Are atheists mentally ill? The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Dear Stormdancer777,

I'd like to correct what appears to be an unfortunate misunderstanding.

When you find God you will know all there is to know.

You must be a very simple person if you are so easily satisfied. As for myself, I am not intellectually lazy.

That is one of the most profoundly ignorant things I have ever heard you say. Or anyone else, for that matter.

These are the comments of three different people. The third comment, mine, was my expression of disbelief that anyone could find the subject of God the proper study for the intellectually lazy.

Even then, there is more to know and more to learn.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

The only thing that Mr. Harris provides is some kind of healthy - sick dichotomy.

Wrong. Another expected failure to comprehend the issues at hand or purposefully misrepresent them.

There are only two assumptions I can reach from you presenting his viewpoints put forth in "the moral landscape" in such an ignorant straw man fashion, dishonesty is one of them.



I invite all those ignorant of Sam Harris's foundations for secular morality to view this video where he describes in depth how we can reveal the foundations of secular morality and what the process of discovering what is moral should be like.

Then I would like you to examine the above statements.

There is no new ethical system, there can't be. There can only be a distortion of the one that already exists.

Right... which is why religion is a counterfeit source. Secular morality is the ONLY morality that exists.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Right... which is why religion is a counterfeit source. Secular morality is the ONLY morality that exists.

Interesting observation. I've often wondered just how virtuous all religious people would be if any and all kindness or compassion would earn them a seat in hell. Just one kind act could forever damn your soul. How virtuous would they be then?

Whereas nonreligious people do it because it's the right thing to do. That speaks a lot more to character. What, you're doing it because you are promised an eternal life of basking in the glory of the guy who started it all, knowing what would happen. The guy who played chess with your soul as the pawn. The guy who knew your decisions before you would make them. Who knew what it would do before you did it. But it's eternal life! And apparently, everything is just hunky dory. No one hears the screams of the thousands of souls who never had a chance.

I mean, look at it this way. The best question of all: Who prays for Satan? Anyone? Do you remember him in your prayers after wishing Aunt Ruth good health? Why not? All of the sinners you pray for, he is th one who needs it most. Shouldn't you be praying for his salvation? I thought God was love, right? No loving person would ever hold a grudge. If he loves someone, he accepts them for their flaws. He accepts that they've seen the light. He'd welcome them home. And yet...Satan? His own creation? He can't forgive his own child, and he's loving?

So from where I'm sitting, I'm not sure I should be getting the morality talk from any Christian. They are doing it because they think they'll be rewarded for it later, and they already hate being human so why not try to be inhuman, and they apparently haven't read up on psychology or they'd know exactly why they're doing it. I'll let them get on that.

Please provide the answers to threethese four questions.

1) Describe Harris' concept of well-being in other than merely bodily terms.
2) Describe how your answer in #1 will be measured scientifically.
3) Describe the process when individuals with different definitions for "well-being" interact.
4) Explain, with strict logic, why we must declare Harris' idea of "well-being" as a moral good.

reply to post by charles1952


No. I will not.

Why don't you ask Sam Harris or search for his responses yourself and then critique them?

reply to post by Wertdagf

You're slipping, you didn't call me dishonest. I'll let it go this time, but ...

I posted links and a quote from two critiques here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So, I've done as you've asked, would you care to critique the critique? It is your turn, you know.

As far as the four questions go:
1) Describe Harris' concept of well-being in other than merely bodily terms. (He doesn't believe there is anything else. He rejects God, and even religious thought, in short, he leaves out of his definition of well-being something that the majority of people believe is essential to well-being. Thus his model falls.)

2) Describe how your answer in #1 will be measured scientifically. (You can measure an individual's weight, for example, but you can't tell if it's his best weight. An athlete will weigh more than someone sedentary. Plus there are issues of personal self-esteem which vary from person to person. There is no way to even find the proper weight, let alone any of the more complicated measurements. Thus his model falls.)

3) Describe the process when individuals with different definitions for "well-being" interact. (Morality is usually person to person. He has presented no method that I know of for two people to sit down and determine who will get the most well-being from a decision, or even what well-being is. Thus his model fails.)

4) Explain, with strict logic, why we must declare Harris' idea of "well-being" as a moral good.(He can't and doesn't. This is the "is-ought" problem. Philosophers have been working for millennia to try to figure out how to get an imperative conclusion from indicative premises, they have failed. So has Harris. Thus his model fails.)

If this failed model, as AfterInfinity seems to believe, is the only reasonable ethical system, there is really nothing left to say, except that reason and logic have been abandoned.

reply to post by charles1952

(He doesn't believe there is anything else. He rejects God, and even religious thought, in short, he leaves out of his definition of well-being something that the majority of people believe is essential to well-being. Thus his model falls.)

You mean if the majority is in ignorance, then ignorance overrules. Got it.

You can measure an individual's weight, for example, but you can't tell if it's his best weight. An athlete will weigh more than someone sedentary. Plus there are issues of personal self-esteem which vary from person to person. There is no way to even find the proper weight, let alone any of the more complicated measurements. Thus his model falls.

I think there's a simpler way to the heart of the matter. Just ask three questions:

1. Is the individual in question happy?

2. Is anyone else unhappy as a result of that individual's happiness?

3. Is that person unhappy as a result of his/her rights being violated?

Depending on how how those three questions are answered, I'd say you have a decent model for approaching the "proper weight" of any person.

Morality is usually person to person. He has presented no method that I know of for two people to sit down and determine who will get the most well-being from a decision, or even what well-being is. Thus his model fails

I resent you judging an entire system based on one independent example. His model may not work, but that doesn't mean it can't work.

If this failed model, as AfterInfinity seems to believe, is the only reasonable ethical system, there is really nothing left to say, except that reason and logic have been abandoned.

Not really. For instance: all of the points you have just raised are issues shared by all existent moral systems. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all just as flawed as any other. These are inherent complications that require communication to resolve. You assume it's universal, it's not. That's one reason why we developed language. We're not robots.

I would further add that every instance of immorality has been observed in the animal kingdom. With that in mind, given our inarguable genetic commonground we share with those animal kingdoms, it is more than reasonable to suggest that we will share the same inclinations those animals exhibit. We have the same biology, the same behaviors, and the same functions as all of those animals - is it illogical to assume that we could thus be expected to engage in the same social transgressions?

We are the only species to have declared such practices immoral. You said it yourself: "He rejects God, and even religious thought, in short, he leaves out of his definition of well-being something that the majority of people believe is essential to well-being."

So if animals reject the morals we have fought to uphold, and they are the ruling collective of this planet, then perhaps we are upholding a construct that is unnatural to our biology. Scientifically speaking, spirituality is actually counter-productive to the mannerisms that are proven to have a significant role in the survivalism game. If you really want to have this discussion, I can make a case for morality being unnatural. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it isn't our "default setting". We are animals; as such, we can be expected to act like animals. The only difference between those animals and us is that we believe we are better than them. Such arrogance is hardly surprising.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

When you're serious, you're one of my favorite posters. I appreciate you being here and I hope you stay around for a long time. Of course you deserve an answer, and I'll do the best I can, in an equally serious vein.

in short, he leaves out of his definition of well-being something that the majority of people believe is essential to well-being.

You mean if the majority is in ignorance, then ignorance overrules. Got it.

If Harris is attempting to maximize the "well being" of the greatest number of people, then he either accepts that people should have what they believe makes up their well being, or he will tell them that he knows they are all wrong and must sacrifice their desires for his at the risk of being labelled immoral.

If he allows people to choose and determine for themselves what makes up their well being, then he must abandon his model. His alternative is to say, "I will determine what is immoral after looking at reports which do not allow for the effect of faith, church-going, and personal desires on well being." Unfortunately for him, scientific reports have already shown that faith, church-going, and satisfaction of personal desires do have an effect on well being. Thus, he is forced to throw out the science he doesn't approve of in favor of the science he does approve of. That's not moral logic, it's moral tyranny.

I think there's a simpler way to the heart of the matter. Just ask three questions:

1. Is the individual in question happy?

2. Is anyone else unhappy as a result of that individual's happiness?

3. Is that person unhappy as a result of his/her rights being violated?

Depending on how how those three questions are answered, I'd say you have a decent model for approaching the "proper weight" of any person.

That, of course, is a perfectly respectable idea. Indeed it seems a reflection of Hedonism. However, that's not what Harris is calling for. His cry is "Science, science, and more science."

Take for instance your question 2. Let's assume one spouse is happier weighing 230 pounds than 180. His spouse is happier with his weight at 180 instead of 230. How do you meaure his appropriate weight based on happiness? Do you take an average weight and say that it is morally proper for him to weigh 205 pounds? Do you determine that the wife is really unhappy and he is just a little happy, so he should weigh 180? Do you say that it's his body and he can weigh whatever he wants regardless of the unhappiness it causes? And how have you managed to switch from well being to happiness? Do you believe those are identical? If so, do you think Harris is saying whatever makes us happy is moral?

I resent you judging an entire system based on one independent example. His model may not work, but that doesn't mean it can't work.

I'm sorry for your resentment, but if Harris' model doesn't work, we must find another. The ethical system sometimes known as Natural Law or the Tao has been in existence for at least 3000 years, perhaps from the beginning of humanity. What model will you put against it, if not Harris'?

For instance: all of the points you have just raised are issues shared by all existent moral systems. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all just as flawed as any other. . . . You assume it's universal, it's not.

You tell me that issues are shared by all existent moral systems, then tell me it's not universal. Pardon my confusion. Further, Harris is attempting to create a universal moral system. As I've just mentioned, I think the Tao is such a universal system which can be modified to suit the culture and which can be modified from within it.

I would further add that every instance of immorality has been observed in the animal kingdom.

There are no instances of immorality in the animal kingdom. To be immoral, one must violate the rules of morality. Animals have no rules of morality, they can't break rules that don't exist, they can't be immoral.

So if animals reject the morals we have fought to uphold, and they are the ruling collective of this planet, then perhaps we are upholding a construct that is unnatural to our biology.

Animals have never rejected the morals we have fought to uphold, they have never heard them, considered them, or understood them. They have never had even the chance to reject them. No one has ever claimed that the rules of morality apply to animals. (Except, perhaps, for you and a few other individuals I have never heard of.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

If Harris is attempting to maximize the "well being" of the greatest number of people, then he either accepts that people should have what they believe makes up their well being, or he will tell them that he knows they are all wrong and must sacrifice their desires for his at the risk of being labelled immoral.

Since when has anyone ever really wanted what's best for them?

That, of course, is a perfectly respectable idea. Indeed it seems a reflection of Hedonism. However, that's not what Harris is calling for. His cry is "Science, science, and more science."

The rudimentary method I just proposed is, in fact, a scientific approach. Logically, we go to the source of the problem. There is no problem. Then we look at the surrounding factors. Is there a problem? If so, what caused it? Then you find the actual source of the problem. Then you measure that problem according to a number of factors which will determine when, how, and why you should deal with that problem. Be sure to keep notes for reference.

Science. That's what they call "investigation".

Take for instance your question 2. Let's assume one spouse is happier weighing 230 pounds than 180. His spouse is happier with his weight at 180 instead of 230. How do you meaure his appropriate weight based on happiness? Do you take an average weight and say that it is morally proper for him to weigh 205 pounds? Do you determine that the wife is really unhappy and he is just a little happy, so he should weigh 180? Do you say that it's his body and he can weigh whatever he wants regardless of the unhappiness it causes? And how have you managed to switch from well being to happiness? Do you believe those are identical? If so, do you think Harris is saying whatever makes us happy is moral?

First off, Mr. Harris can take a hike. When I am answering your questions, he's a deaf mute in the back of the room. I don't care what his opinions are and his opinions are not relevant.

Secondly, If someone is happy but their well-being is not necessarily adequate, who are you to make that decision for them? If a man is bleeding out on the street and he tells me to let him die, I am going to let him die. That's his decision to make and I would appreciate the same consideration were the roles reversed. Well-being will always play second fiddle to happiness in my book.

As for the rest of your question, it's simple. They will either work out a compromise or they will divorce. Ever heard of bartering? If you don't like what I have to sell, you're perfectly free to see the vender down the road. If you like what I sell, it's up to you to decide if the price is worth it or not. If it's not, there's another vender down the road. He's got crappy wares, but his price might make you happier.

This is called "common sense", otherwise known as "basic problem solving", otherwise known as "novice critical thinking skills". Very important skills to have when running an investigation, which is very much science. Chemistry, physics, psychology, a little bit of botany, a touch of cryptology, and a good dose of mathematics in case you have to do some quick number work.

Surely you know all of this already though, don't you?

I'm sorry for your resentment, but if Harris' model doesn't work, we must find another. The ethical system sometimes known as Natural Law or the Tao has been in existence for at least 3000 years, perhaps from the beginning of humanity. What model will you put against it, if not Harris'?

Alright then. I'm a little rusty behind the wheel, can you give me some surefire instructions for operating a motorized vehicle without getting a ticket? I'm not just talking about directions. I'm talking about the exact speed, when and how to hit the brakes, the precise degree to turn the wheel and for how long, and how to handle any possible complications along the way. If you want, I can give you a rough route to work with.

You tell me that issues are shared by all existent moral systems, then tell me it's not universal. Pardon my confusion. Further, Harris is attempting to create a universal moral system. As I've just mentioned, I think the Tao is such a universal system which can be modified to suit the culture and which can be modified from within it.

Complications are universal, solutions are not. Complications are arise as a result of common physical ground. However, details particular to each instance also affect the proper procedure for resolving the issue.

The Tao is just as efficient as riding a bike. It's not the only means of getting there, and it won't necessarily take you the same places as everyone else. It's a matter of preference, style, and flavor. One of my biggest points with religion is that religion is not essential. Salvation is a gift we give to ourselves. Our biggest obstacle in finding what some might call "ultimate forgiveness" is ourselves. We don't want to forgive ourselves because we are conditioned to believe we should always be bigger, better, more badass. We are expected to do great things, so what happens when we turn out to be exactly human?

We seek perfection, but all we really need is happiness. If you want perfection, that's on you. But if you decide that perfection is something the whole race needs to find, then you're in need of schooling. Nobody understands what perfection is; they just have a general theme they more or less agree upon. But let's look:

1per·fect
adjective ˈpər-fikt
Definition of PERFECT
1
a : being entirely without fault or defect

That's according to Merriam Webster, my preferred dictionary. Entirely without fault or defect, eh? So how does that jive with 7 billion humans all looking for perfection? What does that look like, when 7 billion different versions of perfection are all standing in a row? A vast rainbow of vanity? A ginormous collage of greed? Or just broad scattering of broken dreams?

Let's cut to the point here...perfection is the most idiotic thing to look for. If someone looks for perfection, they're forgetting how to be happy. Because there wil always be more, always be better, always be something that has a little bit extra to offer. And they will never sit down, look around, and think, "Wow, I did great!" or "Gee, things look pretty darn good now." That's why I say happiness takes first priority. You can be the healthiest man alive and also feel utterly, utterly alone. At least if you're perfectly happy and dying, you don't have any regrets.

That's what it's all about, right?

There are no instances of immorality in the animal kingdom. To be immoral, one must violate the rules of morality. Animals have no rules of morality, they can't break rules that don't exist, they can't be immoral.

Bullcrap. They can't be immoral because our rules don't apply to them? Why don't they apply? Bears have four legs. Dogs have brains. Parrots can imitate our speech. Monkeys are learning sign language. What makes them such base creatures that we place this dichotomy between us and them?

Animals have never rejected the morals we have fought to uphold, they have never heard them, considered them, or understood them. They have never had even the chance to reject them. No one has ever claimed that the rules of morality apply to animals. (Except, perhaps, for you and a few other individuals I have never heard of.)

I never said the rules of morality apply to animals. I said that the rules of morality can arguably be considered a construct that opposes the laws of survival. I already made some of my case in that regard: we share the same biology, the same DNA, and the same behavioral patterns and instincts exhibited by animals today. We have a pile of evidence suggesting that we ate, slept, pooped, copulated, and fought in the same way animals did, thousands and thousands of years ago.

As such, it can be argued that the same mechanisms that drive animals to their "immorality" are also operative within us. Since such mechanisms preceded any notion of morality, it can thus be argued that "immorality" is actually the more natural course of life. It occurs to me that morality was introduced as a more advanced survival mechanism that "tamed the game" and made the players easier to manipulate by introducing a hierarchy of authority by which to domesticate the people.

Nevertheless, "immorality" was the original natural course of survival. You raped, you killed, you stole...you did everything you had to to keep living.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Nevertheless, "immorality" was the original natural course of survival. You raped, you killed, you stole...you did everything you had to to keep living.


so if rape, murder and stealing were the natural course, please show me some pictures of a squirrel raping another squirrel, or even a mouse murdering a chicken. perhaps there are no such things?
show me then a monkey raping a goat or a sheep, or even a human where their habitats cross.

cant be done Ai

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Thank you so much for responding. I know you're a prolific writer, but I enjoy our conversations and would be lessened without them.

You've said three things which please me very much. One is your desire to relegate Mr. Sam Harris to the ash heap of history. A wise choice. I had mistakenly thought that you agreed withe wertdgaf's support of him, but since you don't, and wertdgaf has apparently abandoned the field, we can dispense with Mr. Harris.

Second, is your desire to change the goal from well being to happiness. While happiness is also difficult to measure, it is clearer than well being.

And, third, your declaration that a man should be allowed to make his own decisions without having someone telling him what to do.

Unfortunately, it seems as though you run into several problems. The topic was Atheists and mental illness. I took that to mean a moral or logical mental illness, for I have no statistics on comparative numbers of those in our institutions. I have my suspicions, but I don't know. The only reason the thread mentioned Atheism was to examine the Atheist's moral code, I believe.

But that is precisely what you do not provide. It seems your position is that "problems" can be "solved" by looking for our greatest happiness. But nowhere is there the argument that striving after our happiness is the moral thing to do. Why is solving problems "moral." We may want to do it, we may find life is easier, but how do we prove it is moral without the premise that an easier life is moral? Where is the argument that says "Happiness is Priority Number 1" and if military service, or staying up with sick kids, or visiting those in prison, or donating money gets in the way of my happiness, then I won't do it?

That argument, if it exists, results in the belief that selfishness is moral. Not a position I care to defend. Besides, why pick happiness as the greatest good? Why not honor, or truth, or love, or beauty, or strength? Because you prefer it? Or does everyone choose their own? If everyone chooses their own then all morality is subjective, which means that there is no morality at all.

That belief strikes me as a dangerous form of moral mental illness.

With respect,
Charles1952

Question:

What is the best way to stop your child becoming an athiest[sic]?

I don’t want any of my children to be punished by God. -JT (user no longer exists)

Best Answer- Chosen by voters...

Do not educate them, or expose them to critical thinking, logic or science.

Lie to them constantly about how the world works. Feed them a steady diet of mumbo jumbo dressed up like real knowledge – the jumbo jet in the whirlwind for example – and pretend that it is deep wisdom.

Make them loathe their own natural bodies and functions. Convince them they are small and weak and worthless and need redemption. Tell them everything enjoyable is grievously wrong to even think about, and that their only fun should be in grovelling to an invisible friend.

Ensure that they resent anyone who is not like them in every way – skin color, nationality, political opinion but especially creed. Make such people out to be evil and vile and give them – impotent minorities all – the fictional power to somehow oppress and persecute the vast majority who do think like you.

Teach them to laugh at and dismiss out of hand any faith but their own. Early – early mind you – make sure they are taught the difference between superstitious deadly error – that one raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people, and divine eternal truth – that another raving lunatic in the desert told the truth about a vicious god who killed people.

Instruct them with all severity and import to never question for themselves – to never think for themselves – to never live for themselves – but to seek answers only in one – just one – particular set of semi-literate bronze age folk tales.

Above all – and this cannot be overemphasized – make sure they cannot spell, use correct grammar, or understand basic English words.

That should do the trick. -David M

My personal experience has been that religion is a philosophy or doctrine, and spirituality is an experience.

The former tends to lead to endless lists of thou-shalt-not's, to judgment of others compared to that, to the undiscriminating use of questionable information as prop-support, the tendency to be willing to do the wrong thing to allegedly serve a good end, and pretty much everything quoted above actually.

The latter tends to lead to a more compassionate understanding of oneself and others, a greater awareness of the value and quality of relationships, and often a better-developed interest in things which result in positive feelings and positive, constructive situations for oneself and others.

A more poetic analogy might be that religion is of the head but spirituality is of the heart.

The lack of clarity on this point seems, oddly, to be more common in people I've met who are religious than those who are not.

I think all religions are cults (although technically, so are many other things, including militaries), but some of them provide a doorway for a spiritual person to have a positive sense of community with others of like mind. Nothing wrong with that part of it. Innumerable good people have done innumerable good works under the umbrella of religion.

Religion itself however is a governmental construct. To really screw things up on a grand scale worthy of enduring legacy, it takes some form of government. There tends to be a lot wrong with that part of it. Innumerable bad people have done innumerable bad works under the umbrella of religion.

What one 'believes' comes in two forms:

1. What one intellectually believes or hopes to be so;
2. What one understands, having experienced it.

Men believed in wind before meteorology explained it. That wasn't by faith, that was by experience. If an experience, repeated or even vicarious could not educate man as to reality, humans never would have survived the tigers.

Spirituality breeds experience, which breeds a greater understanding about the most likely psychological construct for invoking such experience: even in perfectly non-religious areas such as business and baseball, inventions and olympics, state of mind and beliefs are known to have a profoundly powerful effect on the end-result experience.

"Faith" is used intentionally and unintentionally in every area of human endeavor. It is not limited to religion. Our belief that we will be 'safe' when we drive to work is an example. Statistics show that masses of people are injured or killed when driving to work. And yet most people have faith that it won't happen to us. I suspect more people would drive with much more attention if this were not so.

People call it faith when this overlaps certain areas of philosophy/life, because they only understand #1. I've noticed the people who have the most to say about faith either have this confusion, or hope you will have this confusion, for the sake of their wallet. Or sometimes for the sake of their feeling more comfortable when more people agree with them.

I think a case could be made that many elements of perceived reality are subjective, and that the most constructive use of our biological-psychology is to create whatever most helps 1) us and those around us to survive, and 2) us at least to enjoy doing so. In that case, even intellectual 'faith' (a misnomer in that case) has great value, and I might add, is just as present in many areas in atheists as it is in spiritual people or religious people.

To the degree that any philosophy reduces the survival odds of oneself or someone else, or the enjoyment of oneself -- because misery is anticonducive to survival for health reasons -- then it is problematic. Hence I would say the "mental" health or illness of any man would need to be judged based on how well his philosophies support that.

If your religion or atheism makes you miserable, causes you to help make your associates miserable, or even causes you to go forth and insult, assault, or even murder people who are not equally miserable or at least not in the same way, then this is probably a form of mental illness at least by my definition.

I see 'pseudo-science scoffers' as being, in personality-profile, very similar to religious fundamentalists. By which I do not mean spiritual people who happen to act it out in church, but rather, head-philosophers with great emotion.

I consider them equally crazy.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Interesting study, and it fits everything we can see around us. Strong moral values make for more lawful people, more stable families, and faith in God makes one less stressed, thus healthier. S&F for a nice find!

Now, to go read all the responses, and count the ones that say nothing, but manage to complain.

The entire concept of higher IQs and higher education being associated with athiesm is laughable. Explain why the Jewish community here in the U.S. is associated with such a large number of doctors and lawyers? The involvement of Jews in medicine has been brought to public attention time and again.

www.einstein.yu.edu...

The University of Chicago ran an article in 2005 showing that 76% of doctors in a survey beleived in God.

chronicle.uchicago.edu...

And once again I will link the Big Think with the ever popular yet controversial Neil deGrasse Tyson on how there is no conflict between religion and science. Noting that scientists tend to have fairly high IQs as being the relevance here.

bigthink.com...

The true bias here is that teens and tweens tend to be outright rebellious in their college years and will defy someone stating that the sky is blue. Their actual IQs are clouded by a hormonal overload and a drunken euphoria over being "out on their own". Add to that the midlife crisis people trying desperately to act like teenagers again to "recapture their youth", and you get a large number of anonymous posters on the internet who think they've got it "all figured out".

reply to post by Trihalo42

The true bias here is that teens and tweens tend to be outright rebellious in their college years and will defy someone stating that the sky is blue. Their actual IQs are clouded by a hormonal overload and a drunken euphoria over being "out on their own". Add to that the midlife crisis people trying desperately to act like teenagers again to "recapture their youth", and you get a large number of anonymous posters on the internet who think they've got it "all figured out".

Notice that this is the part where Trihalo stops posting sources. He makes three statements that are all supported by sources, then he drops this pile of rubbish and doesn't even bother with evidence.

In other words, ignorance is preferable because it treats the feeble human mind less harshly? And it is preferable to act as though you believe in something just to be on the safe side?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Trihalo42

 

The true bias here is that teens and tweens tend to be outright rebellious in their college years and will defy someone stating that the sky is blue. Their actual IQs are clouded by a hormonal overload and a drunken euphoria over being "out on their own". Add to that the midlife crisis people trying desperately to act like teenagers again to "recapture their youth", and you get a large number of anonymous posters on the internet who think they've got it "all figured out".

Notice that this is the part where Trihalo stops posting sources. He makes three statements that are all supported by sources, then he drops this pile of rubbish and doesn't even bother with evidence.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seemed like an opinion to me, and didn't seem all that unreasonable either. People can post opinions, right? They don't need footnote reference links for their own opinions, I'd think.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

Hi, again. Do you happen to have kids that have passed through their teenage years? Let's look at what Trihalo42 said.

The true bias here is that teens and tweens tend to be outright rebellious in their college years and will defy someone stating that the sky is blue.

Will you argue that kids between say 12 and 20 aren't rebellious? Do you know many kids who go around saying "Yes, Daddy. Whatever you want, Daddy?" The question answers itself.

Their actual IQs are clouded by a hormonal overload and a drunken euphoria over being "out on their own".

And quite often it's a literal "drunken euphoria." The stupid things college kids do beggars belief. Where do you think the "Fail" videos come from. I still remember the thread I did about the college lad at a frat party who stuck a firecracker in a place on his body designed for things coming out. Besides the damage it did to him, it startled another inebriated student who fell over their patio rail and got himself wedged between a building and a large utility box.

Add to that the midlife crisis people trying desperately to act like teenagers again to "recapture their youth", and you get a large number of anonymous posters on the internet who think they've got it "all figured out".

You haven't seen that? Of course you have.

Whatever else is going on in this thread, those statements are not rubbish, and as for evidence, Si documentum requiris, circumspice (If you need documentation, look around.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Dear AfterInfinity,

Hi, again. Do you happen to have kids that have passed through their teenage years? Let's look at what Trihalo42 said.

The true bias here is that teens and tweens tend to be outright rebellious in their college years and will defy someone stating that the sky is blue.

Will you argue that kids between say 12 and 20 aren't rebellious? Do you know many kids who go around saying "Yes, Daddy. Whatever you want, Daddy?" The question answers itself.

Only if you look at it as if it has to be black and white. I'm far from my college years and you won't hear me saying "Yes, Daddy. Whatever you want, Daddy."; does that make me rebellious? You know, parents aren't exactly the all-knowing moderators of life itself. When their teen offspring "act out" it's not always just because of their "teen angst"; sometimes the parents are being fools. A lot of times it has to do with control conflicts and peer comparisons.