. So the brain, being the incredible organ that it is, rewires itself. so someone with bp does odd things, has major emotional and/or impulse issues, or lack of control. But their minds race and they have brilliant thoughts, because of the rewiring. INcluding Van Gogh (obviously)

ANd the list is lengthy. Their disability can become an asset. Since there is little impulse control, they become un-inhibitidly ambitious.

BUT, it can also cause great pain and havok when they get into trouble. Most suffer from major money troubles.

list of people affected by bipolar disorder


I see Jeremy Brett is on there, no wonder he made such a great Sherlock Holmes.


Also, Jim Carrey is very bipolar. When he is not being a funny and acrobatic actor, he is prone to locking himself in the bathroom for three days.




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777


I love that actually, because it adds to my point, if we can create how do you know something didn't create us?

Totally leaving religious dogma out of this,

Ancient text spoke of what they observed, and imagined a creator, now with this in mind why is it so hard to believe?



That however is essentially the very old infinite question. If we have a creator then who created the creator lol. If the creator was just there then why couldn't the universe be just there without a creator. Basically it runs around and around and we have to go by observable evidence, that being there is no proof of a god. Others choose to read the religious texts and find that lovely warm feeling that makes them feel safe. Few people want to face the reality that whn their brain dies their experience ends.

As for leaving religious dogma out of it and then quoting ancient texts..............seriously? Ancient texts were written in a time when evidence based belief was a rare thing. They saw the lightning stream across the sky, heard the booming noise and put it down to a being more powerful than themselves instead of an electrical discharge.

Ignorance is what wrote most ancient texts.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Tryptych
 


I never said I dont believe in Evolution. The reality of Evolution is obvious to me.

Nor did I say I believe the world was created in 7 days.


Well that clears things up a bit. Was your OP just a statement saying that Charles Darwin had a mental illness? I thought you where implying that he was wrong because he had a mental illness. Sorry if I was hostile to you, this may have been just a misunderstanding.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
In the case of Darwin, it seems you are indirectly attempting to discredit his claims because he suffered from Depression.


The true story is this: I log on here every day and see religious and spiritual folk being labeled mentally ill, psychotic, etc. all the time.

I was in the mood for giving these people a taste of their own medicine - backed up by hard facts.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Phlynx
 





Which makes perfect sense. Astrology isn't based on facts, astronomy is. I'm glad modern man has chosen to focus on facts instead of myths and guesswork.


Guess work?

www.hotliquidmagma.com...



From early man until today, we have been staring at the same stars, wondering about the heavens above.

The ancients studied the moon & sun to learn when to sow their crops and when to harvest. We still use this method to this day.
Time Line

15,000 BC - Ice Age people start to track the number of moons by scratching marks into bones.

1500 BC-
Stonehenge was built outside of Salisbury, England. It was used to track the movement of the sun and mark the solstice. Only seven stones still stand today. This photo shows as it would have stood when it was built.

1200-1000 BC- Babylonians study 'astrology' - the belief that people's lives were influenced by the stars. They invented the 12 signs that are still used today. Around the same time, the Greeks name most of the stars and the constellations (Hercules, Perseus, Cassiopea and Cygnus). They also name the "the wandering stars." We now know these wandering stars as planets. The Greeks named these after their gods, Mercury, Venus, Mars & Jupiter.

332 BC- Alexander the Great builds a great museum-library-observatory at the mouth of the Nile in Alexandra. Alexander the Great

280 BC- Aristarchus (Greek) stated that the Sun was the center of the 'solar system'. It was almost 1800 yrs later that his theory would be widely accepted.

240 BC- Eratosthenes figured out the size of the Earth.

Year O - At the time of Christ, Egyptians & Chinese were also heavily into the study of the stars.

120 AD- Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy (a.d. 90-168) is credited with the creation of the elaborate mechanism by which he (and later astronomers) calculated the movements of the stars and planets and the moon around the earth.


You underestimate them.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
"Some" - is that to say that there is no general difference between the intellectual output of the mentally ill and the mentally sane?


There are MANY types of mental illness and we shouldn't be tossing psychotics in with the perfectly normal and successful person who has clinical depression, like Darwin. He had a mental illness (depression, anxiety), but he wasn't INSANE. They are not the same thing.

The Difference between Mental Illness and Insanity

I personally think it's safe to say that people believing in God (or Intelligent Design or religious people) are NOT "mentally ill" in the way that we normally think of the term. They have been taught something or had experiences that they attribute to spiritually and they believe it. That's a COMPLETELY different thing than suffering with bouts of depression OR taking orders to kill from a dog.

In my opinion, what you are putting forth is unclear, unspecified and serves to cause misunderstandings and disconnects in communication. You're feeding the misinformation that having a mental illness makes a person asylum material.

Time To Rethink Mental Illness



Who was Britain's greatest Prime Minister? Who was America's greatest president?

The answers will be a matter of opinion. But my guess is that a clear majority would answer Winston Churchill to the first question and Abraham Lincoln to the second.

There is something else these two great leaders had in common, though. They were both mentally ill.



Originally posted by Stormdancer777I think sky had a valid observation, that Darwin if mentally ill, could not have been capable of rational scientific thought,


This is what I want to know. If this is the conclusion Sky is trying to pass off.
Because it's a logical fallacy that I've explained in previous posts.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


So just because they were first means we should disregard the fact that their whole field is based on guesswork?? And you prefer it over hard scientific facts??



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Of course the great Stephen Fry is Bipolar and yet he's without a doubt one of the greatest living Britons. Even so you are quite correct, being mentally ill does have a major stigma and it has been leapt upon by people within this thread as proof that being atheist can destroy ones happiness or drive for life.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
In the case of Darwin, it seems you are indirectly attempting to discredit his claims because he suffered from Depression.


The true story is this: I log on here every day and see religious and spiritual folk being labeled mentally ill, psychotic, etc. all the time.

I was in the mood for giving these people a taste of their own medicine - backed up by hard facts.


Well I don't believe that, I just believe some personalities require a cushion, as I stated, and others don't. Nothing wrong with that, everyone's brain works differently. A mental illness is only an illness if it hinders someone. In Darwin's case, it was his emotions.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Phlynx]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Phlynx
 





I want to know how the medicine men made the medicine that works without our fancy equations, and without knowing of the chemicals. I want to know how they memorized so much information on what could be used or what couldn't.


I think they learned through observation and trial and error, oopsy.

But yes they observed nature and what animals ate, also,



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
But what I am implying is that not being able to feel or perceive the spiritual realm is due to emotional issues.


So, THAT'S the conclusion you're drawing from all this? Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I would disagree 100% with it.

We all experience similar emotions. Feelings of joy, peace, love, excitement, wonder, suspicion, etc. And each person will ATTRIBUTE these feelings to one thing or another, depending on their personality, life experiences, life context and belief systems.

Because person A attributes a feeling of Joy to "God's love" and person B attributes that same feeling of Joy to his own success or appreciation of his life does NOT mean that person B has emotional issues or a mental illness. That's preposterous!


Originally posted by Skyfloating
I was in the mood for giving these people a taste of their own medicine - backed up by hard facts.


Lowering yourselves to their level hardly seems like your style. :shk: But congratulations. You were successful.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
So the reality of evolution is obvious to you, yet you say his theories are "insufficient" because he was mentally ill. You're picking and choosing what you want to believe. Keep basing your beliefs on what makes you feel good. You're lashing out because logic and reason is a threat to you. I can't wait to see more laughable threads from you in the future.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 





Why would you believe it blindly?



I don't follow anything blindly, and you assumed i don't believe in evolution, I never said anything about that one way or the other, but I consider all the possibilities.

Fact of the matter is, I said it was all a great mystery.

the interpretation of believe can be to have an opinion.

Theory,



1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.


lookie here, contemplation, I believe I mentioned that word a few pages back.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
OK - - I have Bi-Polar episodes. Mine are caused from a sugar imbalance.

Let me tell you - - your life is not consumed with "disorder" - - but consumed with being "normal" and doing your work. Living every day to its fullest on good days.

If Darwin suffered from an illness (which could have been caused from something physical and tangible he picked up on one of his trips) - - his work would have been that much more important.

This type disability would give credence to his work - - not the other way around.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
In the case of Darwin, it seems you are indirectly attempting to discredit his claims because he suffered from Depression.


The true story is this: I log on here every day and see religious and spiritual folk being labeled mentally ill, psychotic, etc. all the time.

I was in the mood for giving these people a taste of their own medicine - backed up by hard facts.

You have not backed anything up with "hard facts". You have not provided ANY evidence to back up your assertion that depression made Darwin not credible as a scientist.

..and "their own medicine"? So exactly what motivated you to post this thread? Seems the whole point was to diss evolutionists and the mentally ill alike.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yes, not perceciving, seeing and understanding spiritual realms is due to psycho-emo-chemical issues. Facing those issues and overcoming them leads to spiritual perception.

And no, most will not agree with this because school as taught them differently.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, not perceciving, seeing and understanding spiritual realms is due to psycho-emo-chemical issues. Facing those issues and overcoming them leads to spiritual perception.

And no, most will not agree with this because school as taught them differently.


I really have trouble interpreting or understanding your posts.

They seem to have an element of "double talk". I'm really never sure what you mean.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
Seems the whole point was to diss evolutionists and the mentally ill alike.


Mi nah diss di generality, only di man darwin. Jah rule.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, not perceciving, seeing and understanding spiritual realms is due to psycho-emo-chemical issues. Facing those issues and overcoming them leads to spiritual perception.

And no, most will not agree with this because school as taught them differently.


Hang on a moment, you dared to speak of hard facts and now you are criticising schools, which use research done by scientists, who rely on hard facts. At the same time you have no hard facts to prove what you just said.

Doublethink is rampant with half of what you say.

Applying your logic, if i believe that little dancing pink devils are jumping up and down on my monitor right now and others can't see them it is because they have psycho-emo-chemical issues and so unable to perceive the spiritual realm. Whereas the truth is more likely that i am insane.

You know people can meditate, appreciate nature and feel quite at peace without any belief in a divine being.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by riley
Seems the whole point was to diss evolutionists and the mentally ill alike.


Mi nah diss di generality, only di man darwin. Jah rule.

And slight racism due to slang?
Nice one, nice.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join