edgarblythe
 
  1  
Thu 28 Oct, 2010 09:10 pm
@dancerdoll,
One's self interest demands civilized behavior, whatever one's belief. We have generation upon generation of developing a sense of what's right or wrong. Some feel it happens in the name of their religion. There is nothing wrong with that. If I want to say there is some other reason than belief in a god, there is also nothing wrong. We get the same results.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:26 am
@hingehead,
Certainly there are religionists (not just christians) who have no argument with evolution. After all, evolution is not concerned with cosmic origins, and is mute on the subject. So a religionist can believe that the cosmos was created by a deity, that the deity created the "spark of life" and that evolution subsequently guided the development of species.

The most commonly advanced argument for "intelligent design" is what is now called irreducible complexity. For example, the modern ID movement claims that our eyes could not have evolved, but that they had to be the product of a special creation. There was an Anglican minister at the beginning of the 19th century, Reverend William Paley, who expressed this in what has become known as the watchmaker analogy. In a work published in 1802, he says that if you find a watch in a field, you infer the existence of a watchmaker. That analogy has become a battle flag in the ID versus evolution argument.

However, we can infer other things, as well. Writing in the first century BCE, Cicero anticipated the watchmaker analogy by more than 1800 years, when he wrote:

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"

From this we can infer that there were atheists 2000 years ago, and that they questioned the notion of a created cosmos.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:45 am
@dancerdoll,
This is the most brainless contention of religionists, and a more poignant irony i can't imagine. Religion has been the basis for the slaughter of many millions, if not actually billions, of men, women and children over the course of history--benefit of clergy not only has not blunted the edge of religion's sword, but has spurred on the slaughter.

Concepts of right and wrong exist independently of peoples' favorite personal superstitions. The strongest spur to a concept of right and wrong is what we now call the social contract, and which has existed since long before the concept was named. We know that elaborate civilizations have grown up thousands of years ago, which have been based on the division of labor. We also know a good deal about the religious beliefs they held, and these were often associated with cruel and demanding gods who insisted upon human sacrifice, and were capricious and aribtrarily cruel. How anyone who calls him- or herself a christian can natter on about god and right and wrong is beyond me--the god of the old testament is incredibly cruel, and allows and advocates slavery, and calls for the Jews to slaughter their enemies, including the women and children. If it were wrong for other people to slaughter Jews, including women and children, then it would have to be wrong for the Jews to do the same thing. The notion that gods are the only source for a sense of right and wrong would be laughable, were it not for the tragedy of the slaughter of innocents over thousands of years.

Quote:
when we are sick are body heal by building us back up .. if everything just came into being our bodys wouldnt have an order on how we heal..


This is so inarticulate as to be nearly incomprehensible, so it is difficult to know how to respond. However, if your god can create a natural means by which the body heals, without your imaginary friend's constant monitoring and interference in the physical health of every living thing, you can bet that such natural means can evolve, without the need of your imaginary friend, thank you very much.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:18 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Concepts of right and wrong exist independently of peoples' favorite personal superstitions.


Yes--but which right and which wrong. The Zulus thought it right that males could not have a female until they had "dipped their spear in the blood of the enemy". Goodness knows what head-hunters, cannibals and sacrificing priestesses thought was right.

Christian right and wrong is diametrically opposed to any independent existence of what is right and wrong.

And if the concepts of right and wrong exist independently then why is a social contract needed. Or the law for that matter.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:19 pm
@spendius,
It should be common knowledge to do no harm to your fellow humans; that's the basis of right and wrong.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:26 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

This is the most brainless contention of religionists, and a more poignant irony i can't imagine. Religion has been the basis for the slaughter of many millions, if not actually billions, of men, women and children over the course of history--benefit of clergy not only has not blunted the edge of religion's sword, but has spurred on the slaughter.

Concepts of right and wrong exist independently of peoples' favorite personal superstitions. The strongest spur to a concept of right and wrong is what we now call the social contract, and which has existed since long before the concept was named. We know that elaborate civilizations have grown up thousands of years ago, which have been based on the division of labor. We also know a good deal about the religious beliefs they held, and these were often associated with cruel and demanding gods who insisted upon human sacrifice, and were capricious and aribtrarily cruel. How anyone who calls him- or herself a christian can natter on about god and right and wrong is beyond me--the god of the old testament is incredibly cruel, and allows and advocates slavery, and calls for the Jews to slaughter their enemies, including the women and children. If it were wrong for other people to slaughter Jews, including women and children, then it would have to be wrong for the Jews to do the same thing. The notion that gods are the only source for a sense of right and wrong would be laughable, were it not for the tragedy of the slaughter of innocents over thousands of years.

Quote:
when we are sick are body heal by building us back up .. if everything just came into being our bodys wouldnt have an order on how we heal..


This is so inarticulate as to be nearly incomprehensible, so it is difficult to know how to respond. However, if your god can create a natural means by which the body heals, without your imaginary friend's constant monitoring and interference in the physical health of every living thing, you can bet that such natural means can evolve, without the need of your imaginary friend, thank you very much.




I agree with most all of what you have said, You seem to come across a lot more intellectual when you are not putting people down! Or should I say putting them in their place or correcting them?

What do you and everyone else think about this lady do you find her to be wise or do you find her to be stupid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS6vxb4H3M&feature=related
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:40 pm
@reasoning logic,
I read Rand in 1964. For about two days, I was impressed. Then I decided I did not accept her underlying ideas. It has been so many years, I no longer recall the full details, but I consider it a waste of time to refamiliarize myself.
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:43 pm
It is hilarious that Randians so slavishly promote her alleged philosophy, which is based on the injunction that an individual should think for him- or herself.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:48 pm
@edgarblythe,
Yes I seen something that she has said as well that I did not agree with but I can not remember what it was, I had the same response as you and thought that she was not worth following anymore.
I must have been impressed by this one video because I saved it. I just watched it again as it has been a long time and now I can see why I saved it.. I do agree that I have seen some of her work that I did not agree with though!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Where did you learn that ci? Oh yeah--in a Christian world is where. Same place you learned all the rest of the anti-evolutionary ideas you have when you're on a thread where they fit in.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:59 pm
@spendius,
What would be wrong with a therapeutae world?
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:28 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
What do you and everyone else think about this lady do you find her to be wise or do you find her to be stupid?


Well rl--The Marquis de Sade blew away that sentimental guff about the universe being "wonderful" (reaches out arms as if to embrace it.)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:32 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
What would be wrong with a therapeutae world?


Aren't we in one. Or trying to be. And religion is therapeutic. That's why drug companies and the medical profession want it out of the way. And other groups that provide therapy.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 03:53 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
What would be wrong with a therapeutae world?


Aren't we in one. Or trying to be. And religion is therapeutic. That's why drug companies and the medical profession want it out of the way. And other groups that provide therapy.


There seems to be a huge difference between therapeutae and therapeutic! but even so I do believe that they both existed well before christians ever did.

0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 05:18 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
What would be wrong with a therapeutae world?


Aren't we in one. Or trying to be. And religion is therapeutic. That's why drug companies and the medical profession want it out of the way. And other groups that provide therapy.



It would be nice to see your reply on this post and the last post that I shared with you Spendius!

This is something that I find to be interesting, what do you think about this do you find it to be true? Do you find it odd that Iraq is in this discussion?


History
See also: History of psychotherapy and Timeline of psychotherapy
In an informal sense, psychotherapy can be said to have been practiced through the ages, as individuals received psychological counsel and reassurance from others. Philosophers and physicians from the Hellenistic schools of philosophy and therapy practised psychotherapy among the Ancient Greeks and Romans from about the late 4th century BC to the 4th century AD.[12] The Greek physician Hippocrates (460– 377 BC) viewed mental illnesses as phenomena that could be studied and treated empirically.[13] Purposeful, theoretically-based psychotherapy was probably first developed in the Middle East during the 9th century by the Persian physician and psychological thinker, Rhazes (AD 852-932), who was at one time the chief physician of the Baghdad hospital.[14] At that time in Europe, serious mental disorders were generally treated as demonic or medical conditions requiring punishment and confinement until the advent of moral treatment approaches in the 18th Century.[citation needed] This brought about a focus on the possibility of psychosocial intervention - including reasoning, moral encouragement, and group activities - to rehabilitate the "insane".

Psychoanalysis was perhaps the first specific school of psychotherapy, developed by Sigmund Freud and others through the early 1900s. Trained as a neurologist, Freud began focusing on problems that appeared to have no discernible organic basis, and theorized that they had psychological causes originating in childhood experiences and the unconscious mind. Techniques such as dream interpretation, free association, transference and analysis of the id, ego and superego were developed.


Starting in the 1950s Carl Rogers brought Person-centered psychotherapy into mainstream focus.Many theorists, including Anna Freud, Alfred Adler, Carl Jung, Karen Horney, Otto Rank, Erik Erikson, Melanie Klein, and Heinz Kohut, built upon Freud's fundamental ideas and often formed their own differentiating systems of psychotherapy. These were all later categorized as psychodynamic, meaning anything that involved the psyche's conscious/unconscious influence on external relationships and the self. Sessions tended to number into the hundreds over several years.

Behaviorism developed in the 1920s, and behavior modification as a therapy became popularized in the 1950s and 1960s. Notable contributors were Joseph Wolpe in South Africa, M.B. Shipiro and Hans Eysenck in Britain, and John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner in the United States. Behavioral therapy approaches relied on principles of operant conditioning, classical conditioning and social learning theory to bring about therapeutic change in observable symptoms. The approach became commonly used for phobias, as well as other disorders.

Some therapeutic approaches developed out of the European school of existential philosophy. Concerned mainly with the individual's ability to develop and preserve a sense of meaning and purpose throughout life, major contributors to the field in the US (e.g., Irvin Yalom, Rollo May) and Europe (Viktor Frankl, Ludwig Binswanger, Medard Boss, R.D.Laing, Emmy van Deurzen) attempted to create therapies sensitive to common 'life crises' springing from the essential bleakness of human self-awareness, previously accessible only through the complex writings of existential philosophers (e.g., Søren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre, Gabriel Marcel, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche). The uniqueness of the patient-therapist relationship thus also forms a vehicle for therapeutic enquiry. A related body of thought in psychotherapy started in the 1950s with Carl Rogers. Based on existentialism and the works of Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of human needs, Rogers brought person-centered psychotherapy into mainstream focus. The primary requirement of Rogers is that the client should be in receipt of three core 'conditions' from their counsellor or therapist: unconditional positive regard, also sometimes described as 'prizing' the person or valuing the humanity of an individual, congruence [authenticity/genuineness/transparency], and empathic understanding. The aim in using the 'core conditions' is to facilitate therapeutic change within a non-directive relationship conducive to enhancing the client's psychological well being. This type of interaction enables the client to fully experience and express themselves. Others developed the approach, like Fritz and Laura Perls in the creation of Gestalt therapy, as well as Marshall Rosenberg, founder of Nonviolent Communication, and Eric Berne, founder of Transactional Analysis. Later these fields of psychotherapy would become what is known as humanistic psychotherapy today. Self-help groups and books became widespread.

During the 1950s, Albert Ellis originated Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). A few years later, psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck developed a form of psychotherapy known as cognitive therapy. Both of these included generally relative short, structured and present-focused therapy aimed at identifying and changing a person's beliefs, appraisals and reaction-patterns, by contrast with the more long-lasting insight-based approach of psycho-dynamic or humanistic therapies. Cognitive and behavioral therapy approaches were combined and grouped under the heading and umbrella-term Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in the 1970s. Many approaches within CBT were oriented towards active/directive collaborative empiricism and mapping, assessing and modifying clients core beliefs and dysfunctional schemas. These approaches gained widespread acceptance as a primary treatment for numerous disorders. A "third wave" of cognitive and behavioral therapies developed, including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Dialectical behavior therapy, which expanded the concepts to other disorders and/or added novel components and mindfulness exercises. Counseling methods developed, including solution-focused therapy and systemic coaching.

Postmodern psychotherapies such as Narrative Therapy and Coherence Therapy did not impose definitions of mental health and illness, but rather saw the goal of therapy as something constructed by the client and therapist in a social context. Systems Therapy also developed, which focuses on family and group dynamics—and Transpersonal psychology, which focuses on the spiritual facet of human experience. Other important orientations developed in the last three decades include Feminist therapy, Brief therapy, Somatic Psychology, Expressive therapy, applied Positive psychology and the Human Givens approach which is building on the best of what has gone before.[15] A survey of over 2,500 US therapists in 2006 revealed the most utilized models of therapy and the ten most influential therapists of the previous quarter-century.[16]

spendius
 
  1  
Fri 29 Oct, 2010 05:25 pm
@reasoning logic,
I can't read that at this time of night rl.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 08:40 am
@spendius,
What do you think about this spendius? Do you think that it is the truth or do hear lies in it?
It sure does seem to have alot of thuth in it to me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 09:43 am
@reasoning logic,
Here is another one to go with the last one. It seems that they were having a pope party that day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AASspr178ZY
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:50 am
@reasoning logic,
Look mate--I don't take any notice of people wearing dark glasses. Nor of those who pander to the public interest in criminal sexual activity in order to get themselves noticed. In fact I think they might have too obsessive an interest in such matters.

It was a commonplace in England that Mrs Whitehouse had the dirtiest mind in the country.

Perhaps my last post on the "Should A2K ban people for untoward opinions" thread will explain better.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:55 am
@spendius,
Thank you for your reply but I was hopeing that you would point out the lies if you seen any or do you hide your mind from people like this?
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 112
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 02:44:37