Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 6:29 PM
27 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Addiction By Definition
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 271 of 312 (850079)
03-31-2019 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by ringo
03-30-2019 11:41 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
It's what the Bible says.
Obviously, not everyone agrees. Is there but one interpretation?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by ringo, posted 03-30-2019 11:41 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 03-31-2019 2:03 PM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16358
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 272 of 312 (850107)
03-31-2019 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Phat
03-31-2019 1:07 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Phat writes:

Obviously, not everyone agrees. Is there but one interpretation?


There is what the text says and there is what people wish it said. The apologists have an agenda. I don't.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Phat, posted 03-31-2019 1:07 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Phat, posted 04-03-2019 10:12 AM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 273 of 312 (850197)
04-03-2019 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by ringo
03-31-2019 2:03 PM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Let's speculate. What might be their agenda? And I noticed that you lumped them all together. What is it that "they" have in common?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by ringo, posted 03-31-2019 2:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Stile, posted 04-03-2019 10:20 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 04-03-2019 3:33 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3437
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 274 of 312 (850198)
04-03-2019 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Phat
04-03-2019 10:12 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Phat writes:

What is it that "they" have in common?

The desire for the belief to be accepted as real.

This desire could be for many different reasons:
-personal, private mental-health reasons
-personal "afraid to be wrong" reasons
-controlling other people reasons
-monetary greedy reasons
...(I'm sure there's plenty more I'm not listing)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Phat, posted 04-03-2019 10:12 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 08-25-2017


(1)
Message 275 of 312 (850200)
04-03-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Tangle
03-30-2019 1:52 PM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
tangle writes:

Theists and atheists can be both rational and irrational. It's belief in a god without evidence - faith - which is the irrational position.

The belief in no kind of God without evidence is just as irrational isn't it? How is it any different?

tangle writes:

That's just gobbledegook. What do you think you mean? Are you saying that because science concerns itself with objective, fact-based, analysis of the natural word that it is atheistic? And 'therefore' irrational? If so, it doesn't make logical sense.

No im saying for a scientist to take up the atheist position is irrational. It introduces religion into science by responding to theists claims of God.
It then looks for evidence to support the atheist belief, disregarding any evidence to the contrary.
Beliefs are irrelevant in the hard sciences. Theoretical scientists ought to be agnostic.

tangle writes:

Try not to be childish.

Childish is having threads taken down cos people cannot answer the question being asked and so complain to the moderator.

tangle writes:

Basically a religion.

I was asking what u ment by a "non-theistic God"... If theism is the belief in God then how can a God be non-theist?

Do u have a theory on why religions were even created in the first place?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2019 1:52 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Stile, posted 04-03-2019 10:53 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3437
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 276 of 312 (850201)
04-03-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Porkncheese
04-03-2019 10:42 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Porkncheese writes:

The belief in no kind of God without evidence is just as irrational isn't it?

It would be, yes. But that's not what's happening.

How is it any different?

Holding a tentative position that aligns with all the available information/evidence is extremely rational.
It might very well be the definition of "rational."

For more information, please see:
I Know That God Does Not Exist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Porkncheese, posted 04-03-2019 10:42 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16358
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 277 of 312 (850212)
04-03-2019 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Phat
04-03-2019 10:12 AM


Re: Addicted To Jesus
Phat writes:

Let's speculate. What might be their agenda?


No need to speculate. Their agenda is to promote their phony theology.

Phat writes:

And I noticed that you lumped them all together. What is it that "they" have in common?


The desire to promote their phony theology.

If you recall, we were talking specifically about the talking snake and the "Fall". They want to whitewash the fact that the snake told the truth and God lied. They want to whitewash the fact that mankind improved because of their "disobedience" to God - i.e. they learned to think for themselves.

The apologist theology has no room for a God that can be wrong - but that doesn't tally with what the Bible actually says. So they have to pretend that the Bible "means" the opposite of what it says.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Phat, posted 04-03-2019 10:12 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 278 of 312 (850301)
04-05-2019 6:52 PM


Stile writes:

Holding a tentative position that aligns with all the available information/evidence is extremely rational.

I was hoping to to talk to Tangle as it is impossible to talk to multiple people all with differences in opinions.

So if an atheist tells me there is no God it would be rational for me to say there is according to your logic.

A tentative position would be agnostic as we don't have all the info/evidence available.
We aren't stuck between a black and white fallacious decision.

Eg. I have a beard. Do u believe me?

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by dwise1, posted 04-05-2019 11:51 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 280 by AZPaul3, posted 04-06-2019 2:29 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2019 4:09 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 04-06-2019 12:12 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 287 by Stile, posted 04-08-2019 9:59 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


(1)
Message 279 of 312 (850306)
04-05-2019 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Porkncheese
04-05-2019 6:52 PM


Mid evening there is it? Take a nap 'til mornin!

Been there, BTW!' Better ways to waste yer time!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Porkncheese, posted 04-05-2019 6:52 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 280 of 312 (850313)
04-06-2019 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Porkncheese
04-05-2019 6:52 PM


A tentative position would be agnostic as we don't have all the info/evidence available.

If someone told you there was no other life in the universe what is the most logical position to take pending more evidence? Given the data that chemistry and astronomy has revealed you would be foolish to agree even though we have not directly detected other life. The processes are very well known and the numbers involved are staggeringly huge. An agnostic position on this question is an absurdity.

If someone told you that there was a giant polka dotted snail smoking a hookah floating gently 2 feet off the ground on an iridescent lotus blossom in your closet what is the most logical position to take pending more evidence? Given that such organisms have never been seen and that no known mechanisms are known to exist that could produce such an organism together with the fact that the existence of such a thing would violate several well established theories in biology and physics should lead to a hard rejection of such a report pending more data. An agnostic position on this question is an absurdity as well.

Your god falls into this second scenario.

Eg. I have a beard. Do u believe me?

Now this we should be agnostic on. Given genetics and heritage it is not unreasonable nor unknown for a little waif of a girl to sport a beard so it is not outside the realm of human experience to consider the probability.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Porkncheese, posted 04-05-2019 6:52 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6745
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


(1)
Message 281 of 312 (850316)
04-06-2019 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Porkncheese
04-05-2019 6:52 PM


P&C writes:

I was hoping to to talk to Tangle...

You got lucky.

So if an atheist tells me there is no God it would be rational for me to say there is [no god] according to your logic.

If you agree with my insert to your statement, then yes.

A tentative position would be agnostic as we don't have all the info/evidence available.

We are all agnostics, both believers and atheists. That's because agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief and none of us have knowledge of god.

Agnosticism is purely word play. You either believe or you don't. If you don't know if you believe or not, then you don't believe. If you don't believe in god(s) you are an atheist

We aren't stuck between a black and white fallacious decision.

We are, and it's not fallacious. The existence or non-existence of god(s) is binary. There either is or there isn't. The fact that we don't and can't know is irrelevant to his/their existence.

If someone says all swans are white, all he's saying is that he's only seen white swans therefore he believes that all swans are white. He has evidence of white swans and no evidence of black swans so his belief seems rational. But without total knowledge of all swans, it's actually only a hypothesis.

The existence of god(s) is a hypothesis. Believers believe in them, atheists don't. Neither know, but atheists have the stronger hypothesis.

Eg. I have a beard. Do u believe me?

Well you either have or you haven't, what I believe about it is irrelevant.

What I KNOW is that beards DO exist. So unless you give me reason to doubt you, I'll happily accept what you say, particularly as it a matter of no consequence. But if you then said that it was a prehensile beard and it can take food off you plate and put it in your mouth I'm going to call you a liar and ask for evidence. I'm now atheistic about your beard.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Porkncheese, posted 04-05-2019 6:52 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16358
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 282 of 312 (850328)
04-06-2019 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Porkncheese
04-05-2019 6:52 PM


Porkncheese writes:

Eg. I have a beard. Do u believe me?


I don't believe you're old enough.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Porkncheese, posted 04-05-2019 6:52 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 283 of 312 (850402)
04-07-2019 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by ringo
12-12-2014 11:26 AM


Re: The Science and Theory of Addiction
ringo writes:

I've heard addiction defined as a behavior that affects every area of your life - work, home, etc. If you can hold a job and maintain reasonably peaceful interpersonal relationships, I don't much care what bad habits you have.

Let's discuss the whole RR thing from a fresh perspective. Here is a page that I compiled--
quote:
Clear your mind of everything you "know" about substance addiction.(Alcoholism)

For now, forget about:

  • the recovery group movement,
  • the disease concept of addiction,
  • brain chemistry, (I disagree, by the way)
  • lousy recovery statistics, and nonsense-jargon like:
    denial,
    powerlessness,
    relapse,
    triggers,
    enabler,
    alcoholic,
    addict,
    hitting bottom,
    and other recovery group movement concepts.

    Focus only on your use of alcohol and other drugs, and the painful consequences of drinking/using. Focus on the obvious.

    If you're doing something harmful to yourself, wouldn't it be good to stop it?

    If you have trouble with moderation, why stop just one-day-at-a-time?

    Wouldn't it be wise to quit altogether?

    Right now, experiment with the idea of never drinking or using again.

    Never!
    Think of the pros and the cons.

    Listen! Listen to your own thoughts about quitting for good,
    and notice the mixture of feelings you have.

    Notice that you feel both ways about quitting.
    This is the meaning of the word, "addiction."

    On the one hand, you want to quit.
    But on the other hand,
    you would like to continue drinking or drugging as much as you want.

    Forever.

    You are ambivalent,
    feeling both ways.

    Your Addictive Voice (AV) is your body talking to you.
    (Your primal urges talking to your rational mind)

    In thoughts and feelings,
    your AV tells you to drink or use drugs.

    Your AV is the sole cause of your substance addiction.

    Your AV is the expression of your appetite or your desire for alcohol or drugs.

    That appetite originates in the biological,
    animal side of human nature,
    so we call it the Beast.

    It's like there are two of you,
    at cross purposes,
    in conflict.

    In mortal combat.
    Your Beast is ruthless.

    It cares for nothing you love.
    It wants only one thing.

    The high.

    Any reason will do --
    good, bad, or indifferent. (thinking with the primal urges rather than the rational approach)

    It will exploit any tragedy,
    take advantage of any good fortune,
    or ask for no reason at all.

    It drinks or uses for its own sake. (The animal brain is selfish and stupid)

    To get high.

    To feel real good all over, from head to toe.

    Your Beast hides in the dark.

    You cannot see it, any more than you can see your own eyes.

    But you can feel it. Beasts have strong feelings!

    AVRT puts light on the Beast as it hides in the dark.

    It cannot tolerate for you to see it.

    It fears being seen for what it is: a rogue, animal desire.
    It knows that you can kill it --
    once you see it.

    It fears you, and you can feel its fear.

    Your Beast is a rogue appetite for pleasure,
    born of synthetic drugs.

    Your Beast expresses itself through your thoughts. It uses mental images you can see, and it uses the same thinking voice that you hear reading these words.

    It speaks with great authority because it is a survival drive.

    But it cannot act on its own.

    It needs pronouns.
    It needs you, your precious "I."

    Your Beast's favorite word is "I."
    Without that word, it is paralyzed.

    When your Beast wants a drink, you hear,
    "I want a drink."

    In AVRT, "It, not I, wants a drink/fix."

    Too bad for it.

    Do you want to continue drinking/using?

    Or, is that your Beast?

    DOUBLE-MINDED

    dipsuchos NT:1374 lit. means "two-souled" (dis, "twice," psuche, "a soul"), hence, "double-minded," James 1:8; 4:8.
    (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

    James 1:2-8 NKJV
    My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
    James 4:7-10
    8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.
    NKJV


  • Thus, let's rephrase the pronouns to model the AVRT:

    Q: Do I suffer from addiction?
    A: It rather enjoys the ride!

    The question becomes whether I decide that my addiction is rational. I and I alone have the choice. I and I alone are responsible. It would have me believe that I deserve the pleasure. Only I can make the final decision.

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

    Edited by Phat, : continued fixings


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
    In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
    ~Stile


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by ringo, posted 12-12-2014 11:26 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 284 by ringo, posted 04-07-2019 2:09 PM Phat has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 16358
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 284 of 312 (850416)
    04-07-2019 2:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 283 by Phat
    04-07-2019 8:52 AM


    Re: The Science and Theory of Addiction
    As I've already said, I don't agree with the Rational Mind versus Animal Mind premise.

    And our geese will blot out the sun.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 283 by Phat, posted 04-07-2019 8:52 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 285 by Phat, posted 04-08-2019 4:05 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12254
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 285 of 312 (850441)
    04-08-2019 4:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 284 by ringo
    04-07-2019 2:09 PM


    Re: The Science and Theory of Addiction
    I may not know You but I can spot It a mile away.

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
    In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
    ~Stile


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 284 by ringo, posted 04-07-2019 2:09 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 286 by Phat, posted 04-08-2019 4:11 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    161718
    19
    2021Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019