People who believe in God are "NOT" broken

[iNow]

This

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pa-faith-healing-dad-loses-bid-end-murder-19894604

is the sort of broken that arises from belief in God

 

Reminds me of this discussion we had a few years ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/34657-fear-of-western-medicine-claims-another-victim/

[md65536]

because believing that the sky fairy will make it better isn't going to improve things nearly as well as actually doing something about it.

Sure, but nobody needs to spend every moment of their lives doing the one thing that will most improve things at the moment. Nobody does. That's the type of delusion I'm talking about... our necessary ability to selectively forget about things, and to be satisfied with mediocrity. Eg. the belief that what I do on a day-to-day basis is important relative to all the better things I could be doing instead.

 

Nobody will know everything, probably not ever. It is necessary for one's mental health to be satisfied with not knowing everything, and with achieving less than the ultimate. Yes it's a shame that a lot of people aim too low and there is wasted potential, but a lot of those people live an adequately healthy life.

 

Dr. Jack Shephard was an over-achieving surgeon but he was broken because he had a torturous obsession with saving people --- being broken and doing a lot to improve things aren't mutually exclusive. Someone who spends Sundays in church and looks to religion to provide ethics, is not certainly broken. Parents who lose a child because they decided to pray away the diabetes are surely broken. I don't think belief in a god is the deciding factor, but extremeness of that belief might be.

Edited August 10, 2013 by md65536

[John Cuthber]

We don't ponder reality all the time.

But that's equally true for atheists and theists.

So it can't have much to do with the question of whether theists are broken.

 

The point remains that those people's child died and, had they not been religious, he would almost certainly have lived.

That's at least 2 people whose brokenness is their religion.

[doG]

 

I never said it was evidence for God. It is evidence that people who believe in God arn't broken.

 

No it's not. Faith is a mental disorder!

[iNow]

The point remains that those people's child died and, had they not been religious, he would almost certainly have lived.

That's at least 2 people whose brokenness is their religion.

As of January 2009 (about 5 years ago), the numbers showed that more than 300 children died in the United States over the previous 25 years as a result of medical care being withheld on religious grounds. It's far more than 2, and frankly probably far more than even the 300 I've just cited.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

[Moontanman]

Okay if I could change the title I would rename it "we are all broken, not just people who believe in God" (long title I know lol)

 

I've been an atheist before and I was most certainly broken, and when I found God I felt less broken.

 

 

Which God? Krishna perhaps? People who find Krishna say the same thing, or maybe Adrianna, I know quite a few people who find themselves whole after devoting themselves to her, I have been honored to witness "Calling down the Moon" it's quite moving but ultimately no different than praying to Thor (I do know people who do) or any other deity. So which is it, solidarity to a social group or Jupiter taking an active role in your life?

[zorro]

Just to jump in .... sorry

 

TOPIC: People who believe in God are not broken.

 

Even though the topic has a sarcastic chill, the minds of those who believe in God (godavg ) is of some merit. … By broken in the since how the avg citizen view these things. To joeave, a God fearing person is crippled to do anything without the consideration of a God that does not exist. This in joeavg terms keeps godavg cleaved from interaction with society. This joeavg would call “Broken “. However from the standpoint of godave, believing in god is all consuming and societies norms are irrelevant. Godavg is eating lunch with God and spends this important time pondering life cycles, the infinite, the Cosmos, God’s purpose for mankind, philosophy and on and on. These ponderances are not in books, computers, Religion or TV and have yet to be resolved. That is what our brains do best that no other beings or robotics don’t even come close. To do this successfully, the brain of godave must step over the tipping point of experience, education and humanity and possibly into madness. Godavg in this world would go mad if God foundations and principals are there to catch him.

 

….. What is infinity ??? Even our largest computers and telescopes can’t find it. So we reach the tipping point that it is only a useless unreachable math concept. Godave then asks God for help with infinity and the reply is that He is before minus infinity and after infinity and also creates everything from nothing. With that, infinity is somehow bounded and the investigation must go forward. ….. Liebnitz / Newton invent the calculus and infinity is tamed forever. ….. It is said that Newton couldn’t safely operate the elevator and would be considered by joeavg as “Broken”. … so what.

 

 

Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz

 

 

broken, I don't think so.

 

 

God and theodicy views.

 

 

Theodicy and optimism[edit source | editbeta]

(Note that the word "optimism" here is used in the classic sense of optimal, not in the mood-related sense, as being positively hopeful.)

The Theodicy^[43] tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible and most balanced world, because it was created by an all powerful and all knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him or possible to exist. In effect, apparent flaws that can be identified in this world must exist in every possible world, because otherwise God would have chosen to create the world that excluded those flaws.

Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. The Theodicy is Leibniz's attempt to reconcile his personal philosophical system with his interpretation of the tenets of Christianity.^[44] This project was motivated in part by Leibniz's belief, shared by many conservative philosophers and theologians during theEnlightenment, in the rational and enlightened nature of the Christian religion, at least as this was defined in tendentious comparisons between Christian and non Western or "primitive" religious practices and beliefs. It was also shaped by Leibniz's belief in the perfectibility of human nature (if humanity relied on correct philosophy and religion as a guide), and by his belief that metaphysical necessity must have a rational or logical foundation, even if this metaphysical causality seemed inexplicable in terms of physical necessity (the natural laws identified by science).

Because reason and faith must be entirely reconciled, any tenet of faith which could not be defended by reason must be rejected. Leibniz then approached one of the central criticisms of Christian theism:^[45] if God is all good, all wise and all powerful, how did evil come into the world? The answer (according to Leibniz) is that, while God is indeed unlimited in wisdom and power, his human creations, as creations, are limited both in their wisdom and in their will (power to act). This predisposes humans to false beliefs, wrong decisions and ineffective actions in the exercise of their free will. God does not arbitrarily inflict pain and suffering on humans; rather he permits both moral evil (sin) and physical evil (pain and suffering) as the necessary consequences of metaphysical evil (imperfection), as a means by which humans can identify and correct their erroneous decisions, and as a contrast to true good.

Further, although human actions flow from prior causes that ultimately arise in God, and therefore are known as a metaphysical certainty to God, an individual's free will is exercised within natural laws, where choices are merely contingently necessary, to be decided in the event by a "wonderful spontaneity" that provides individuals an escape from rigorous predestination.

Further information about this theodicy, including its supporters and detractors, can be found in the article Best of all possible worlds.

[John Cuthber]

The first part of that is so difficult to follow that I stopped reading it.

 

Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 became completely broken in 1716 and still broken? I think so.

 

the secons slice is full of assertions which beg the question and is thus a logical fallacy.

For example

"Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. "

is meaningless- it presupposes the existence of God in order to ascribe properties to Him- for example that He donated "reason" to us.

You can't use an axiom which includes God's existence to prove that he exists.

There are other similar issues with what's written.

[zorro]

The first part of that is so difficult to follow that I stopped reading it.

 

Gottfried Leibniz, 1647-1716 became completely broken in 1716 and still broken? I think so.

 

the secons slice is full of assertions which beg the question and is thus a logical fallacy.

For example

"Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself. "

is meaningless- it presupposes the existence of God in order to ascribe properties to Him- for example that He donated "reason" to us.

You can't use an axiom which includes God's existence to prove that he exists.

There are other similar issues with what's written.

 

No No He was not broken at all. He was a " universal genius " and a Theist.

 

http://history-computer.com/People/LeibnitzBio.html

 

Leibnitz died on the 14th of November, 1716, his closing years enfeebled by disease, harassed by controversy, embittered by neglect; but to the last he preserved the indomitable energy and power of work to which is largely due the position he holds as, more perhaps than any one in modern times, a man of almost universal attainments and almost universal genius. At Hanover, Eckhart, his secretary, was his only mourner; "he was buried", says an eyewitness, "more like a robber than what he really was, the ornament of his country."

 

 

In his latter years he became embroiled in the controversies surrounding the German and English courts which always stirred more spin than facts. His calculus and it's notation we still use today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_notation

[John Cuthber]

I'd expect a first-year student in a college debate to point out that this " universal genius " was using faulty logic.

He may have got calculus right (and he wasn't the only one) but he clearly got logic wrong.

[iNow]

In other words, Zorro (who is above defending the theist viewpoint) is using broken logic to do so and is himself a bit broken?

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, Zorro is citing Leibniz as an authority figure because he invented calculus.

That's not logical. Just because he was good at maths doesn't mean he was good at theology. (he may or may not have been but that's not the point)

Then he illogically uses Leibniz as an authority figure to set up another logical fallacy- that of "argument by authority".

 

So, he's brokenly (i.e. he's using an argument from authority) using broken logic (the begging the question quote I cited above) to explain why he's logically not broken.

 

There are neither sufficient palms not an adequate supply of faces in the world to express the wrongness of that in the traditional way for the internet.

[zorro]

 

In other words, Zorro (who is above defending the theist viewpoint) is using broken logic to do so and is himself a bit broken?

 

I am defending the Theist view on this thread. I am saying that "Broken" is in the eye of the beholder. To joeavg, godavg is Broken or weird; when the opposite connotation is the case in a historical sense. That "Universal Genius" as Theists are misunderstood. joeavg cannot fathom advance thinking of God or the Infinite or other abstracts, followed by critical thinking of your own positions.

Edited August 11, 2013 by zorro

[iNow]

That "Universal Genius" as Theists are misunderstood. because joeavg cannot fathom advance thinking of God or the Infinite followed by critical thinking of your own positions.

Wouldn't a more logical / less broken approach be to first establish there even is a god or gods in the first place before you waste a bunch of time and energy trying to fathom how it thinks? You're begging the question... You assume god(s) exists and focus all of your attention on how they think or behave, instead of validating the starting presumption of existence.

[zorro]

As far as I can tell, Zorro is citing Leibniz as an authority figure because he invented calculus.

That's not logical. Just because he was good at maths doesn't mean he was good at theology. (he may or may not have been but that's not the point)

Then he illogically uses Leibniz as an authority figure to set up another logical fallacy- that of "argument by authority".

 

So, he's brokenly (i.e. he's using an argument from authority) using broken logic (the begging the question quote I cited above) to explain why he's logically not broken.

 

There are neither sufficient palms not an adequate supply of faces in the world to express the wrongness of that in the traditional way for the internet.

 

 

I cite Leibniz because he was the epitome of “Universal Genius” and a Theist. He invented calculus and its proper notation, He was a genius in multiple abstract fields and then drummed down by the inane English Court with the “Broken” tactics.

 

His Logic is/was flawless and is a standard of today. Mine isn’t always. I use “broken” here in that it can and is done by sinister powers in these fields to gain undeserved prestige or a unwarranted Nobel prize. Social norms damage many who are gifted and Theists because they do not defend themselves at the bench of joeavg.

 

This is why I think that this is a chill on the topic of this thread.

Wouldn't a more logical / less broken approach be to first establish there even is a god or gods in the first place before you waste a bunch of time and energy trying to fathom how it thinks? You're begging the question... You assume god(s) exists and focus all of your attention on how they think or behave, instead of validating the starting presumption of existence.

 

 

I am taking the Theist view here as noted above. God does exist and shouldn't be treated as a chilled "Broken" .

Edited August 11, 2013 by zorro

[John Cuthber]

 

 

I cite Leibniz because h...

His Logic is/was flawless and is a standard of today.

 

 

I am taking the Theist view here as noted above. God does exist and shouldn't be treated as a chilled "Broken" .

His logic is plainly flawed

He's doing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

and so are you by saying "God does exist ".

 

Logical fallacies of that sort achieve nothing: they just make you look foolish.

[zorro]

His logic is plainly flawed

He's doing this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

and so are you by saying "God does exist ".

 

Logical fallacies of that sort achieve nothing: they just make you look foolish.

 

The underlying premise of this threat is that godavg is a theist and that God exists. Logic needn't prove a given here. The topic relates to a madness supposed in folks who study "everything from nothing" and they are discriminated against by the mindless and careless as joeavg.

Edited August 11, 2013 by zorro

[John Cuthber]

"The underlying premise of this threat is that godavg is a theist and that God exists."

Nope, that's your assumption.

However, even if it were true, your posts ( and Leibniz's assertion) would still be a logical fallacy.

You would still be using the existence of God to prove the existence of God.

That's not logic, nor is it science. It's pointless and it just wastes time.

As I said, it makes you look silly.

[zorro]

"The underlying premise of this threat is that godavg is a theist and that God exists."

Nope, that's your assumption.

However, even if it were true, your posts ( and Leibniz's assertion) would still be a logical fallacy.

You would still be using the existence of God to prove the existence of God.

That's not logic, nor is it science. It's pointless and it just wastes time.

As I said, it makes you look silly.

 

Silly here is good and God exists. ..... /bye mate ....

Edited August 11, 2013 by zorro

[andrewcellini]

 

Silly here is good and God exists. ..... /bye mate ....

so you're not going to actually argue your point?

[zorro]

so you're not going to actually argue your point?

 

 

I did. The topic of this thread is: People who believe in God are "Not" broken. ...

 

People who believe in God must believe that He exists. Thus the debate I put forth is not God but what is "Broken" and who broke who.

[iNow]

From what I can see, your posts here alone offer a clear counter example to the assertion in the OP.

[zorro]

Thank you . I guess

[md65536]

and this "

We don't need to constantly face every aspect of reality, and if we did we'd probably go mad ("broken"). "

in my opinion

" is a false generalization."

because believing that the sky fairy will make it better isn't going to improve things nearly as well as actually doing something about it.

That doesn't make it a false generalization.

the secons slice is full of assertions which beg the question and is thus a logical fallacy.

For example

"Leibniz asserted that the truths of theology (religion) and philosophy cannot contradict each other, since reason and faith are both "gifts of God" so that their conflict would imply God contending against himself.[/size] "[/size]

is meaningless- it presupposes the existence of God in order to ascribe properties to Him- for example that He donated "reason" to us.

You can't use an axiom which includes God's existence to prove that he exists.

There are other similar issues with what's written.

But Leibniz's argument doesn't prove that god exists. Given the assumption that god exists and is the source of everything and doesn't contend with itself and whatever else, the argument concludes that the truths of religion and philosophy are consistent. With the proper formal details, that can be a valid logical statement.

 

Once again you're taking what you see is the right side of an argument, and justifying it with bad reasoning.

Edited August 12, 2013 by md65536

[Unity+]

To chime in, and generalize from belief in a supernatural humanoid to belief in maybe *anything* that requires faith...

 

Delusion can be beneficial and healthy, depending. In that sense, any belief that helps someone might be considered to make them "less broken". We don't need to constantly face every aspect of reality, and if we did we'd probably go mad ("broken"). Things like impending death, questions of the point of existence, etc, can healthily be avoided rather than obsessed over, and in that sense faith can be helpful to some. For others, a harsh examination of reality works better.

 

But delusion can be bad as well. Many people start off on "spiritual journeys" and are so consumed by the initial beneficial feelings they get, that they become obsessed and devoted to achieving that drug-like high. Pushed too far, faith can become a net detriment, leading to neurotic behavior and feelings.

 

For many, belief in a god is a benefit that is preferable to some other search for answers, and a source of hope, guidance, etc. For many, it is source of misery, guilt, etc etc. Some are less broken by it, some are more broken. The thread title is a false generalization.

Of course, this implies that God is a delusion of the mind.

 

I think you forget to apply another part of the argument. Science cannot prove or disprove God. This means that simply stating that it is a fact that God does not exist is an utter admittance to applying pseudoscience based on a claim that you will declare or imply as a scientific statement.

 

As John Lennox stated to Richard Dawkins during a debate, not allowing one possibility to exist or as something to accept just shows your denial of the possibility that something does exist. It is more bias than actual analysis.

 

Now back to the question. Are people who believe in God broken? Of course now. Stating such assertions brings forth a negative connotation to what you imply. Many of the religious have made scientific discoveries and mathematical developments that have benefited the world. Michael Faraday is a good example. There will be the few that declare the religious incomplete scientists(like the mathematician with a debate with John Lennox did), but you must realize they are not willing to accept the idea of a religious scientist or mathematician.