Atheism a mental disorder?
Offline Food for thought. Some atheists like to say that religious people have some sort of mental disorder or illness, well...
Mental disorder or Mental illness is a term used to refer psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.
OR
any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom.
OR
Serious mental illness or disorder impairing a person's capacity to function normally and safely.
OR
Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma.
Seems to me that it is more likely that the loud minority, that is atheists, might be the ones suffering from an illness. Maybe they should get some help? It all depends on what you define as healthy, and what you define as the norm.
- Login to post comments
Is that the case you're making? Do continue.
Your conclusion is a non sequitur from your premise.
And you committed two ad populum fallacies
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well then I acquired my mental disorder at the age of 30 after thinking a lot.
So try not to think so much and stay theist.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Atheists/agnostics/couldnt care less secular people are by far the majority in the Western world its just the US hasnt caught up yet
Through I not a big fan of describing religion as an illness either, being stupid or wrong is part of being human. With a bit of education its fixable of course
I'm still interested in hearing the OP back up his claim.
Yikes. I've been labelled a "Theist" whatever that is.
I was planning on backing up my claim, but had to run, and figured I'd post what I had.
A majority in the western world? Interesting. I doubt it though.
Over 80% of the world believes in some sort of spirituality, correct? Do you think education matters that much? I'm well educated myself, nearing the end of 4th year in a BSc, and I do believe there is more to life then what science can currently show us. There are many many people who would agree. The point is, you can't say educated people will not be religious, because it simpily isn't true, there are plently of examples. Proof by example is legit.
Simpily having a BSc elevates a person to the top ~1-5% in the world too, as far as education goes.
All you have to do is read the Bible to see that a belief in God takes a bit more then what any education can give you. It requires faith. Belief in the invisible. Science just doesn't get you anywhere in a discussion on spirituality.
So, if over 80% of the world has a belief in a spiritual aspect to life, that is obviously the norm, right?
So, on to what is healthy/better for society....
BTW I'm not trying to be a theist or atheist, or proclaim anything, I haven't even said my personal views (I think) because personal views tend to cloud proffessional/intelectual decisions/debates. Generally, and this view is taken in religious studies classes oftenly, the best way to look at it is from an agonsitic perspective.
perticular topics of interest are: war, progress of science and technology, and personal health. I might be missing some, but those seem like the big ones.
None of your assertions imply that atheism is a mental disorder. At best your assertrions imply that whatever the majority does not believe is a mental disorder. This is absurd, irrational and fallacious.
The only thing this proves by example is that many people are spiritual. It does not ipso facto prove that atheism is hence a mental disorder. I have no idea how you reached this conclusion or if you are simply fond of non sequitur.
This speaks absolutely nothing about "atheism being a mental disorder". Au contraire, with this point, all you are saying is that theism is irrational, because theistic positions rely on the rejection of epistemology ("faith" essentially is the rejection of epistemology) and that theists are not within their empirical rights to hold their positions, hence their beliefs are irrational. Well done on refuting your own claim.
This is an ad populum fallacy which speaks nothing about "atheism being a mental disorder".
You obviously have no idea what a mental disorder is...
There is no statistical evidence whatsoever which would indicate theism is better for society. Au contraire, it is detrimental. Overall, religiosity and intelligence are inversely proportional.
This, again, means nothing. Thus far your whole claim has been thus:
P1:many people believe in the spiritual
P2:This requires faith
C:Therefore atheism is a mental disorder
The third point is an irrational non sequitur from the first two. P1 is an ad populum fallacy and P2 merely demonstrates that theism is irrational hence refuting C (making it a stolen concept fallacy).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What a trainwreck.
You're conflating "spirituality," which is a vague, broad term, with religion; then you're conflating the world religions as though they're mutually supportive rather than largely mutually exclusive; then you make a special plead for the bible, as though that were the acknowledged frontrunner and representative of the world's religions.
Giving your credentials is an appeal to authority. You should be able to state your case with or without them. There are a ton of people with letters after their names who've been wrong; there are still others who have been completely batshitinsane. Credentials don't make the argument.
You close with an appeal to popularity. If you want to argue from the tautology that the masses define the norm, then take an objective look at the ideas the world is really profiting from. Their actions speak louder for secularism than their words do for faith. Faith, by the way, isn't an answer to anything: it's the withdrawl of the damn question.
"Perticular?" Fuckin' eh.
Firstly, war.
War is not a religious thing, it is a human thing. You're going to find it hard to argue that, all you have to do is look at little children fighting over toys, getting violent over simple possessions to see some basic human nature at work. Most wars historically have been over a possession of some sort. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am fairly certian of that fact, but I'm no historian though.
Progress! Ever hear of something called the protestant work ethic??
Interesting phenomenon, and by no way evidence, but still food for thought. It is interesting that since the protestant revolution, those countries became much more prosperous then others. This is believed to be due to the docturine that was introduced by Martin Luther, namely the priesthood of believes one, I think. It is more of an observation then anything really, but there are some very interesting observations one can take from christianity.
Never the less, it is true that the countries today that are the best off are ones that made most of that progress while (if they still aren't) they were majorly christian countries.
So what about personal health? Does it hurt to go to church? No. Church is a place of community, and learning. How can it be anything but benificial to learn how to be a more holy person, and to do so in a community of others, developing strong relationships with other likeminded individuals? This is the aim anyways, doesn't always happen that way.
Atheism requires nothing, and as such it would tend to be easier for people to slip through the cracks, become antisocial, and use the internet far too much where real interactions would be far more benifical for personal well being. Generalizations, but they do seem true to me.
What about other beliefs? Most if not all other religious require community. Atheism does not. It is simply a matter of tools. Christians, muslims, and jews all meet once a week, atleast, to gather in community and partake in a common activity. What is required of atheists? Nothing. So you have to go out there and modivate yourselves. Like I said, a matter of tools, and the fact that it just doesn't happen for atheists.
All these points can be developed a lot more, but I am no pro debater, or even an arts major, but nevertheless, it is food for thought, and perhaps someone may enjoy this read and have some thought provoked within them
The only case you have when saying that atheism is a mind disorder and religion is not, is that mind disorders tend to be diagnosed by their rarity, in addition to all the other determining factors.
Considering most religious people fit all the definitions of delusional disorder with the exception of the fact that they are a majority of the populace, and we know that an argumentum ad populum fallacy would come into play here, it becomes more likely that the people who hold to more definitive terms of disorder, would be the people with the disorder.
In other words, all you have going for you is that we're a minority. All other factors of delusional disorder fit many theists perfectly. They however don't fit atheists well, especially when you generalize atheists. The definition of delusional disorder fits theists, even better, the more you generalize.
More videos will be coming on this issue, we have had enough. Theism is a delusional disorder, and we'll keep saying it, each time we hear another shitty objection.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
So, are you going to respond to where I tore your argument in half, or are you going to continue to make ad consequentiam non sequitur that are of no relevance to the OP or indeed anything else?
Be warned that debating here is extremely brutal, and so we will laugh our asses off at you if you:
-present a claim with absolutely no evidence or research or any sort of backing or reference whatsoever except your personal feeling
-Use the phrase "but it seems true to me" (unspoken part: Regardless of the evidence).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Interesting arguements, but I don't think your points are all that valid either. You can state your opinion on what is irrational and what is not all you like, that doesn't make it true, nor does it mean I am intitled to your opinion.
+++ sorry, you're a bit quicker then me in posting. It may take time for a reply, some of us have other things to do then sit watching a discussion board all day
Based on that, who's more sane?
1. Person believes what his senses tell him, as well as data gathered through repeated experimentation.2. Two people, raised to do so, agree with each other that bread can become flesh, or life is a long series of rebirths -- or, that a man flew into another dimension on a winged horse -- or that the creator of life wants them to hack at their penises.3. A man rips his teeth out because he believes aliens are using them to track his thoughts and movements.
Actually, in formal logic, "irrational" has a precise meaning. It means you are operating outside your empirical rights:
What are Epistemic Rights? A Basic Primer in Critical Thinking
I must leave now. Perhaps in a few hours I will check to see how this pathetic excuse for an argument is continuing.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
War is not a religious thing, it is a human thing.
Really? How do you distinguish what is a religious thing?
You're going to find it hard to argue that, all you have to do is look at little children fighting over toys, getting violent over simple possessions to see some basic human nature at work. Most wars historically have been over a possession of some sort. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am fairly certian of that fact, but I'm no historian though.
My interpretation of "Curious George Goes to The Zoo" says your toys are my divinely granted property. Whoops, look what happened there.
Progress! Ever hear of something called the protestant work ethic??
Interesting phenomenon, and by no way evidence, but still food for thought. It is interesting that since the protestant revolution, those countries became much more prosperous then others. This is believed to be due to the docturine that was introduced by Martin Luther, namely the priesthood of believes one, I think. It is more of an observation then anything really, but there are some very interesting observations one can take from christianity.
So those engaged in holy wars can't be taken at their word, but this anecdote is meant to prove the value of religion? Is the consistent way to gauge whether something is really religious is whether it's good or bad? "All good things are religious, and all bad things aren't."
Never the less, it is true that the countries today that are the best off are ones that made most of that progress while (if they still aren't) they were majorly christian countries.
In spite of themselves. In spite of most scientific breakthroughs going through the rigors being labeled heresy.
So what about personal health? Does it hurt to go to church? No.
Being told you're a worthless, scum bag worm every Sunday? What harm could that do? Oh, and I almost forgot about the molestation for a minute.
Church is a place of community, and learning.
"Learning" being a funny word. Like how a person can "learn" necromancy.
How can it be anything but benificial to learn how to be a more holy person,
What does "holy" mean?
and to do so in a community of others, developing strong relationships with other likeminded individuals?
You've just described... anything. They could be trading stamps or S&M partners.
Atheism requires nothing, and as such it would tend to be easier for people to slip through the cracks,
You've committed the empty human fallacy, which is an ad hoc fallacy I made up just now. It states that without a crusty old book to tell you what to do, you are completely void of any standards of behavior and will act like a monkey as St. Darwin prescribed. Ook ook ook. With or without religion, people are pretty similar in their priorities. Religion just adds a few that make absolutely no sense.
become antisocial, and use the internet far too much where real interactions would be far more benifical for personal well being.
Is church seriously all you can think of to do? Would you be bereft of all social contact if you stopped believing in your religion? That's fucked up.
What is required of atheists? Nothing. So you have to go out there and modivate yourselves.
Your argument is redundant, but "modivate." LOL.
"Intitled?" LOL. I wouldn't mention it, except that you made such a point about getting a degree.
Anyway, you started this debate, so don't bitch about not having time for it. Just lose gracefully, don't knock the pieces over.
I was thinking about either posting a bunch of counterpoints or a cat photo. Went with cat photo...
Should I? Don't dare me to, because I will. Seriously... ah fuck....
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
The theist label overcompensates him.
Subservient!
Compliant!
Obedient!
A lagging lemming.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
Seems to me that the key here is "distress or disability".
Atheism, in a overpoweringly religious society, could be a source of distress or disability in that particular society, but it not because of atheism but rather the culture in which the atheism is being expressed. It is just as valid to reverse the roles and put a theist in a completely atheist culture.
So the whole thing is a red herring for a mental disorder is defined by the consequences of the belief, not the belief in and of itself.
My Artwork
How about this one:
Two men are on an island. One happens to be blind. He has one less sense then the nonblind person. Now, is he right to say that the nonblind person is crazy, seeing all these things he might see? Sure the 4 senses the blind man has make up for a lot of what he doesn't have due to blindness, but he can't experience seeing the colour blue. Nor can he ever see the sunrise, or a rainbow. He is truely missing out on part of life as the nonblind man experiences it.
I could say that atheists are the bind men. And often times, they do see, but try to rationalize and disbelieve what they see.
I'd say the crazy one is the blind man who keeps on ranting and raving about how the nonblind man is lying, or delusional, that there is no sight, or seeing.
I personally fall into your first catigory best. I was not raised to believe any religious beliefs. Infact, I came to believe what I do while studying math and physics at university. I believe what I do because of what my senses have told me, and what data I have obtained through repeated experiments, proceedures and experiences.
How about this one:
100 people are stranded on an island. 50 of them can see and 50 of them are blind. They search for food and find berry bushes. Some berries are blue and some are red. The people who can see notice that everyone that eats the blue berries die, where everyone that eats only the red berries live. They tell the remaining blind people which berries are blue and not to eat them.
The blind people refuse to see the link between what they can't see and eat any berries they can get their hands on. This despite the fact that those that have died will not respond to them calling their names and when the blind feel their bodies they realize that rigor mortis or decay has set in.
I cannot smell. Never have. It's called Anosmia. However if someone tells me they smell gas in my home I will not light a lighter or turn on a lightbulb. I will leave the house immediately and call the firehouse and gas company.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
True, the majority/minority arguement is somewhat weak, but it has some... weight too it. One may ask themself: how can so many people be delusional? (rhetorical question)
Can someone perhaps have a disorder that doesn't allow them to experience a certian thing? Yes. You could have a disorder that doesn't allow you a sense of touch. That'd be nasty one, but atleast you could still see.
The crazy person usually can't tell if they are crazy, but who is he to say someone else is crazy? If you have a disorder that does not allow you to experience the spiritual and supernatural side of life, who are you to say those who can have a disorder?
Oy vey, the "atheists are blind" arguement.
...wait, hold on a moment -
We're the "bind" men? I haven't heard that one before
Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.
Ooh, I've got a better one. Imagine a guy claims light is part of a larger spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. To prove it, all he has is a testing methodology and hundreds of repeatable experiments, and a bunch of technology made over the course of decades to prove it. Oh, right, I don't need to imagine that. But I'll follow your premise. Let's say we've got a blind man who wants to find out whether light exists. The sighted man describes the properties of it, and the blind man develops a simple gauge (indicated with sound or touch) using a battery and a selenium resistor. Oh, right, you made it a trite desert island scenario. Light produces heat. "You know that heat you feel every day that seems to wane toward the evening?" the sighted man could say. "That's light. If we weren't on this dumb, plot-convenient island, you could do some experiments to prove it, but whatever."
Let's take a second man with a theory about radiation. His testing methods are precise: they involve a metalllic prism, and viewing a fine piece of wire that's said to faintly glow. Another scientist is invited to check out the set up, and he secretly steals an integral part of the machine. The first scientist still insists on seeing the wire glow. He is, of course, mistaken, and this is the true story of "N-Rays." Your argument amounts to a defense of that debunked theory -- actually, it's worse: your idea doesn't even admit a testing methodology. It just skips the question entirely.
That is a great one actually! But who are the blind people, and who are the nonblindies? Perhaps someone has already warned you that you are eating the blue barries and you are slowly going to die. What if these barries cause you to die in such a way that you don't feel it happening untill it is too late?
And the smelling too. Yo obviously don't deny that there are smells, you just can't experience them yourself. Is that rational? What proof do you have that people do smell things? There is biological evidence though. But have you done any experiments on your own, or just accepted this proof on faith?
What if someone had the inablity to experience a certian emotion? Thats harder to prove.
Oh I love the google ads on the side, check it out, on an atheist site:
Dude, all people do is look at the facts and come to different conclusions. That's it.
To follow up with your incredibly insightful desert island scenario, let's play with some variables and see what happens.
Let's say three sighted people describe light as warm and bright. The lone blind person can't perceive half of it directly, but he can devise a way to do so indirectly. He has a basis to work from because he's gotten a consensus from his neighbors about what this "light" is like. Later he asks them to describe "god." The first one says god is a spirit. When quizzed harder, he says a spirit is supernatural -- meaning outside nature, meaning not really relevant to nonexistent. The second one says god is a force that acts within all of us, but didn't offer a way to differentiate between the presence and absence of said god. The third one talks about god being a creator, a spirit, and a guy who died a long time ago, and insists the only way to prove it is to believe it without proving it. Not only does the blind man have different answers to the same question (realistic, if you poll your local adherents), but he's gotten nothing to go on but the insistence of people who have disabled their own cognitive faculties.
In closing: Light can be described consistently, and it can be proved without direct experience.
Does this matter to the people who can see and want to save the lives of the remaining blind people who have not yet eaten a blue berry? Nor does it matter to the blind that have been told that to eat a blue berry is likely death?
Well when my classmates could sit near the windows of the cafeteria and state that we were definetly having hamburgers that day for lunch...and when we did have hamburgers or whatever food they had "predicted"...well that "mystifying" ability at predicting the future that I was unable to do made me realize that there was something I couldn't detect.
Also when throwing stink bombs in a crowded hallway made everyone around me scurry away and I stood there completely confused all alone I definetely felt like other people could detect something I could not.
That's a realization of logic. And I accepted it at a young age. I would hope that I have grown enough now to continue the tradition to believe in results based on prexisting criteria and not blind faith coupled with no logical deduction in the outcome one way or the other.
If I pour gasoline on myself and set myself ablaze it will really freaking hurt if not kill me. If I pour gasoline on myself and pray for my safety, then set myself ablaze, it will still really freaking hurt if not kill me.
I can test this all day long. If I emit any noxious oder, skunk musk, most especially, I will receive a collective reaction of disgust from 99.9% of humans. If I pray to get a reaction of disgust from any human for doing nothing but glancing at them briefly I will get 0.000001% reaction of disgust from humans. Why? Because I understand, though I have never smelled the stink of skunk musk (nor anything for that matter), that people in a great generality find it highly offensive because smell and oders is real.
Praying? God? I will admit that I have believed in both of those concepts as reality for most of my life. However, I believe a thousand times stronger that "smell" exists than god. I would state flat out that even though I have never detected a smell personally that I will stake a life or death result my belief that smell exists. However I will stake an eternity in hell over the idea that I DON'T believe that god exists.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
After reaing this thread, I am mentally disordered.
Please pass the drugs ...
80% of the world is religious... and that means what?
If a majority of the people were schiztos, would that make it okay?
and Norms? oh, being normal is always okay... gag me!
Are you then saying, wavefreak, that if I sat you down in my kitchen, blinfolded you, then decided whether to take a freshly cut orange and wave it in front of you or wave a freshly baked piece of bread in front of you that you could not tell me what type of food I have?
I think you people that can smell could tell me if I was holding an orange or a loaf of bread even though you can't see nor taste it in such a test. I can't detect it personally by someone waving at me blind and untasting, but if you could not tell me what I had, an orange or a loaf of bread with respect to just breathing through your nose, I would suspect you to be like me and unable to smell .
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Depends. How good are the drugs? If they're really good you can smell colors.
(plz - I'm totally un-serious here)
My Artwork
Dude, I can't smell! I'm unable to join you with this perception of "olfaction". If you throw in drugs then you go several dimensions beyond my ability to relate to you!
How can I relate to smelling colors if I've never smelled anything?
What does smell mean?!?!?! Remote taste? That's what I think of it as being, deprived as I am of that sense. But man...if anyone farts, you guys are forced to remotely taste his shit/ass, at least when you first detect it? That sucks.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
You've never smelled anything? That's interesting.
Actually, for those of us who can smell, our sense of smell comprises a large part of what we consider our "taste" sense. Often times you'll see someone eating something they don't especially like and they'll plug their nose. That's because it reduces the intensity of the taste.
It's not quite the same as taste, but if you think of smell as "flavored air", then you're probably about as close as you're going to get. To me, it's a stronger sense than taste, but that may vary from person to person.
Also, most things smell different than they taste, so we taste things differently than you! WEIRD! Your mind is being blown right now.
Are we veering off topic? =)
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
That's like saying being Black is a disease because it impairs one's ability in hailing a cab or getting a job.
mmmmm
debate
just to poke a little at both side
how can either of the extremes think they are right?
neither atheism or theism can be proven to be a mental disorder
personally
i would say that claiming theism/religion is a mental disorder
is a bit offsides
it's just a fancy way of calling someone a "retard"
which is about 3rd grade rhetoric
if you want to do damage to someone's position
show how it's unreasonable
as best you can
don't lower yourself to fancy insults
at the same time
atheism is not a mental disorder either
the same insult disclaimer applies
i would say most people on this forum
tend to socialize more with people who agree with them
so of course we're all going to say
"well, i know more people think like me"
if you go to church
you will be around more people that believe what you do
that's kind of the point
just like me not ever going to church
is kind of the point
i'd rather take a hike
or learn more about physics or astronomy
or go to a show of some great band
and get really fucked up
and have glorious sex
because all those things
make me feel "closer to god"
to quote trent reznor
than anything i ever did or was told at church
that said
i spent a long time hating the religious
christians in particular
but some good friends showed me
that you can be a christian
and still not fuck with other people's lives
so i don't jump to conclusions so much now
until someone says god hates me or i'm going to hell
still don't like that
so
as i asked in another post
given that both sides apparently see the other
as fundamentally and functionally flawed
how do we go forward?
there is no solution; seek it lovingly
ha!
yes
pass hear pls
k thnx
there is no solution; seek it lovingly
Yes but they don't generally kill each other do they. Or round up their mates, tie them down and torture them to death if they don't beleive what they believe. I agree that religion is not the only cuase of human violence, that we are violent by nature but it is certainly A cause.
You are correct. But most wars, we most of the really nasty ones, have also been perpetuated by fighting for some kind of dogmatic, idiological thought system. Religion is one such thought system and whilst it may not be the root cause of wars it is A causal factor in many and certainly has helped perpetuate most.
Atheism on the other hand does no such thing. No one has ever, to my knowledge, been killed or tortured in the name of atheism. Oh and before the nonsense spews from your mind let me remind you that Commuinism is not atheism.
This also coincides quite nicelly with the decline of religion though.
Indeed. I observe that over the last 200 years the power of Christianity has fallen away hugely. I also observe that this has been a peiord of unprecedented progress and the standard of living has rised dramatically.
Nope they are actually majourly secular countries. The countries with the highest standards of living in the world are also the countries with the highest levels of atheism. With the notable exception of the USA that is.
It depends what you mean by "holy" if your definition of "holy" means opposing vital medical research, persecuting homosexuals, trying to control a womans womb and curbing free speech then we could do with hole lot less holyness in thie world.
The problem is the "likeminded" bit. I would rather have a world where people didn't need to be "likeminded" in order to have a relationship. The fact is that we are not all "likeminded" thats human nature. I get along fine with many people who are not "likeminded" but then again I don't have a religion telling me that anyone who isn't "likeminded" is filthy heathen scum who will burn in hell.
Beneficial only if they think exactly how is required.
Indeed it is not required. We meet up an socialise because we actually want to.
Sorry but you are talking complete and utter nonsense here. If you can please back up this wild claims with some evidence please.
No shit?
The main thought you have provoked is a common one that I have when speaking to theists. The thought is
"Oh dear what a poorly thought out argument."
Watcher -
I apologize if I got under your skin. This thread got weird before your condition came up in it.
My Artwork
i realize now
i never actually responded directly
or at least not appropriately logically
to the core question of this thread
at least some atheists
(understatement)
live a perfectly "healthy" life
it would be impossible to prove
that they feel less
or enjoy less
or anything else along those lines
you're falling back on opinion if you say so
likewise
at lest some theists
(understatement)
live their lives
without detriment to themselves or society
it would be impossible to prove
that they are truly delusional
ergo
since there are exceptions to both arguements
neither atheism nor theism
in and of themselves
constitute a mental disorder
i would probably argue that theism more often leads to narcissistic traits
such as those of president bush
due to the integral notion in many religions
that the followers are "blessed" or "special"
but that's opening two cans of worms
there is no solution; seek it lovingly
Actually my mind has restled with these concepts for most of my life, so I find none of this shocking. I daily have to think of this.
So I have come to the realization that those that can smell are the ones that have it wrong. If you lose your sense of hearing does that make you unable to see as well?
If you had 20/20 vision with a sense of hearing, it doesn't make sense that your eyesight will lessen by losing your hearing.
What part of your body detects sight? Your eyes right? What part of your body detects sound? Ears. Taste? Tongue. Smell? Olfactory glands in your nose.
To say that my Tongue doesn't work as well because the olfactory glands in my nose don't work doesn't really make any sense. I understand that most humans can sense flavour. I also understand that most humans find it an added pleasure in the act of eating. However that doesn't mean that flavour is taste really.
I've tried tasting perfume. Tastes like crap. Well if it smells good it should taste good, right? That's what I thought at first since I think of smell as remote taste.
I had an Indian dish once where everyone around me found it delicious. Tasted like soggy dog food to me. Does that mean delicious means taste alone? Obviously not. My Tongue works fine. If it "tasted" delicious I would have been able to detect that. It tasted bland. I'm sure it was very flavourful and smelled delicious. Everyone just assumes that smell is part of taste.
However smell and taste are two different senses aren't they? Otherwise we only have 4 senses: touch, sight, hearing, smelltaste.
Clamp your nose closed and eat something. That is taste. If you lose any detection of how good something is when you eat while doing so, does that mean the act of you clamping your nostrils closed actually shuts down some of the input from your tongue?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Naw Wave, you're cool in my book. A little weird but who of us isn't?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Smell is very similar to taste because both are chemical senses. Smell is much more complex than taste, because Taste only has a few receptors (salty, sweet, bitter..etc.), while smell has several thousand specific sensors for specific compounds. Smell is often the most primal and hardest to describe, because there is no way to break it down into components.
Flavor is indeed smell+taste. We have the taste (salty+sweet, for instance) plus the smell (freshly baked bread), and those equal the flavor. Therefore, you're missing quite alot without having smell. Whenever I have a cold, all my food tastes so bland and lifeless, because it doesn't have the added scent.
Don't be "un-serious"--there is actually a disorder called "synesthesia" where people can see smells or sounds in various manifestations (usually colors) and all kinds of other strange things. Oops, I forgot, I'm not qualified to speak on these subjects. :rolls eyes:
Atheist Books
People with congenital anosmia (inability to smell) typically have an over-developed sense of taste and therefore can experience the same enjoyment from foods as people with the ability to smell. The problem comes when people who formerly had the ability to smell lose it, and then everything tastes like cardboard.
Atheist Books
ARGUMENT FROM AUTHRITY! ARUGMENT FROM AUTHORITY!
My son's fiance says she can "see" music. Sha also has perfect pitch. I was not mocking Watcher's disorder. I was just being as random as this thread seems to have become.
My Artwork