Is belief in spiritual or supernatural entities a sign of mental weakness or illness?

[walterpthefirst]

57 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm just asking questions.  The difference between me and Johnny is I'm at a point where I'm content with my understanding to a point of not being threatened by the hard questions.  I don't care about going back to the pain anymore, it's meaningless.  I gather to some, it's still very real and produces reactionary responses.  

 

But you are right, the question that I was pondering and wanting to ask is: Is the solution the truth, and work backwards from the solution and see if it yields "truth" rather than looking at the perceived solutions from the subjective standpoint.  .....if this makes sense.  

 

Yes, the implication is there are personal and other kinds.  Thinking even the Bible talks about being deceived...

 

Well, you just keep on asking questions, Ed.  

 

 

I can't really supply any ironclad answers on this, but what you've mentioned sounds interesting.  But since this thread is about mental weakness/illness, how about this?

 

 

People who have personal, subjective truths that are wildly at odds with the greater, objective truth that we inhabit are mentally weak/ill.

 

(Like believing that they can fly from the tops of high buildings.)

 

Whereas, those whose personal, subjective truths agree well with the greater, objective truth that we inhabit are not mentally weak/ill.

 

(Like not believing that they can fly from the tops of high buildings.)

 

 

Is that any kind of useful definition of mental illness/weakness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

24 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Well, you just keep on asking questions, Ed.  

 

 

I can't really supply any ironclad answers on this, but what you've mentioned sounds interesting.  But since this thread is about mental weakness/illness, how about this?

 

 

People who have personal, subjective truths that are wildly at odds with the greater, objective truth that we inhabit are mentally weak/ill.

 

(Like believing that they can fly from the tops of high buildings.)

 

Whereas, those whose personal, subjective truths agree well with the greater, objective truth that we inhabit are not mentally weak/ill.

 

(Like not believing that they can fly from the tops of high buildings.)

 

 

Is that any kind of useful definition of mental illness/weakness?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

No, I don't think your example holds absolutely, but yes, it might be a truth that does hold as a truth in the greater picture.  One example that comes to mind is the different number of truths starting with the religion that says drunkenness is a bad thing down to the objective truths about alcohol and our bodies, down to the parent that drank too much contributing to fetal alcohol syndrome....down to the child.  How may we label mental weakness/illness except as measuring a like population.  And then, given we are all unique, how are we going to define that population to study?   

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

  Your statement sir, was rather one-sided and obtuse to boot. 

 

Perhaps I am slow to understand.  Is it possible we are both not fully understanding what the other is saying??

 

What I am saying is that we are all "programed" in youth to think in certain ways and we tend to make certain "associations".   This is not proven fact, but in my experience I have noticed that some people tend to see their father God, as they saw their earthly father.  My father saw his father as a mean SOB, and saw God in a similar way.   And I didn't realize this until later years, but Dad equated this meanness with love.  A way for fathers to scare their sons straight.  He thought that was just the way things worked.  He was almost 80 years old before he saw his father as abusive.  It was like a major awakening for him.  We never got around to discussing whether he saw God as loving or abusive.

 

Another way to look at it is that we are programmed in youth as to how the world works.  If you grow up in an rigid authoritarian (power oriented) world, you learn that survival depends upon OBEYING the powers that be.  And in some sad cases people are programmed to be scared to even question the power.  And perhaps they, like my Dad, came to see that as love.  If people are never introduced to other thinking, they just think that is the way the world works.  But in my study of the history of religion, and of the world, power/authority eventualy becomes corrupt with no checks and balances.

 

In other cases chilren are disciplined in nurturing ways and are introduced to democratic thinking where they are encouraged to think for themselves and ask questions.  Thank goodness my grandfather, who influenced me more than my father, "programmed"  me to question.  And It was through decades of questioning that I saw both sides of the religious issues and eventually became agnostic.  My signature below sums up what I now believe.  But that could change if your all powerful god decides to appear on mass media to all of us at once and declare what it is that he wants from us.  If he is all powerful, and he exists, he could do that.

 

I am glad you are comfortable in your belief, but I don't understand WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING HERE?  You should know by now you aren't going to change our mind.  And I am not trying to be a smart aleck.  If we all took an IQ test I am sure you and several others would score higher than myself.  But I have have decades of study and observation of people, societies and religion, and want to make it available to others.  Everyone is free to listen or not.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

Perhaps I am slow to understand.  Is it possible we are both not fully understanding what the other is saying??

 

What I am saying is that we are all "programed" in youth to think in certain ways and we tend to make certain "associations".   This is not proven fact, but in my experience I have noticed that some people tend to see their father God, as they saw their earthly father.  My father saw his father as a mean SOB, and saw God in a similar way.   And I didn't realize this until later years, but Dad equated this meanness with love.  A way for fathers to scare their sons straight.  He thought that was just the way things worked.  He was almost 80 years old before he saw his father as abusive.  It was like a major awakening for him.  We never got around to discussing whether he saw God as loving or abusive.

 

Another way to look at it is that we are programmed in youth as to how the world works.  If you grow up in an rigid authoritarian (power oriented) world, you learn that survival depends upon OBEYING the powers that be.  And in some sad cases people are programmed to be scared to even question the power.  And perhaps they, like my Dad, came to see that as love.  If people are never introduced to other thinking, they just think that is the way the world works.  But in my study of the history of religion, and of the world, power/authority eventualy becomes corrupt with no checks and balances.

 

In other cases chilren are disciplined in nurturing ways and are introduced to democratic thinking where they are encouraged to think for themselves and ask questions.  Thank goodness my grandfather, who influenced me more than my father, "programmed"  me to question.  And It was through decades of questioning that I saw both sides of the religious issues and eventually became agnostic.  My signature below sums up what I now believe.  But that could change if your all powerful god decides to appear on mass media to all of us at once and declare what it is that he wants from us.  If he is all powerful, and he exists, he could do that.

 

I am glad you are comfortable in your belief, but I don't understand WHY DO YOU KEEP COMING HERE?  You should know by now you aren't going to change our mind.  And I am not trying to be a smart aleck.  If we all took an IQ test I am sure you and several others would score higher than myself.  But I have have decades of study and observation of people, societies and religion, and want to make it available to others.  Everyone is free to listen or not.

Why I keep coming here?  It's statements like "your all-powerful god", that amount of indignation towards another.  It's really arrogant to presume your lifetime of study actually yields a conclusion given our subjectivity in the universe, and what that entails.  

 

You said you were taught by your grandfather to question.   Well, you please need to keep questioning.  

 

In other words, there is nothing we can do though science or otherwise to know absolute anything.  Same for religion.  We don't possess the capabilities and never will.  Never.  Which, dear sir, leaves us one choice left.....an attitude of permanent Grace for one another.  Does Walter know?  Does Ed know, Does Wheezer or the Prof?  NO one knows.  

 

So you need to rethink your conclusion that there IS a conclusion other than faith and grace....

 

I'm angry because my father was a PhD intellectual ass much as you appear to be.

 

I don't dislike you, I dislike your attitude and that it reminds me of acceptance via merit...

 

Need I pull any dozen scriptures, you know, from that old mythological planned by men book to support the position.  I digress....not sure you are understanding regardless.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, I don't think your example holds absolutely, but yes, it might be a truth that does hold as a truth in the greater picture. 

 

Ok, Ed.

 

Btw, I asked if my example was helpful.   Pushing it to the absolute is bound to make it fail.   

 

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

One example that comes to mind is the different number of truths starting with the religion that says drunkenness is a bad thing down to the objective truths about alcohol and our bodies, down to the parent that drank too much contributing to fetal alcohol syndrome....down to the child.  How may we label mental weakness/illness except as measuring a like population.  And then, given we are all unique, how are we going to define that population to study?   

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Neither Weezer nor I have mentioned, suggested or implied anything about 'the absolute', Ed.

 

That's a strawman of your making.

 

He's dealing in real world examples and I'm trying to discuss helpful definitions.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

In other words, there is nothing we can do though science or otherwise to know absolute anything.  Same for religion.  We don't possess the capabilities and never will.  Never.  Which, dear sir, leaves us one choice left.....an attitude of permanent Grace for one another.  Does Walter know?  Does Ed know, Does Wheezer or the Prof?  NO one knows.  

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We've been here before.

 

 

Not knowing the absolute doesn't invalidate what we do know.

Not knowing everything doesn't invalidate what we do know.

Knowing a small amount doesn't mean that small amount is in invalid.

Not having the capabilities to know the absolute doesn't mean that our capabilities mean nothing and gain us nothing.

Never having the capability to know the absolute doesn't mean that our capabilities mean nothing and gain us nothing.

 

 

Why are you stuck on the absolute, Ed?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

Why I keep coming here?  It's statements like "your all-powerful god", that amount of indignation towards another. 

 

 Indignation keeps you coming here??  I think I will bow out of this conversation for now.

[walterpthefirst]

I'm angry because my father was a PhD intellectual ass much as you appear to be.

 

 

Ed,

 

Given that Weezer has left, are you now going to project your unresolved anger against your father on to me?

 

If so, then I'm out too.

 

 

Your call. 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You can be pissed at me, @Edgarcito.  I don't mind.

[Edgarcito]

11 hours ago, Weezer said:

 Indignation keeps you coming here??  I think I will bow out of this conversation for now.

Dude, you were never in it to begin with was the problem.

[Edgarcito]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

In other words, there is nothing we can do though science or otherwise to know absolute anything.  Same for religion.  We don't possess the capabilities and never will.  Never.  Which, dear sir, leaves us one choice left.....an attitude of permanent Grace for one another.  Does Walter know?  Does Ed know, Does Wheezer or the Prof?  NO one knows.  

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We've been here before.

 

 

Not knowing the absolute doesn't invalidate what we do know.

Not knowing everything doesn't invalidate what we do know.

Knowing a small amount doesn't mean that small amount is in invalid.

Not having the capabilities to know the absolute doesn't mean that our capabilities mean nothing and gain us nothing.

Never having the capability to know the absolute doesn't mean that our capabilities mean nothing and gain us nothing.

 

 

Why are you stuck on the absolute, Ed?

We are discussing the absolute God of Christianity?

[Edgarcito]

Walter, there used to be an old mod here that went by Antlerman.  His contention was, per my memory, that truth had to be from A to Z.  What I was trying to convey yesterday was our "objective" certainties should play a role in the A to Z.  I think the fetal alcohol syndrome scenario would demonstrate a comingling of religion and science to demonstrate multiple "truths" throughout everyone's particular perspective.  I'm rather busy today, but maybe try later.

 

Thanks.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You can be pissed at me, @Edgarcito.  I don't mind.

You're a good man, thanks.

[florduh]

23 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm at a point where I'm content with my understanding to a point of not being threatened by the hard questions. 

Hey Ed - long time!

 

Seems like you've given up the search for truth and settled for comfortable.

[Edgarcito]

24 minutes ago, florduh said:

Hey Ed - long time!

 

Seems like you've given up the search for truth and settled for comfortable.

Hey Sir!  Took me a long time to understand there was no answer lol.  Glad to be there and do the best I can now.  Hope all is well!

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

We are discussing the absolute God of Christianity?

 

Really?

 

I thought Weezer was using his expertise and experience to discuss real world examples of mental illness and weakness.

 

And I thought I was trying to come up with a helpful definition of what mental illness and weakness is... or isn't.

 

Some of that indirectly touched upon god, but the main focus of this thread has not been about the absolute of anything.

 

As I said yesterday Ed, you are the one who introduced the strawman of 'the absolute' when neither Weezer or I were discussing that.

 

The attitude and the anger came exclusively from you, because you're projecting the image of your father onto Weezer.

 

And you're on record as stating that you've often come to this forum to let off steam.

 

NOT a helpful way of reasonably and calmly discussing something to find answers!

 

But a good way of venting your unresolved rage issues on innocent parties.

 

 

So, are you here to discuss this topic in a sensible and adult way, today?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter, there used to be an old mod here that went by Antlerman.  His contention was, per my memory, that truth had to be from A to Z.  What I was trying to convey yesterday was our "objective" certainties should play a role in the A to Z.  I think the fetal alcohol syndrome scenario would demonstrate a comingling of religion and science to demonstrate multiple "truths" throughout everyone's particular perspective.  I'm rather busy today, but maybe try later.

 

Thanks.

 

This post appears to be Edgarcito in his 'reasonable and open to discussion' mode.

 

I won't respond to the content of it until he answers my question.

 

Which I repeat, below.

 

 

Are you here to discuss this topic in a sensible and adult way, today?

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This post appears to be Edgarcito in his 'reasonable and open to discussion' mode.

 

I won't respond to the content of it until he answers my question.

 

Which I repeat, below.

 

 

Are you here to discuss this topic in a sensible and adult way, today?

Absolutely Walter, please continue.  

 

Edit:  Would it help that I just start my own thread so you won't object so much to moving off course of this thread that not even the author is responding to?

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Absolutely Walter, please continue.  

 

Edit:  Would it help that I just start my own thread so you won't object so much to moving off course of this thread that not even the author is responding to?

 

Thank you for your reply, Ed.

 

Please feel free to start up a thread if you want to.

 

But since you ask me to continue here, am I right in thinking that your new thread won't be about mental weakness or illness?

 

Just asking for clarification.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Absolutely Walter, please continue.  

 

Edit:  Would it help that I just start my own thread so you won't object so much to moving off course of this thread that not even the author is responding to?

 

Edgar,

I can respond..

I doubt my discourse would interest you however.

 

I am not so erudite as others here.

 

And of late, I have only the one issue to discuss with believers, that which you've seen in my discussion with others:

What precisely, is a spirit (as a noun), and what objective evidence is there that any spirit of any kind actually exists?

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, since Ed has asked me to continue...

 

...this was my shot at a useful/helpful definition of mental weakness / illness.

 

People who have personal, subjective truths that are wildly at odds with the greater, objective truth that we inhabit are mentally weak/ill.

(Like believing that they can fly from the tops of high buildings.)

Whereas, those whose personal, subjective truths agree well with the greater, objective truth that we inhabit are not mentally weak/ill.

(Like not believing that they can fly from the tops of high buildings.)

 

To which Ed replied like this...

 

No, I don't think your example holds absolutely, but yes, it might be a truth that does hold as a truth in the greater picture.  One example that comes to mind is the different number of truths starting with the religion that says drunkenness is a bad thing down to the objective truths about alcohol and our bodies, down to the parent that drank too much contributing to fetal alcohol syndrome....down to the child.  How may we label mental weakness/illness except as measuring a like population.  And then, given we are all unique, how are we going to define that population to study?   

 

So, excluding the absolute from the topic, we seem to agree that there might be some truth in my definition, even if that truth is part of a greater picture.  That's fine.  All I was hoping for was a useful definition, nothing more.  In no sense was I trying for an absolute or fully complete definition.  Just one that was useful/helpful.

 

Perhaps Edgarcito would like to comment on how helpful he thinks my definition might be? 

 

Before we go on to anything else?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Edgar,

I can respond..

I doubt my discourse would interest you however.

 

I am not so erudite as others here.

 

And of late, I have only the one issue to discuss with believers, that which you've seen in my discussion with others:

What precisely, is a spirit (as a noun), and what objective evidence is there that any spirit of any kind actually exists?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see that we've cross-posted alreadyGone.

 

Since this is your thread, is it ok for Edgarcito and I to continue discussing mental weakness / illness?

 

Or would you prefer us to up sticks to a new thread?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

Carry on Walter (and Edgar), by all means.

 

I've little to contribute, and given that not one of the several true believers to whom I've posed that particular question has posited any response at all..

I don't expect any other result here.

 

In fact, please pardon me for interrupting and thank you for asking.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Not at all, aG.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.