Charles Darwin was mentally ill

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I can have a blast holding a mirror up to those who throw around words such as "mentally ill" to describe spiritual people.

But you have no problem doing it yourself. If you're secure in your faith/spirituality, it shouldn't trouble you to the point that you use the same tactics they do.

Well put.

Originally posted by unityemissions
And also, everyone I've ever met who claimed to be spiritual was deeply wounded in one way or another, and highly narcissistic. Spiritual people tend to be intelligent. As such, they're really clever at attempting to hide their large need for narcissistic supply.

Although I did star your post because it's true.. or mostly true depending on how people see it, you do sound spirtual yourself, unityemission. Kinda a mixed message there.
So... do you consider yourself "cured" or not?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
And I think its sad that one of the fathers of natural science, one of the guys most revered in the 19th and 20th Century, one of the big heroes electrocuted himself in the search for joy. I mean COME ON! Thats really severely inept.

I agree with you on that one. I don't revere Darwin btw.


reply to post by spacevisitor

IMO your post is just incredibly informative, starred.


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You're here too, BH.

Oh man this thread somehow really delivers, keep it rolling ATSers. S&F then to Sky.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
It is very interesting that this board has a moderator who wholeheartedly believes in and uses the board to promote pre stone age fairytales. You're probably salivating over the prospect of receiving a post reporting that prayer has stopped the oil leak and then removing as being "off topic" any contrary replies.

Posting as a Member and Modding are not connected in any way. Neither do we Mod in threads we are posting in.

I have forwarded the OP to Horace Barlow at Cambridge. Are you familiar with England's really frightful libel laws?

Wouldnt you just love for a lawsuit to be filed forcing information like this to be removed from the Internet? Too bad we're not in China or North Korea.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I know plenty of 'materialistic' people, most don't believe in karma, it's a predominantly Eastern way of thinking, but some do.

I know some very un-materialistic people, some believe in Karma, some don't.

I'm not that blinkered that I have never considered it.

But show me some proof, some evidence.
And I am not merely talking about reincarnation, but Karma in the sense that you are saying that the ill's that effect us today are a result of actions from yesterday.

It seems to me that you are searching for theories to fit your pre-conceived ideas, a common trait amongst those with blind faith in anything.

As for me being too emotionally attached.
Of course there are emotions involved for me.
But there should be for everyone.
And I assure you, it does not top me from looking at things objectively, you just assume because I a liitle bit closer to something like that and that I disagree with you it must be because of my emotional ties.
Wrong!

You take leaps of faith to support your blind faith and profess your spirituality as a sign of superiority.

I don't believe that because someone maybe or have been mentally ill then their beliefs should be discounted despite scientific evidence to suggest they are correct.
And I don't believe that those with mental or physical illnesses have so as a result as some sort of divine karmic judgement.

What any of that has got to do with 'materialistic' is quite beyond me,to be perfectly honest, whilst I may be considered a bit hedonistic, I don't think anyone who knows me would consider me materialistic at all, quite the opposite in fact.

There are just far too many leaps of faith for me; if we were in a court of law it would get laughed out due to complete lack of evidence!

I agree that many spiritual people too are hurting very much - which was their motivation to seek solace in the spiritual in the first place.

But they stand a better chance of finding relief in life than the electrocuter who tries to reanimate what he sees as a mere lump of meat, a soulless shell.

Whilst I completely disagree with Skyfloating on the subject of this thread I fully agree with his right to contribute and have absolutely no doubts about his integrity when Moderating.

I just wish more of our Moderator's would do the same, they were some of the best contributor's to ATS before becoming Mod's but unfortunately I think their Mod duties can be too time consuming to allow lengthy contributions.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I spent a great deal of my time studying the music and life of Beethoven. I don't remember Beethoven ever being mentally ill. Beethoven was known to be of a bad temper, but he noted in his journal that he was often considered rude for not responding appropriately to others, but that it was his increasing deafness that caused this problem of not hearing or understanding people who would address him publicly.

Beethoven was a musician who started going deaf at a fairly early age and one can only imagine the distress this must have caused him, but that does not mean that he was mentally ill. Sadness, anger, and even bitterness are appropriate responses to this kind of potentially debilitating illness.

Thank you, I have also studied Beethoven as part of my college courses. Most people don't realize how the guy wrote deaf. He could hear the stuff in his head. This could drive a person bonkers if they can't get it out. Failing health will also piss you off. You know you want to do something and you just can't because your body won't function. We also have to remember people back then were exposed daily to large amounts of lead.

I doubt Beethoven did suffer from mental illness, but if he did it doesn't take away from his achievements. Most people only know the "Moonlight Sonata", which is a pity considering his volume of work was large. A copy of his Ninth symphony fetched almost 10 million dollars at auction. It has been called one of the crowning achievements of humanity. Crazy or not, you can't say you've done that.

As for Darwin, the fact that he had personal issues does not negate what he wrote. You can either prove it or disprove it. I am speaking specifically of the material. You cannot say 1 + 1 does not equal 2 simply because the bearer of that news may be slightly nuts.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by antonia]

Mm, interesting - and for sure we live in a society which has increasinly evolved based on the Darwinian theory. Accidental? I wonder.

Personally, I think that Christianity is based on another 'manufactured' set of philosophies. My opinion that whatever genuine spiritual teachings existed initially, have been contaminated and twisted by more of the sick mind mobs who have ruled people for centuries.

The only real compass we have is love, kindness, caring for each other. These things need no labels or philosophies.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I know plenty of 'materialistic' people, most don't believe in karma, it's a predominantly Eastern way of thinking, but some do.

The concept of karma or what in abrahamic religions can be termed "cosmic justice", requires previous lifetimes as well as an invisible energy and unseen events. I doubt any materialist believes in karma if he knows what materialism is.

It seems to me that you are searching for theories to fit your pre-conceived ideas, a common trait amongst those with blind faith in anything.

The idea of "the energy, thoughts and actions you put into the Universe are what you eventually get back" is basic spirituality, as embraced by all cultures with the exception of materialism and atheism. Nothing special, nothing new. These are not my ideas, they are ideas handed down over the millenia.

You take leaps of faith to support your blind faith and profess your spirituality as a sign of superiority.

In essence my OP points to Darwins emotional issues. That is my game of holding a mirror to the superiority claimed by those who follow Evolution Theory.

I don't believe that because someone maybe or have been mentally ill then their beliefs should be discounted despite scientific evidence to suggest they are correct.

The messengers mental state is irrelevant?

And I don't believe that those with mental or physical illnesses have so as a result as some sort of divine karmic judgement.

Darwin rejected happiness and that was the cause of his illness. Its really easy to see.

What any of that has got to do with 'materialistic' is quite beyond me,to be perfectly honest, whilst I may be considered a bit hedonistic, I don't think anyone who knows me would consider me materialistic at all, quite the opposite in fact.

Materialistic in my definition means someone who believes that only matter exists.

reply to post by Skyfloating


But isn't that because people just need a reason to believe and can not accept that maybe, just maybe, this is it? That there is no grand scheme. That when it's all over, it's all over.
No private members club in the sky.
No spiritual unity and oneness.
No reunion with our loved one's.

I am not an athiest, and believe that some athiest's are as ignorant and bigoted as some theists.
But unless someone gives me definitive proof one way or another I am going to live my life by the morals and values that I have set myself as a responsible and hopefully considerate human being.

I do not discount spiritual thinking and enjoy discussing spiritual matters, but ultimately, unless I am prepared to take a giant leap of faith, which I absolutely will not, then it is irrelevant until such time that we cast off this mortal shell and actually find out if there is something there for us afterwards.

Originally posted by Freeborn
But isn't that because people just need a reason to believe and can not accept that maybe, just maybe, this is it? That there is no grand scheme. That when it's all over, it's all over.

You are put on the game-board and dont know either way. Is there something beyond the game-board or not? You dont know. But acting as if there was something other than it immediately frees one from the fixation to the gameboard.There are benefits to be had from it.

I claim to have experienced the realms beyond the gameboard many times, but for those you havent: You dont know if there is anything beyond it or not.

No private members club in the sky.

No Sky Floating?

No spiritual unity and oneness. No reunion with our loved one's.

No soul-mating?

I am going to live my life by the morals and values that I have set myself as a responsible and hopefully considerate human being.

Good.

I do not discount spiritual thinking and enjoy discussing spiritual matters, but ultimately, unless I am prepared to take a giant leap of faith, which I absolutely will not, then it is irrelevant until such time that we cast off this mortal shell and actually find out if there is something there for us afterwards.

Most of us are not asking for a giant leap of faith. In the OP the following point is made:

"Spiritual-health matters to us. I dont think Darwin was spiritually healthy. I would like to emphasize this because you guys keep calling me mentally ill for believing intelligent creation of the Universe and everything that happens in it"

No giant leap of faith asked from me.

reply to post by Skyfloating


You are using Darwin's mental state as some sort of evidence against the facts that give supportive proof that The Theory Of Evolution which he was the first to propose is incorrect.
That does not follow any logical process, especially when considering the many other scientists, politicians, regents, philosophers etc who have greatly contributed to mankinds development whilst also being clinically insane.

You also suggest that his mental state was a karmic consequence of his un-spiritual thoughts about The Theory Of Evolution, as is all mental and physical illness, yet offer absolutely no supportive evidence whatsoever other than your opinion.

And then at the end of your last post you attempt to pull a joker out of the pack by suddenly revealing your own personal defenition of 'materialism' in an effort to support your 'theory' despite knowing full well that everyone would have been using the dictionary defenition throughout the thread, the two being very different!

reply to post by warpcrafter


Everyone's a little bit crazy. To call yourself normal and without insanity of some sort is to deny it, thus making you more insane.


reply to post by Skyfloating



Every single human being with abnormal intelligence has gone insane near death. Every single one. Einstein, Tesla, Newton. Anyone who we know of with high intelligence.

What with my, I think, something like 132 IQ, I'm already making plans for my eventual insane breakdown by age 60. I already see the occasional phantom shadow, talk and answer my self on occasion, and get stuck in horrible mind loops over the smallest of matters.


Whatever. I gots the faith.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Well, if a mentally ill person came up to me and presented me a theory that has SOLID proof and evidence, I'd accept that any day over the proof-less and baseless statements of religious people.

Yes I realized long ago that proponents of Darwins theory would STILL believe it no matter what debunked it. Even if they were to discover this hero of the atheist oxymoron activist philosophy was a thief and a liar and could have it proven to them unequivocally and no room for doubt save for stubborn zealots. First, Darwin wouldn't recognize his theory today and he wasn't to keen on many aspects of it yet dogmatism happens the moment someone challenges your sacred truths. Darwin was not only mentally ill, their is compelling evidence he stole just about everything he ever allegedly came up with INCLUDING the name for "Natural Selection". He wasn't even the "Naturist" on the HMS Beagle and paid his own way. Why this man is held up as some great scientist is something I assume one would have to have some angst for God to understand.

I was reading this thread and watched as skyfloating was summarily accosted using the same old tired material you see on every board on the interenet by (let me guess) atheists?

and you guys call yourselves "free thinkers"?

Same double standards are employed also for evolution can commit numerous frauds, get busted for manufacturing evidence and scientists admitting 30 years of lies and fake fossils upon retiring where all subsequent science built on that one scientists work is LEFT STANDING on a foundation analogous to a house of cards. I see someone in this thread didn't take kindly to using the lightening bolt hitting the primordial soup analogy saying it was a strawman. No it wasn't, it was sarcasm no different than the guy saying Christians believe in a "magical sky man".

Darwin presented scientific backup that holds up scrutiny.

No, in fact ALL of darwins suppositions have been over turned with many of them having no significance to his propositions for our diverse animal life.

Religious people base their belief on a book written by MEN!!

That doesn't stop you from putting your belief in a book by Darwin now does it? Last I checked, he was in fact "just a man"

It's pure guesswork, no scientific backup, and no proof whatsoever.

I take it you have never given the Bible an honest objective investigation and the only thing you HAVE been feeding yourself is all the inspiring wonderful accolades bestowed on the Bible by websites such as "The Rational Response Squad" or 1001 bible contradictions etc,.

Interestingly enough is when anything is found to be fraud or some pile of piltdown crap, evolutions cult following defends it saying it is auto correcting or the suggestion excuse, we shouldn't throw out the whole theory when in fact the whole theory is STILL not being taught correctly nor is it sacred pedestal religion hating biblio-bigots put it on, allow for the necessary skepticism needed to question it which is what makes for good science.

And what makes it even worse, their whole belief is based aroudn a super being...and there is ZERO evidence or proof that it even exists

Just as history's most famous apostate did not become a pagan mystic because he was too rational for Christianity, the atheist does not become a secular humanist because he is too devoted to reason for religion. In both cases, the cause lies within the individual's character rather than from any superior rational faculty. This should be obvious due to a) the oft-demonstrated logical errors of the leading atheists, (to say nothing of their collective belief in the AGW myth), and, b) the fact that atheist intellectuals tend to convert to atheism in their inexperienced youth, but irreligious intellectuals who convert to religion have tended to do so at the height of their intellectual powers.

"I'm an agnostic because I'm not sure"
"I'm an atheist because I'm an asshole"

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Prosecutor]

reply to post by Prosecutor


No-one's been 'assualted', just disagree, is that so hard to understand?

Edit:

Apologies, meant 'accosted'.
And I spelt it wrong!

[edit on 26/6/10 by Freeborn]

Originally posted by unityemissions

Oh, and fyi I was highly spiritual when I was very ill. As I became healthy, my views of the world changed drastically...

And also, everyone I've ever met who claimed to be spiritual was deeply wounded in one way or another, and highly narcissistic. Spiritual people tend to be intelligent. As such, they're really clever at attempting to hide their large need for narcissistic supply.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by unityemissions]

That's something I've been considering about my own need to "find God". I will readily admit that any feelings I have about God/religion/spirituality are accompanied by a healthy dose of narcissism.

I almost need it to be true.

To the OP, I'm afraid I agree with the general trend with regards to your initial post. Though I always enjoy your posts, this one did seem borne out of frustration and/or anger... Which is not something I've noted you for in the past.

It did help to highlight just one of the many contradictions in the current paradigm though, so I thank you.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

You are using Darwin's mental state as some sort of evidence against the facts that give supportive proof that The Theory Of Evolution which he was the first to propose is incorrect.
That does not follow any logical process, especially when considering the many other scientists, politicians, regents, philosophers etc who have greatly contributed to mankinds development whilst also being clinically insane.

You also suggest that his mental state was a karmic consequence of his un-spiritual thoughts about The Theory Of Evolution, as is all mental and physical illness, yet offer absolutely no supportive evidence whatsoever other than your opinion.

And then at the end of your last post you attempt to pull a joker out of the pack by suddenly revealing your own personal defenition of 'materialism' in an effort to support your 'theory' despite knowing full well that everyone would have been using the dictionary defenition throughout the thread, the two being very different!

Wow freeborn, are you psychic? Ya know I didn't read the op as an attack on Darwins theory, as it has already been marginalized as poppycock. I have seen the entire theory completely revamped 6 times with the theory making leaps you would only expect to see in religious circles.

All the OP did for me is perhaps explain why or how such an absurd idea came to his mind. Not that I would be persuaded by this information. I know how he came up with it.

He stole it

Reply to post by Skyfloating

are you sure this wasn't all just caused by being married?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Prosecutor

 

No-one's been 'assualted', just disagree, is that so hard to understand?

Edit:

Apologies, meant 'accosted'.
And I spelt it wrong!

[edit on 26/6/10 by Freeborn]

I wasn't naming names as I thought their were plenty of posts that fit the definition skyfloating was presented with and took on all comers. He is a member of a dying breed of people the old bronze age book everyone likes to bash, predicted in meticulous detail along with all the other "current events" happening today

accost - Address; greeting; To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively
www.google.com...:en-US

fficial&defl=en&q=define:Accosted&sa=X&ei=EPolTOn-Ko3mnQfhv MjiBQ&ved=0CBIQkAE

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Prosecutor]

Originally posted by Freeborn

And then at the end of your last post you attempt to pull a joker out of the pack by suddenly revealing your own personal defenition of 'materialism' in an effort to support your 'theory' despite knowing full well that everyone would have been using the dictionary defenition throughout the thread, the two being very different!

Materialism

the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Lets instead take a mentally ill persons word for it that humans came about as a matter of coincidence and that a humans Consciousness does not .

Trying to discredit a scientist by calling him mentally ill? Not only does that show disrepect to the scientists.. but it also disrepects people with mental illnesses.

Just because someone is depressed or suicidal does not mean they are deluded or wrong.. and it certainly does not invalidate their previous scientific accomplishments.

Bad form.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by riley]