God Vs Science This Will Blow Your Mind

So if you devalue my perceptions as trivial, then your perceptions become more important. I suppose (just hypothetically) I could say the same. It's a Human failing. Any crazy belief - let's take the US govenment's controlled demolition of the twin towers as an example - can be rationalised as a plausible delusion, whilst holding on to a "deeply felt" irrational belief in the supernatural. I guess the truthists just can't feel deeply enough eh?
Patronising is indeed what I see.



Can you rationalise your ineffable God? If not, then don't patronise people who believe in ineffable faries.


If you don't accept that Human beings can be benignly deluded, then you are painted into a corner with your irrational belief.

Make it rational. Explain rationally how such a wildly improbable God could exist.

Or accept irrational beliefs share the same currency, and are just as valid as your one.

Not my quote, I'm afraid. I think @tootle denies his own irrationality. In that sense we fundementally disagree.



Defend what you deeply believe to be true. Or concede it's simply a benign delusion. Or give up.

These are the unwritten rules of LPP, I'm afraid

Hey! I don't deny it, I just prefer to use it in private where it can do no harm. I don't want to see your irrationality on my doorstep, and wouldn't expect you to put up with mine. I think I said above that 'people' as a class are subject to reliable and repeatable bouts of the stuff. Nobody's immune. That doesn't mean we should put up with it where it's inappropriate, like in public life. I think we fundamentally agree on that eh?

I also think that the 'all powerful omniscient god' delusion is a particularly lame example of irrationality. It's not even that interesting, since it's an obvious artifact, and not even self-consistent at that. The mental contortions people have to go through to believe in it are surreal. It's like a game where you're allowed to make the rules up as you go along and nobody know what you need to do to win. To be honest, 911 and alien abductions are more entertaining - at least you can have fun with them. The whole all-powerful god meme is so middle-ages.

But if you knew me personally, I guarantee you wouldn't think I 'deny' my irrational side. Caution, internet filter at work...

I believe that emotional reading is not a good thing to do .



I believe that I have explained this part already- I should have mentioned that I have a bachelor in psychology/philosophy- I can only build a psychological model of torrenter , for a model to be accurate information must be brought or else it would be nothing else then a mirage , to check for the validity of this model a test was prepared , the results met the expectations , so the model is accurate.



Well English is not my first language, so thank you for your compliment and thank you for the effort you are willing to make.


@torrenter
I honestly can’t teach you what to think or how to think –it’s not my job but yours and please stop with the level 1 defense mechanisms– i can only offer you a psychological profiling which should assist you in localizing your problem and the rest is yours, so let me just add to what was said before:
-your identity problem is causing you a fear from rationality.
-schizophrenia manifest itself in paranoia .

I'm also trying to make models of humans but so far I still cannot model a single muscle or neuron

You are posting jargon @wutever. Please say what you mean in simple layman's language, else I (and most other readers) cannot understand what you are trying to communicate.

I'm always happy to learn new stuff here - it's one of the reasons I enjoy LPP.

There you go! A prime example! <SNIP> You are posting jargon {at} wutever<SNIP>

What does that mean? How about, '@wutever: your posts make no sense'
.....or, 'You are talking bollocks', @wutever....................?

The way you write it makes it look like you are posting somebody else's thoughts.


Sorry to be a pedant but every time you write this I just think, 'What a twat!' Why would he write that?'

Possibly after a recent career in IT I'm used to new graduates assuming jargon is public knowledge @arrgh.

As for posting bollocks - we all do that here, including you sometimes. Do you have a problem with IW? If so, why browse LPP for targets - there are too many here to cope with...

I have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by asking @wutever what he means. Just narrowing your vision to your own will eventually make you blind. (hey! That should be a quote!)

If you think I or any other poster is a twat - keep it to yourself. Personal insults are against the LPP rules.

Talking of which, the <snip> pseudo-tag is mentioned there.

This post has been edited by torrenter: Nov 21 2008, 01:52 PM

No one is ever totally dispassionate about reading someone else's opinion.

No I didn't see you had a BA in Psychology/Philosophy. I only saw the post in the Virus and Malwarethread where you said

I look forward to debating many subjects with someone who is so emminently qualified. However as a fledgeling psychologist you must be aware that there is a difference between psychology and psychiatry and although you have the knowledge to recognise certain symptoms which suggest mental illness you are in no way qualified to diagnose syndromes or conditions.

You are welcome. It is the International flavour and people bringing their experiences of the world from other counties and mindsets that makes this place suh a joy.

Here I have to disagree. Yes we all make models of people's likely behaviours but these are based mainly on direct experience. The more experience of the person the more accurate the model but even so no model is accurate 100% even in the offline world. Online your experience of someone's behaviour is necessarily limited in forums such as this one, and for you to form an opinion based on what you have seen is ok but to claim it to be a psychological profile and an accurate one at that just does not hold water.

torrenter is arguing in a totally rational way. He is saying that not all of his beliefs are rational, this is true of most if not all people and precious few of us ever own up to it. He is also saying he is aware of some of his beliefs not being rational, which indicates a level of self-awareness that is also uncommon. If he were a schizophrenic he would not be able to contribute to this forum in the manner that he has done, working from logical conclusion to the next proposition to the resolution of that position and so on because, as I know you already know, a schizophrenic will believe that communications are being sent to them personally by coded means and this will distort the meaning of whatever information they take in.

If your training really leads you to believe that torrenter has an illness of this kind, replete with paranoia, is a public forum really the place to give this diagnosis (which we know you aren't really qualified to make) and offer your help?

@foghorn :
Cock fighting has become an interesting sport lately; some people find it funny I don’t. This is called ‘free association’, give the patient a chance to create his understanding and analyze his response .Now torrenter responses displayed a patter which fits the mold I described so I will not continue this debate anymore. Concerning the rest of what you have stated, I believe if you double check your references you will be able to see your mistakes.

I wonder what I'd be diagnosed with if I think the study of psychology is mostly a load of bs. ...if I murder someone can I plead temporary insanity even if I don't agree with a psychologist's findings?
If I admitted to having neuroses or some mental disorder...was it God that make me that way, my environment or was evolution the cause.

And wasn't wutever last statement really just another form of cock fighting.

@torrenter's response was for you to explain your jargon.

If you continue to obfuscate then my natural assumption is that you can't or won't. For a psychologist you show little empathy with the declared needs of your "patient".

I was discussing irrational beliefs that can be deeply held. Is this concept beyond your training?

This post has been edited by torrenter: Nov 21 2008, 10:15 PM

What a cop out..... I think it disgraceful that a "professional" psychologist would publish their findings about someone they've met on line... These findings based on a few posts in an argumentative forum where a lot of people play "devils advocate". Although psychologists arn't bound by the Hippocratic oath (as far as I'm aware) surly anyone they do provide a "psychological profile" for is entitled to some sort of privacy and the tenet of medicine to "do no harm" applies to psychologists... Especially since these Claims are published as fact, and then any response to these claims is "claimed to support that profile... These claims could cause a lots of distress especially without the therapy to help deal with the affects of these "insightful" revelations.... I don't know how many years practice whutever has in dealing with clients but his posts show a great lack of sensitivity more akin to a 2nd year student rather than a "professional" practitioner ....

This post has been edited by bigbaldybloke: Nov 22 2008, 09:37 AM

Perhaps you guys don't remember wutever but his posts have always been like this. He reminds me of ChinUp.

And torrenter, apologies if you felt I called you a twat. I certainly didn't and I'm fully aware of what the @ symbol means.
My point was, and continues to be, that you don't seem to think too hard about where you put it. It would seem obvious to me that the beginning of your sentence is the obvious place to put the marker not at the end or in the middle. Otherwise it makes no sense and doesn't scan, not to mention if it is at the end, it gets a little Germanic. You your words in a funny order are putting.

So, wutever, enlighten us. Are you just trolling? Are you a computer scientist or a psychologist or a philosopher? Or perhaps some new-age mixture of all three?

<offtopic>
@arrgh: just to clear up your befuddlement, I got into the habit of labeling usernames with an @ symbol ages ago - I can't remember the detail, but there was once a username that was some plain English word and without the @ label it made posts confusing. Now it's just an online habit - an annoying affectation if you like. I should use boldface or colour or something else I suppose. But old habits die hard
</offtopic>

No worries, it really wasn't a big deal.@torrenter

Or:@ torrenter, no worries...no big deal

which makes more sense?


and the one that really had me worried.....you talking about yourself in the 3rd person to wutever

<SNIP>'@torrenter's response was for you to explain your jargon.'

and then sometimes you just stuff the '@ whoever' in the middle of a sentence

That's just the voices in my head telling me to do it

@ arrgh

I have a minor in computer science and a bachelor in philosophy/psychology.

@bigbaldybloke

Thank you for your opinion, It gave me a great incentive to go further with my studies , so thank you all for supporting me and good luck .



double-posts merged :torrenter

This post has been edited by torrenter: Nov 23 2008, 10:45 AM

So minor in computer science and a bachelor's in philosophy/psychology allows you to diagnose over the internet? What WILL they think of next! Pretty soon, I'll never have to leave the house!

I have a minor in biomedical engineering. Minors are useless short studies made to broaden your world view.

On the subject of pleading insanity in respect to murder etc, can we reinstate frontal lobotomy for that particular case

My version of how freemasonry started is a little bit different from yours. Narrated by Mason the great himself he told me that King David wanted to construct a castle but that he didn’t know how. For this he employed a wise man who was a mute and who silently commanded his workers by gestures. Once the job done, King David killed him and the workers to commemorate the mute man formed what is called freemasonry.