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.

 

christianity and Antidepressants

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by theson
 


An athiest does not know how to love, but a christian knows how to love in abundance. Knowing love does not always mean you feel good, but deep love can create big let downs, leading to depression. This is why christians can need support mentally and psychiatrically.

I am so darn proud of this post lol, I hit the answer right on the button.
edit on 1-10-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by theson
 


An athiest does not know how to love, but a christian knows how to love in abundance. Knowing love does not always mean you feel good, but deep love can create big let downs, leading to depression. This is why christians can need support mentally and psychiatrically.

I am so darn proud of this post lol, I hit the answer right on the button.
edit on 1-10-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)


I wouldnt be too proud of it, its complete nonsence, so you saying that no other religious denomination,hindu, buddist, agnostic or athiest ,etc knows how to love? Christians have a complete monopoly on love?
edit on 1-10-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 



If you cant prove it why should i believe it? You can dress it up any way you like gullibility is believing something without proof.You say all of nature implies god, its a ridiculas statement.Things in nature that we dont understand doesnt prove the existance of God,It just means we cant understand them yet.You are going in to great detail to try and explain your opinion, but its all in vain because you have absolutely no proof.you have nothing only opinion mixed with fantasy that comes from a book.You try to keep science on your side but then you make a claim like "God placed a flaming sword at the center of the Garden to protect the tree of life." Thats just fantasy.It says so in your book so it must be true.
Again you accuse me of being gullible , to be gullible you have to believe something, im not beliveing anything so you cant accuse me of being gullible, your just using double speak to turn it round on me.


What you are implying is that nothing can be demonstrated as true. For instance, this would be like saying that one billion dollars does not exist, despite the evidence that it is probable that one billion dollars exists. You and I have never seen, touched or handled one billion dollars, yet we understand it exists. All of concrete reality has a great deal of abstract truth. If you offer a small child a dime or a nickle, they take the nickle because it is larger. As a child grows, then select the dime because it has more value. In time, you may come to understand which part of reality has more value. The easiest way to know is to follow the fruit of what is produced.

The world system steals reward and creates debt. The biblical values that are byproducts of love produce fruits of the spirit. These fruits are actions that give to others to create surplus. Objectivism is a world value where self is the center of reality. Altruism is the world value where others are the center of equality and liberty. Under objectivism, no amount of laws can restrain the greed. Under altruism, no laws are necessary. This is why you are continually conditioned to believe the lie of materialism. If you seek self, then your leaders can stay in power and live off of your greed. If this were to be lost to altruism, government becomes unnecessary. The stealing of reward is halted.

You keep saying that I cannot prove what I say. True, but I can demonstrate it from the world we live in with ease. Evidence is seeing truth from your humility. If you are full of pride, then you are simply aligned with the other side of truth--counterfeit truth. Truth will always have an equal and opposite untruth by comparison. A person who lives in the material world with objectivism and pride will only see the side they cling to.

If you are after proof, then live on the other side and your eyes will open.



edit on 1-10-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by theson
 


An athiest does not know how to love, but a christian knows how to love in abundance. Knowing love does not always mean you feel good, but deep love can create big let downs, leading to depression. This is why christians can need support mentally and psychiatrically.

I am so darn proud of this post lol, I hit the answer right on the button.
edit on 1-10-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)


I wouldnt be too proud of it, its complete nonsence, so you saying that no other religious denomination,hindu, buddist, agnostic or athiest ,etc knows how to love? Christians have a complete monopoly on love?
edit on 1-10-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)


Religion is a practice. Faith is what God produces by a relationship of love with the spirit of God. If love is not present in any relationship, pride is found as the thing that divides. This is true in marriage and it is true with faith. Our faith in God is dependent on our relationship to Him. How this manifests in practice is not significant. The fruits of the spirit are produced in a person's life by the faith they have in God. Taking the Lord's name in vain is taking on His character without the works that follow faith. Faith apart from works is dead. Works do not produce faith, faith is what God produces in us. Works are a byproduct of our faith.

It is not possible to work your way to heaven. God does not want sacrifice. God desires a loving relationship as the starting point of faith. Once faith, hope and love are present in the relationship, then God goes to work removing our pride so that the relationship is based on love and not duplicity. If we seek God for the reward, then we are really after the reward. If we seek God to avoid punishment, then we are after a protection from our fear. This is duplicity (Saying one thing and doing another). Good is its own reward. God is looking for this type of faith. Love results from this type of relationship. Religion has nothing to do with it.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by auraelium
 



If you cant prove it why should i believe it? You can dress it up any way you like gullibility is believing something without proof.You say all of nature implies god, its a ridiculas statement.Things in nature that we dont understand doesnt prove the existance of God,It just means we cant understand them yet.You are going in to great detail to try and explain your opinion, but its all in vain because you have absolutely no proof.you have nothing only opinion mixed with fantasy that comes from a book.You try to keep science on your side but then you make a claim like "God placed a flaming sword at the center of the Garden to protect the tree of life." Thats just fantasy.It says so in your book so it must be true.
Again you accuse me of being gullible , to be gullible you have to believe something, im not beliveing anything so you cant accuse me of being gullible, your just using double speak to turn it round on me.


What you are implying is that nothing can be demonstrated as true. For instance, this would be like saying that one billion dollars does not exist, despite the evidence that it is probable that one billion dollars exists. You and I have never seen, touched or handled one billion dollars, yet we understand it exists. All of concrete reality has a great deal of abstract truth. If you offer a small child a dime or a nickle, they take the nickle because it is larger. As a child grows, then select the dime because it has more value. In time, you may come to understand which part of reality has more value. The easiest way to know is to follow the fruit of what is produced.

The world system steals reward and creates debt. The biblical values that are byproducts of love produce fruits of the spirit. These fruits are actions that give to others to create surplus. Objectivism is a world value where self is the center of reality. Altruism is the world value where others are the center of equality and liberty. Under objectivism, no amount of laws can restrain the greed. Under altruism, no laws are necessary. This is why you are continually conditioned to believe the lie of materialism. If you seek self, then your leaders can stay in power and live off of your greed. If this were to be lost to altruism, government becomes unnecessary. The stealing of reward is halted.

You keep saying that I cannot prove what I say. True, but I can demonstrate it from the world we live in with ease. Evidence is seeing truth from your humility. If you are full of pride, then you are simply aligned with the other side of truth--counterfeit truth. Truth will always have an equal and opposite untruth by comparison. A person who lives in the material world with objectivism and pride will only see the side they cling to.

If you are after proof, then live on the other side and your eyes will open.



edit on 1-10-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)


You are decending into nonsence now, you can see a billion dollers its physical, you can assemble 1 billion dollers in notes and take a picture of it.you cant take a picture of god.My argument has nothing to do with pride it has to do with evidence.If i said that you were a murderer you would demand proof and rightly so.
To say that someone who wants proof of something before they will believe it is consumed by pride or is close minded is ridiculas.your argument makes no sense.
You say "You keep saying that I cannot prove what I say. True, but I can demonstrate it from the world we live in with ease." Well do it then.... you wont because you cant, not without quoting some 2000 year old book that contains 2812 contradictions.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Thank you all for the replies,just got home from work.No I wasnt pointing the finger at anyone,but christians say faith can move mountians,but it cant knock down a little depression? I know some people have chemical imbalances and need their meds,Im just talking about the ones who dont need the meds but take it anyway because they are too lazy to deal with lifes everyday pressures,seems to me faith is just a word.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theson
Im just talking about the ones who dont need the meds but take it anyway because they are too lazy to deal with lifes everyday pressures,seems to me faith is just a word.


Why do people have to fight dealing with pressures the whole time? Maybe God has understood their pressures and given them relief, I saw in the news one time that scientists created "heaven in a pill."

edit on 1-10-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium
I wouldnt be too proud of it, its complete nonsence, so you saying that no other religious denomination,hindu, buddist, agnostic or athiest ,etc knows how to love? Christians have a complete monopoly on love?


I know that some hindus do not know anything about real love because my friend and his cousins lives are hurt because their parents set them up with prearranged marriage - the reilgion didn't help if they are acting like that. I also have doubts that an athiest would learn the same things about love.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by theson
I know Im probably going to get ripped for this but Its a question thats been puzzling me for some time now.America has the biggest christian population in the world,it also has the largest consumption of anti depressants in the world,I was just wondering,whats the problem christians,is your faith not enough to sustain you,isnt fear as big a sin as,adultry,lying,etc.I have to work today but I was hoping to get some feedback,good or bad


Must be why they're so paranoid about the world ending...



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrVulture

Originally posted by theson
I know Im probably going to get ripped for this but Its a question thats been puzzling me for some time now.America has the biggest christian population in the world,it also has the largest consumption of anti depressants in the world,I was just wondering,whats the problem christians,is your faith not enough to sustain you,isnt fear as big a sin as,adultry,lying,etc.I have to work today but I was hoping to get some feedback,good or bad


Must be why they're so paranoid about the world ending...
I think we all feel a little bit that way,thats why we are all here on ATS.In some way or another probably every member on this site can feel something coming,real or imagined.
edit on 1-10-2011 by theson because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
you answered your own question, one of the largest population of Christians naturally would attract one of the largest population of dark forces to attack them, torment them, harass them and generally make life difficult.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by theson
I know Im probably going to get ripped for this but Its a question thats been puzzling me for some time now.America has the biggest christian population in the world,it also has the largest consumption of anti depressants in the world,I was just wondering,whats the problem christians,is your faith not enough to sustain you,isnt fear as big a sin as,adultry,lying,etc.I have to work today but I was hoping to get some feedback,good or bad


What makes you think being a christian has anything to do with being medicated? Are you that prejudiced and biased against christians that you would accuse soley us as being the "medicated people"? You sir, are a bigot, hows that for feedback?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by theson
 


What an awful argument. Your next thread might be titled "Why do Christians wear seatbelts?"
It's about taking care of yourself. If you are upset that Christians are seeking chemical aid because they ought to be shielded by God's grace, then where have you been since forever? I'm sorry but they don't have superpowers. Maybe you should explain why anyone ought to be discredited for alleviating suicidal thoughts. You and I might think they're barking up the wrong tree (praising a God who loves the smell of flaming sacrificial mammal ) ...but that's their choice...as fellow humans. There's this thing called Empathy.

You think people are just popping these pills to avoid the tribulations of daily life? How ignorant. These aren't opiates being abused FFS. They cost money, but you also pay in negative side effects. There's no euphoria. One is fortunate to meet baseline, and has to work to remain in good health. You need to exercise and eat healthy...mandatory requirement to keep well. Cognitive therapy and retaining a healthy sleep schedule.
I know there are plenty of people who don't need to be on such meds who are, and some meds are garbage and many doctors are "pushermen". I'm sure will and belief in recovering have a lot to do with many people's recovery but the anti-depressants really can chemically expedite the process. In any case, placebo effect is a funny thing. Faith in a sugar pill gets you a lot further than faith in the big guy to not let you develop diabetes. The people who denounce their faith because something bad happened to them... I guess they didn't know what they were signing up for.
edit on 1-10-2011 by BernardShakey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Where do you get bigot from asking a simple question?You must have forgotten to take your meds.All I am saying is everyone swaying the jesus flag talks how their lives are soooooo great because of their faith,maybe Its soooo great because of their over the counter little white pills.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You wrote:

["Of course we cannot prove it. Evidence only leads to the a conclusion based on the best available thought and theory. Science continues to leave the pre-existence of consciousness out of the theory because this implies God. All of nature implies God. Can we prove this? Not a chance. Can we prove String or M-Theory? Not a chance. These only point directly back to God."]

'Pointing' is not an acceptable rational alternative to unsolved question as compared to the REAL science/logic method, which waits with answers until they satisfy all the procedures and criteria in science/logic.

Quote: ["God is a much better way to describe the theory."]

Cutting away all your unnceessary ornamentation and your cottage-industry 'methodology', you are left with the common 'god of gap' approach.

Quote: ["The theory is a poor way to describe the God who originated the theory."]

So 'god' describes 'god' and that makes it 'true'?

Quote: ["Gullibility is believing that consciousness is not responsible for collapsing the indeterminate wave of probability."]

You still have no idea of what science REALLY says about this, but operate with your phantom-science instead.

Quote: [" Another theory that leads directly to a designer as a conclusion is entropy in information. Don't confuse this with entropy in energy."]

In real science there's no difference.

Quote: ["States change and resolve to equalibrium. Life is the only part of reality that can be shown to decrease entropy in information over time. In other worlds, life goes against the loss of data in information."]

The strong anthropic principle coupled with self-orgainizing in complexity, leading to negative entropy. Sure...and used in a theist context it concludes that an alleged 'creator' is incompetent.

But how does all this lead back to the topic of this thread. Please clarify.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


It takes faith to believe the scientific theory supports a materialistic view of the world. It takes faith and common sense to believe that a designer is behind this irreducible complexity. Either way, it takes faith. For science, their faith rests on the theory they make up on a hunch. For true faith, there is no theory. The theory from science merely backs up the original claim. Common sense allows the case to rest on the evidence. Incredulity and bias is where the case rests for science.



Quote: ["States change and resolve to equalibrium. Life is the only part of reality that can be shown to decrease entropy in information over time. In other worlds, life goes against the loss of data in information."]

The strong anthropic principle coupled with self-orgainizing in complexity, leading to negative entropy. Sure...and used in a theist context it concludes that an alleged 'creator' is incompetent.

But how does all this lead back to the topic of this thread. Please clarify.


You still have no idea of the difference between entropy in information and entropy in energy. Here is a link to assist you. LINK While you are there, consider that the information in life is digital and not analog. This is yet another solid piece of evidence we are designed. There is no good theory to push this toward a happy accident of nature. Again, common sense trumps your bias.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You wrote:

["It takes faith to believe the scientific theory supports a materialistic view of the world. It takes faith and common sense to believe that a designer is behind this irreducible complexity."]

Get positions, their associated concepts, semantics, definitions and REAL science/logic in order, before your start using them.

Faith is a specific subset of 'belief';...... your are creating a false category here (from where you define science). And there is no such thing as 'common sense' in objective procedure.

Quote: ["For science, their faith rests on the theory they make up on a hunch."]

It's not a 'faith' and there are no 'hunches'. But at least you have come out of the beating around in the bushes with your pseudo-science/logic and are out in the open with standard theistic ignorance about real science etc.

Quote: ["For true faith, there is no theory."]

True. It's a subjective phenomenon taking place in the individual mindset. When one mindset tries to push its subjective premises onto another the outcome is absurd.

Quote: ["The theory from science merely backs up the original claim."]

Cherrypicked and out of the premises real science/logic defines itself with.

Quote: ["Common sense allows the case to rest on the evidence."]

And 'common sense' means YOUR 'common sense'?

Quote: ["Incredulity and bias is where the case rests for science."]

The 'god of gap' gambit again.

Quote: [" You still have no idea of the difference between entropy in information and entropy in energy."]

Actually I do. Information-theory (on entropy) is a subset of general entropy, where the details just have a specific restricted perspective.

Quote: ["This is yet another solid piece of evidence we are designed. There is no good theory to push this toward a happy accident of nature."]

And STILL another 'god of gap' approach 'validated' by YOUR 'common sense'.

Quote: ["Again, common sense trumps your bias."]

When everything else fails, one can always declare one's postulates as 'winning'.



edit on 2-10-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




["It takes faith to believe the scientific theory supports a materialistic view of the world. It takes faith and common sense to believe that a designer is behind this irreducible complexity."]

Get positions, their associated concepts, semantics, definitions and REAL science/logic in order, before your start using them.


You are forcing logic to produce an absurd conclusion (reductio ad absurdum) when the third perspective exists. Science starts with the premise that no God is proven therefore no God exists (The Fallacy Fallacy). From this starting point, theory is then developed to describe nature as a reflection of man's theory of nature apart from all the evidence. This places science in the position of possessing a description of nature which is invented by its observation of selected evidence. This is another fallacy know as misplaced concreteness and incredulity based on bias against one perspective.



Faith is a specific subset of 'belief';...... your are creating a false category here (from where you define science). And there is no such thing as 'common sense' in objective procedure.


Although I applaud science of being objective in some areas, this does not imply that science draws the correct interpretation of all the data. This is the problem for science. When data is gathered and studied, theory then gravitates toward an implication from the data with bias being one of the factors in the equation. There can never be theory about nature without a common sense approach to the meaning of the data from all viewpoints. The Christian has one set of data over science. We have a third perspective that has never gone against theory. Name a theory and I can give you the verse that defines the implication of the theory further than the theory itself.

In science, the conclusion is also its own premise since theory must always match the data that is examined. Not true for a Biblical world view. The Bible is a third perspective that has not yet been demonstrated to be innumerate to current scientific theory, unless you want to fault a biblical writer for rounding pi. Science rests on the same Tautology and circular reasoning as faith with the exception of the missing third perspective.



It's not a 'faith' and there are no 'hunches'. But at least you have come out of the beating around in the bushes with your pseudo-science/logic and are out in the open with standard theistic ignorance about real science etc.


All theory (not fact) is a hunch with no third perspective to make it fact. Once a third perspective is found, theory is proven and moves on as a foundation for further theory in other areas. Any theory that can be presented by science as a close approximation of the truth can then be seen by the light of Biblical truth. Give me examples that refute this and you are going down the road of the Slippery Slope fallacy. Until you can say to me "Here is a science fact that refutes something in the Bible", then you have no way to demonstrate a platform against the data I possess.



True. It's a subjective phenomenon taking place in the individual mindset. When one mindset tries to push its subjective premises onto another the outcome is absurd.


Are you speaking to science or to faith? Either one will fit according to your logic.



Cherrypicked and out of the premises real science/logic defines itself with.


Should I list the 'scientific' theories that have changed over the years from the harvest of new premises that have been discovered? Does science cherry-pick? It's a requirement. The Bible is right there with the correct answers with anything you throw out.



And 'common sense' means YOUR 'common sense'?


Not at all. All paradoxes can be resolved when the excluded middle is used in the data to rightly divide truth. We have always had the excluded middle in the pages of scripture. Before science came along, the Bible had no excluded middle as it's own premise of faith apart from experience. Now that science is finally coming around to a true perspective, the Bible is verified again and again. Science claims no excluded middle to unify paradox until it finally realizes it describes the Bible. Give it time.



Quote: ["Incredulity and bias is where the case rests for science."]

The 'god of gap' gambit again.


The 'theory of the gap' gambit again? Science fills the same gap any way you look at it. Both are faith.



Quote: [" You still have no idea of the difference between entropy in information and entropy in energy."]

Actually I do. Information-theory (on entropy) is a subset of general entropy, where the details just have a specific restricted perspective.


The two do not adhere to the same logical reasoning.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join