Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Synesthesia is a good example actually of how the mind can produce profound or unusual experiences simply by being cross-wired somewhere, either temporarily or permanently.
Yes indeed. If we keep misdiagnosing the problem or prescribing the wrong medication we will never progress.
I have come to the conclusion that underlying all human suffering is a deficit in empathy and compassion. We evolved with small social groups so one problem we have is that we find it far more relatable when an individual, family or small group (< 150 persons for sure) meets with calamity or injustice, but we simply can't wrap our minds around hundreds, thousands, millions of people (e.g., Gaza right now). So various groups get away with mass genocide as it becomes old news and nothing you can do about it, but we are going to spare no expense to find that nutcase that killed 18 people in Maine the other day.
Apart from genetic engineering maybe I don't see a way to fix this unless we make it a shared value to train ourselves in empathy, to not turn away from human suffering at any scale, to consider it unacceptable always ... and to do this we would need to learn to recognize the logical fallacies that feed our snap judgments and prejudices and distort our thinking about reality.
Needless to say, I am not optimistic.
I'm struggling with optimism myself right now. However I see ways to do this. Using individuals or groups as examples of the bigger tragedies. A known manipulation of pity but used correctly there. Understanding family, tribe and nation but seeing value (empathy) in other families,tribes and nations.
The point about the political thing was, one nation has no control over what another is doing (apart from sanctions) but it does have control over what criminals do in that country. Including of course mass genocidists who fly into the country. They get grabbed and put on trial.
The problem seems to not be that we don't know how to try to do this, but nobody in charge thinks of trying it.
"The study authors say this shows hallucinations are the result of the brain trying to process contradictory signals from the environment.
It also seems to suggests hallucinations often happen when people having difficulty recognizing their own actions, or are conditioned to expect a certain result.
Simply put, the more participants' brains believed there was someone in the room, the more they drew on past experiences to create the impression of someone talking."
Certainly the ability of the mind to play tricks is known. Mine does it, and has since I was a kid. But I know and knew it was me, not angels talking to me.
For some reason we don't get videos popping up explaining this to us, and we do get apologetics decrying the method used to verify (or reserve credibility) for claims, while the stuff that pops into people's heads is wagged about as true until 100% disproven. That's just delusions, never mind fakes either to 'prove' what is known on faith, or just for fun..
Agreed. Maybe it should be "don't break the law unless the law truly violates #1 and/or #2 such that a stand must be taken against it". That is the wellspring of protest and civil disobedience, but one must be careful of the risk vs reward ratio there.
Ah. Well there we are. If laws were wrong, should we break them or observe them while trying to change them? I was behind gay rights in the 70's when it was illegal and gays were breaking a bad law. What's 'illegal' is not always wrong, but what gets a bad law changed? I have said before, human ethics isn't perfect or even easy, but it beats doing it by religion (which would still have it a crime to be gay).
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
Intimacy
That's one meaning covered by a very, very wide term.
Ah. Well there we are. If laws were wrong, should we break them or observe them while trying to change them? I was behind gay rights in the 70's when it was illegal and gays were breaking a bad law. What's 'illegal' is not always wrong, but what gets a bad law changed? I have said before, human ethics isn't perfect or even easy, but it beats doing it by religion (which would still have it a crime to be gay).
That's one meaning covered by a very, very wide term.
What do you mean by wrong? In what way?
All types of intimacy possible with another:
Parent/child. Child/parent
Damaged/fixer. Fixer/damaged
Lover/lover
Friend/Friend
Adore/the Adored. The Adored/Adore
First I had to get past this intimacy tho
Abuser/victim. Victim/abuser
I think it's what they woo woo call a Twin Flame. Christians call it The Kingdom Within. Buddhist talk about going within. Science calls it introspective or maybe meta cognition.
Certainly the ability of the mind to play tricks is known. Mine does it, and has since I was a kid. But I know and knew it was me, not angels talking to me.
For some reason we don't get videos popping up explaining this to us, and we do get apologetics decrying the method used to verify (or reserve credibility) for claims, while the stuff that pops into people's heads is wagged about as true until 100% disproven. That's just delusions, never mind fakes either to 'prove' what is known on faith, or just for fun..
All types of intimacy possible with another:
Parent/child. Child/parent
Damaged/fixer. Fixer/damaged
Lover/lover
Friend/Friend
Adore/the Adored. The Adored/Adore
First I had to get past this intimacy tho
Abuser/victim. Victim/abuser
I think it's what they woo woo call a Twin Flame. Christians call it The Kingdom Within. Buddhist talk about going within. Science calls it introspective or maybe meta cognition.
If this as connection to God it can't be for an atheist according to most. Since I am an atheist this isn't what those groups are taking about.
I recall specifically you insisted you were 'agnostic' and you rather grudgingly accepted the 'atheist' title. Though atheist was what you were according to what you say above.
I made the comment (several times) I don’t care what you call me (relative to the discussion in the moment or my reference to philosophy); the bottom line is I don’t believe in a god, fate, spirits, evil/the devil, reincarnation and so on. That it matters enough for you to bring it up a few years later is the ‘elephant in the room’. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I recall that you were welcomed as an ally and the criticism (at least) was on your side. I get that you are against 'antitheism' which is not actually what we do, nor bashing you but that could be explained.
That you refer to posters as ‘allies’ (or not) and being on their side (or not) speaks volumes. You have continually expressed such when folks don’t get in line with your ‘hate religion’ narrative as evidenced by the numerous times in which you’ve hilariously/childishly called me a theist in disguise, so-to-speak, as if atheists aren’t allowed to have a different opinion than you - particularly relative to knowledge, philosophy or the ‘human spirit’ i.e. the mind/consciousness (which doesn’t have anything to do with ‘spirits’, a god, or how a theist perceives spirituality). That said, the thread asked for our thoughts as atheists - not just yours. Yet, you’re always armed and ready to attack and speak for atheism, as a whole, primarily by speaking against religion (even in a thread that doesn’t have anything to do with theists or spirits, lol). I find it to be a disturbing attempt to control the narrative and stifle others; in fact, I’ve noted posts in which you have gloated relative to your success in doing so. The only thing you and I have in common is we don’t believe in a god, but you won’t (even) agree to that, heh.
Bottom line, I respect (and am willing to fight for) others’ rights as well as my own. I believe Constitutional Law is our best/only weapon to fight religion, as a whole, and protect our rights as atheists.
As I recall the 'theist in disguise (which i would certainly suspect) was an early response to your 'agnostic' claim while you were ferociously bashing atheism. When you (grudgingly) admitted atheism was what 'agnosticism' actually was, you carried on the bash. 'Theist in disguise' was long since abandoned, and it shows your debate - methods are still theistic (1) even if your beliefs are not, that you drag out something long gone to bash me with now.
I recall the short - sighted, if not actually subversive - claim that constitution can keep america (and the west) reasonable. You are familiar with the saying 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". The surest way of losing our constitutional rights is to stop fighting for them, and if you haven't seen the recent dissolving of rights on either side of the divide, you are either unaware of what is going on or, despite what you claim to be, approve of it.
(1) especially when I translate your appeal to law and constitution to make our input needless in Google translate "Theist - English" and it came out "Atheists; please shut up and go away".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
