A question for theists

[Quokkastan]

I think you misunderstood that.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."

Doesn't sound like Marx assumed he had found a flower to me...


Except for the flower is an illusion. Your flower may not be the same as mine, it stands to reason that it wouldn't be. But it doesn't really matter because the flowers are a fantasy.

The ideas that people have about religion are essentially made up. That would still be, in whole or in part, true even in a world in which a god existed.

You can say things like, "there may be many paths to climb a mountain," but there's no reason to believe any of these paths even go uphill.

Well how o we find the "living flower"? And if we found it how would we even know we had? Is there only one living flower?

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."

The living flower in Marx's critique is happiness not based on fantasy. I don't think there's any implication that there can only be one path to happiness outside of religion.

His logic is circular as he assumes that there is a chain, and the flowers on it are false, that one living flower does exist somewhere not on the chain, despite not knowing any of this to be actually the case. He makes up the premises and therefore the conclusion. All his ideas were just as made up and a fantasy as any religion.

You assumed that there was a chain, because you stated that religion could provide consolation. The harshness of life is the chain, so without this what need is there for consolation? The flowers of religion are false, because they're happiness based on illusion. On fantasy.

The only assumption Marx makes is that religion is not based upon the state of reality. And there are very good reasons to think that is true. There aren't very good reasons to think the opposite.

And all philosphy, all tradition, all culture, all language, it is all made up by humans. But does that make it all invalid?

No. And neither I nor Marx say otherwise.

True, the ideas about religion are made up by humans, but they are based on something. And maybe none of the paths we do know go uphill. But that does not mean we cannot explore these paths. And even if we never reach the top of the mountain perhaps we find something else interesting. Or maybe it is not the destination but what we make of the journey that matters. Maybe we actually are better off finding the bottom of the valley and not the top of the mountain

You're defeating your own metaphor. The top of the mountain is supposed to be the kernel of truth that religions are "based on." Now your saying that region directs us away from that truth as often as bringing us towards it. That's not a good thing if it's true.

The point is we are all looking for something. We do not even know what it is, or where it is. But we can still look. And even if we never find "it" we might find something else of value.

No one is stopping you from looking. We just can't help but point out that you're looking in a really dumb way.

[Novus America]

Well how o we find the "living flower"? And if we found it how would we even know we had? Is there only one living flower?

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."

The living flower in Marx's critique is happiness not based on fantasy. I don't think there's any implication that there can only be one path to happiness outside of religion.

His logic is circular as he assumes that there is a chain, and the flowers on it are false, that one living flower does exist somewhere not on the chain, despite not knowing any of this to be actually the case. He makes up the premises and therefore the conclusion. All his ideas were just as made up and a fantasy as any religion.

You assumed that there was a chain, because you stated that religion could provide consolation. The harshness of life is the chain, so without this what need is there for consolation? The flowers of religion are false, because they're happiness based on illusion. On fantasy.

The only assumption Marx makes is that religion is not based upon the state of reality. And there are very good reasons to think that is true. There aren't very good reasons to think the opposite.

And all philosphy, all tradition, all culture, all language, it is all made up by humans. But does that make it all invalid?

No. And neither I nor Marx say otherwise.

True, the ideas about religion are made up by humans, but they are based on something. And maybe none of the paths we do know go uphill. But that does not mean we cannot explore these paths. And even if we never reach the top of the mountain perhaps we find something else interesting. Or maybe it is not the destination but what we make of the journey that matters. Maybe we actually are better off finding the bottom of the valley and not the top of the mountain

You're defeating your own metaphor. The top of the mountain is supposed to be the kernel of truth that religions are "based on." Now your saying that region directs us away from that truth as often as bringing us towards it. That's not a good thing if it's true.

The point is we are all looking for something. We do not even know what it is, or where it is. But we can still look. And even if we never find "it" we might find something else of value.

No one is stopping you from looking. We just can't help but point out that you're looking in a really dumb way.

Happiness is a fantasy. Hapiness is an illusion. Is fantasy bad? Is an illusion bad? Is happiness bad? Maybe fantasy and illusion is the only way to in fact find happiness. That it is better than reality for us.

Besides if harshness of life is the chain than the chain cannot possibly removed or thrown off. If the imaginary flowers help you bear the chain better, why are they bad?
Why assume the chain can be thrown off? It cannot be. You are the part of the chain and it is part of you. The chain is reality. Escaping it alive the ultimate fantasy. The ultimate illusion. The only escape from it is in death. He mistakenly assumed that the chain is something that one can escape alive. He lived just as much in a fantasy as the most devout theist.

In fact he was a failure in the reality he lived in by the standards of his day. So he created an elaborate fantasy that his harsh reality would and could collapse and turn into something free of the harshness. How is is communist vision really different than the Christian heaven? It was no more real. Maybe less real. For we know in fact he never found his heaven.

If relgion helps you find consolation is it bad then? If reality is suffering why not seek something beyond reality? Is that not what he did in creating his elaborate fantasy of a perfect world? He never got free of the chain. Just found a flower that he liked. His flower was not any more real than any other. He just assumed it was the living flower. It was not.

And how is religion less valid than philosphy, culture, language or tradition? Or not part of those things? And those things part of relgion? Can they be truly separated?

See we do not know if the top of the mountain is actually what we are looking for. We just assume it is. But maybe it is not the destination but journey that matters.

See my edit on alchemy. The objective of alchemy was stupid. One cannot chemically change lead into gold. But they only found that out by trying to do it. And moreover by trying to do it created chemistry and discovered many great things. Would it have been better if they never tried to turn lead into gold? No, because it was that desire that gave them the motivation to make their discoveries.

You might think we are looking at it in a dumb way. But you are no closer to the truth. You do not have the answers. Nor are you neccesarily happier, your life more meanigful or more fullfilling. Nor have you cast off the chain as you cannot and you still suffer just as much under the harshness of life. If not more.

Maybe relgion is the opiate of the masses. If you are dying of a painful terminal disease (which we all are dying from, life itself) do you not want a pain killer to make you death more bearable? Opiates are not necessarily bad. And maybe it is something more. Some people think drugs in fact help you reach a higher understanding of reality.

[The Foxes Swamp]

What does that even mean?

Negative theology.

One cannot say what God is, but one can say what he is not.

from what i read about negative theology thats not me

[Australian rePublic]

My religious experiences are an indicator to me that God exists

[Risottia]

My religious experiences are an indicator to me that God exists

The problem with the mystical experience, though - that is with all irrational theology - is that such experiences are entirely subjective and cannot be transferred correctly to others for verification.

[Alvecia]

My religious experiences are an indicator to me that God exists

This reminds me of an interesting point someone made about personal religious experiences.

They were talking about why such things are entirely unconvincing to them.
If the experience is completely mundane, i.e. "The trees!", then why is that an indicator of anything other than your regular existence.
If the experience was bizarre, i.e. literally defying the laws of physics, then why would your first thought not be "there is something seriously wrong with my brain, I need to see a doctor ASAP"

In context it was an argument against people using their personal experiences as a reason why other people should believe, not against the person who had the experience, but it was a perspective I hadn't encountered before and I thought it was interesting.

[The Archregimancy]

There are five main religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and 4,195 smaller religions. That means that, statistically, you have a 1 in 4,200 chance, or 0.0002% chance of being a member of the correct religion, assuming that the correct religion is existing.

The basic mistake you're making seems to be in assuming that a follower of a theistic religion automatically assumes that no other religion can hold aspects of the truth to varying degrees.

Therefore holding that one religion holds the fullness of the truth doesn't mean rejecting all other religions as wholly and equally untrue. The degree to which this is true likely depends on the specific religious tradition, but this clearly holds even for supposedly exclusionary monotheist religions - hence, for example, the concepts of 'People of the Book' in Islam or 'seeds of the Word' in the majority of Christianity.

ffs, "theist" doesn't mean "exclusivist monotheist". Nor does "religious person" mean "theist" or vice versa.

So, two religions can be right at the same time?

Yes.

That doesn't mean that followers of both hypothetical religions will agree on all aspects of their beliefs, or that they'll all agree that both religions are equally true; but they might well find common ground on specific points of theology that facilitate dialogue where they do agree.

Summed up, it's a matter of degree, not of Manichaean absolutes.



Also, '4,195' is amusingly precise

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

The basic mistake you're making seems to be in assuming that a follower of a theistic religion automatically assumes that no other religion can hold aspects of the truth to varying degrees.

Therefore holding that one religion holds the fullness of the truth doesn't mean rejecting all other religions as wholly and equally untrue. The degree to which this is true likely depends on the specific religious tradition, but this clearly holds even for supposedly exclusionary monotheist religions - hence, for example, the concepts of 'People of the Book' in Islam or 'seeds of the Word' in the majority of Christianity.

I want to further support that point by giving another example; Muslims uphold the fact by saying that there is a truth in the Gospel and Thorah (but this has been corrupted by people over the time).

There are over 140,000 messengers in Islam, and undoubtedly there is a lot of truth in other religions. It is just that, as the Archregimancy said; just not everyone agrees with eachother.

[The Foxes Swamp]

ridiculous is your assumption that i care what you think about anything.

No, your original post was ridiculous. Quite ridiculous.

i get it you and whoever think its ridiculous for whatever reason and?

the only person that my belief has to have any meaning to is me, its not like im saying you must believe this.

[Nariterrr]

There are five main religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and 4,195 smaller religions. That means that, statistically, you have a 1 in 4,200 chance, or 0.0002% chance of being a member of the correct religion, assuming that the correct religion is existing.

The basic mistake you're making seems to be in assuming that a follower of a theistic religion automatically assumes that no other religion can hold aspects of the truth to varying degrees.

Therefore holding that one religion holds the fullness of the truth doesn't mean rejecting all other religions as wholly and equally untrue. The degree to which this is true likely depends on the specific religious tradition, but this clearly holds even for supposedly exclusionary monotheist religions - hence, for example, the concepts of 'People of the Book' in Islam or 'seeds of the Word' in the majority of Christianity.

I am well aware of that, the question is how do you know your religion is the correct religion of the half-truths and lies out there, and why is it worthy of your worship?

[Quokkastan]

Also, '4,195' is amusingly precise

I like to imagine there's a rolling counter somewhere.

Looks like we're more than a thousand religions overdue for a holy oils change.

[Novus America]

The basic mistake you're making seems to be in assuming that a follower of a theistic religion automatically assumes that no other religion can hold aspects of the truth to varying degrees.

Therefore holding that one religion holds the fullness of the truth doesn't mean rejecting all other religions as wholly and equally untrue. The degree to which this is true likely depends on the specific religious tradition, but this clearly holds even for supposedly exclusionary monotheist religions - hence, for example, the concepts of 'People of the Book' in Islam or 'seeds of the Word' in the majority of Christianity.

I am well aware of that, the question is how do you know your religion is the correct religion of the half-truths and lies out there, and why is it worthy of your worship?

The correct religion is the correct one for you. If a relgion helps you, makes you happier, makes you a better person, gives you a good community and support group then it is a good religion for you.

[Pandeeria]

No, your original post was ridiculous. Quite ridiculous.

i get it you and whoever think its ridiculous for whatever reason and?

the only person that my belief has to have any meaning to is me, its not like im saying you must believe this.

Other people's beliefs and opinions can be held up to scrutiny, especially on a debate forum like this.

If you genuinely believe what you believe, then defend it and argue why it's right. If you can't defend them, and simply go "Yeah, well uh, they're my beliefs! So no!", then you should strongly consider abandoning those beliefs.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."

The living flower in Marx's critique is happiness not based on fantasy. I don't think there's any implication that there can only be one path to happiness outside of religion.


You assumed that there was a chain, because you stated that religion could provide consolation. The harshness of life is the chain, so without this what need is there for consolation? The flowers of religion are false, because they're happiness based on illusion. On fantasy.

The only assumption Marx makes is that religion is not based upon the state of reality. And there are very good reasons to think that is true. There aren't very good reasons to think the opposite.


No. And neither I nor Marx say otherwise.


You're defeating your own metaphor. The top of the mountain is supposed to be the kernel of truth that religions are "based on." Now your saying that region directs us away from that truth as often as bringing us towards it. That's not a good thing if it's true.


No one is stopping you from looking. We just can't help but point out that you're looking in a really dumb way.

Happiness is a fantasy. Hapiness is an illusion.

Happiness is a chemical imbalance in the brain, it's not an illusion and it's certainly not fantasy.

[Novus America]

i get it you and whoever think its ridiculous for whatever reason and?

the only person that my belief has to have any meaning to is me, its not like im saying you must believe this.

Other people's beliefs and opinions can be held up to scrutiny, especially on a debate forum like this.

If you genuinely believe what you believe, then defend it and argue why it's right. If you can't defend them, and simply go "Yeah, well uh, they're my beliefs! So no!", then you should strongly consider abandoning those beliefs.

Happiness is a fantasy. Hapiness is an illusion.

Happiness is a chemical imbalance in the brain, it's not an illusion and it's certainly not fantasy.

True hapiness is more than just a dopamine rush. Anti-depressants do not not lead to happiness. If hapiness was just that, then drugs would bring guaranteed happiness.

We do not fully understand the human brain at all.

[Pandeeria]

Other people's beliefs and opinions can be held up to scrutiny, especially on a debate forum like this.

If you genuinely believe what you believe, then defend it and argue why it's right. If you can't defend them, and simply go "Yeah, well uh, they're my beliefs! So no!", then you should strongly consider abandoning those beliefs.



Happiness is a chemical imbalance in the brain, it's not an illusion and it's certainly not fantasy.

True hapiness is more than just a dopamine rush. Anti-depressants do not not lead to happiness. If hapiness was just that, then drugs would bring guaranteed happiness.

We do not fully understand the human brain at all.

Anti-depressants slow down the production of chemicals in your brain that can lead to sadness, despair, etc. that's why they don't lead to happiness, because they don't necessarily up the production of happy-inducing chemicals (though I'm sure there are certain types of anti-depressants that do up dopamine production).

More so, you have to note that surges of various types of chemicals that lead to happiness can be very short lived. If you have a shitty life, your body in response will not want to make you happy by producing dopamine. This is an evolutionary trait; the body senses your life sucks so it's telling you to change it by making you feel bad, and when you do change it you may feel happy once again. Of course when we were still cave men, the notion of "your life sucks" mainly entailed being hungry or no shelter, being injured or close to death, or even seeing your children and fellow family members die (as from a genetic and evolutionary point of view, it's quite undesirable to see your off spring or potential mates die off). Obviously today things are different, but your brain doesn't now that. It still thinks it's in a survival situation, and will react as such.

To further note, when you take drugs, said drugs artificially flood your neurotransmitters with dopamine. That's why when you take drugs, for a short period of time you feel very happy, well, etc. but when you come down from that high you obviously not only feel bad because you lack the good 'ol happy chemicals in your brain that were there just minutes before, but you feel even worse because you just experienced the sheer difference of pure bliss vs. brute reality first hand in the moment. You also have to contend with tolerance, but that's a different issue.

In short, our bodies evolved certain ways in order to survive. This also includes being happy, as being happy can reward us for doing certain things that benefit our survival and the survival of our species (having sex, eating, fiting in to society norms and expectations, being (and knowing you are) healthy and attractive, etc.). It's not fairy magic, it's not "fantasy" it's not something greater. It's something your brain has developed over the course of millions of years, and happens only in your brain.

[Novus America]

True hapiness is more than just a dopamine rush. Anti-depressants do not not lead to happiness. If hapiness was just that, then drugs would bring guaranteed happiness.

We do not fully understand the human brain at all.

Anti-depressants slow down the production of chemicals in your brain that can lead to sadness, despair, etc. that's why they don't lead to happiness, because they don't necessarily up the production of happy-inducing chemicals (though I'm sure there are certain types of anti-depressants that do up dopamine production).

More so, you have to note that surges of various types of chemicals that lead to happiness can be very short lived. If you have a shitty life, your body in response will not want to make you happy by producing dopamine. This is an evolutionary trait; the body senses your life sucks so it's telling you to change it by making you feel bad, and when you do change it you may feel happy once again. Of course when we were still cave men, the notion of "your life sucks" mainly entailed being hungry or no shelter, being injured or close to death, or even seeing your children and fellow family members die (as from a genetic and evolutionary point of view, it's quite undesirable to see your off spring or potential mates die off). Obviously today things are different, but your brain doesn't now that. It still thinks it's in a survival situation, and will react as such.

To further note, when you take drugs, said drugs artificially flood your neurotransmitters with dopamine. That's why when you take drugs, for a short period of time you feel very happy, well, etc. but when you come down from that high you obviously not only feel bad because you lack the good 'ol happy chemicals in your brain that were there just minutes before, but you feel even worse because you just experienced the sheer difference of pure bliss vs. brute reality first hand in the moment. You also have to contend with tolerance, but that's a different issue.

In short, our bodies evolved certain ways in order to survive. This also includes being happy, as being happy can reward us for doing certain things that benefit our survival and the survival of our species (having sex, eating, fiting in to society norms and expectations, being (and knowing you are) healthy and attractive, etc.). It's not fairy magic, it's not "fantasy" it's not something greater. It's something your brain has developed over the course of millions of years, and happens only in your brain.

So how come the US, being the most hopped up on anti depressants is not the most happy?
Why are people with good lives still sad?

The illusion and fantasy increase dopamine production anyway. The chemical reactions are a response to something. Artificially flooding the brain as you admit clearly does not work. More precisely perhaps you could say fantasy and illusion trigger happiness, if you define hapiness just in terms of the chemical response they induce.

But if we truly understood the brain and how it works we would have solved all mental health problems. Clearly that is not the case. Interestingly we have not seen improved mental health outcomes since we turned to chemicals. Suicide rates were lower when we had less mental health science.

Plus illusions and fantasy are just chemical imbalances as well if you reduce the brain to that.

[Valaran]

This is hurting my head. No joke, you just made me an atheist.

Well, I'm glad.

You are? Why?

[The Siri]

Because the previous thread was locked and because the mods told me I could, I'll be putting this discussion up. -

There are five main religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) and 4,195 smaller religions. That means that, statistically, you have a 1 in 4,200 chance, or 0.0002% chance of being a member of the correct religion, assuming that the correct religion is existing. Why is it that your religion, your one religion, that you happened to be born in, is the right religion? And how come every other religion, which says that it preaches the truth, is wrong? How come you were the lucky one to be born in the correct religion? Are you not an atheist to every religion besides your own?

I think this is probably the reason I'm agnostic. I find it hard to understand how people think that the religion that they so happen to be born in is the correct religion and then use anecdotalism and false equivalences to try to explain their beliefs. If there are 4,200 answers on a test, and you have no before knowledge, you are VERY likely to get it wrong. Sure, not all religions regard every other religion as 'wrong' but that doesn't invalidate the question, as you still practice your belief system as the true belief system. I'm agnostic because I don't know. I don't know how the universe was created, nor do if something intelligent created it, but I don't go around making assumptions that aren't based on logic or reason.

I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure.

But I say that the chances are actually higher than that, because many religions are connected (i.e. all monotheists are of one basic, general religion of monotheism.)

[Quokkastan]

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."

The living flower in Marx's critique is happiness not based on fantasy. I don't think there's any implication that there can only be one path to happiness outside of religion.


You assumed that there was a chain, because you stated that religion could provide consolation. The harshness of life is the chain, so without this what need is there for consolation? The flowers of religion are false, because they're happiness based on illusion. On fantasy.

The only assumption Marx makes is that religion is not based upon the state of reality. And there are very good reasons to think that is true. There aren't very good reasons to think the opposite.


No. And neither I nor Marx say otherwise.


You're defeating your own metaphor. The top of the mountain is supposed to be the kernel of truth that religions are "based on." Now your saying that region directs us away from that truth as often as bringing us towards it. That's not a good thing if it's true.


No one is stopping you from looking. We just can't help but point out that you're looking in a really dumb way.

Happiness is a fantasy. Hapiness is an illusion. Is fantasy bad? Is an illusion bad? Is happiness bad? Maybe fantasy and illusion is the only way to in fact find happiness. That it is better than reality for us.

I'm going to stop right there. Truth is justified unto itself.

And to argue otherwise is to invite others to lie to you "for your own good." Once you've made that concession, you've made every concession. You've surrendered all integrity, and there is nothing you cannot be made to do.

[Pandeeria]

Anti-depressants slow down the production of chemicals in your brain that can lead to sadness, despair, etc. that's why they don't lead to happiness, because they don't necessarily up the production of happy-inducing chemicals (though I'm sure there are certain types of anti-depressants that do up dopamine production).

More so, you have to note that surges of various types of chemicals that lead to happiness can be very short lived. If you have a shitty life, your body in response will not want to make you happy by producing dopamine. This is an evolutionary trait; the body senses your life sucks so it's telling you to change it by making you feel bad, and when you do change it you may feel happy once again. Of course when we were still cave men, the notion of "your life sucks" mainly entailed being hungry or no shelter, being injured or close to death, or even seeing your children and fellow family members die (as from a genetic and evolutionary point of view, it's quite undesirable to see your off spring or potential mates die off). Obviously today things are different, but your brain doesn't now that. It still thinks it's in a survival situation, and will react as such.

To further note, when you take drugs, said drugs artificially flood your neurotransmitters with dopamine. That's why when you take drugs, for a short period of time you feel very happy, well, etc. but when you come down from that high you obviously not only feel bad because you lack the good 'ol happy chemicals in your brain that were there just minutes before, but you feel even worse because you just experienced the sheer difference of pure bliss vs. brute reality first hand in the moment. You also have to contend with tolerance, but that's a different issue.

In short, our bodies evolved certain ways in order to survive. This also includes being happy, as being happy can reward us for doing certain things that benefit our survival and the survival of our species (having sex, eating, fiting in to society norms and expectations, being (and knowing you are) healthy and attractive, etc.). It's not fairy magic, it's not "fantasy" it's not something greater. It's something your brain has developed over the course of millions of years, and happens only in your brain.

So how come the US, being the most hopped up on anti depressants is not the most happy?
Why are people with good lives still sad?

The illusion and fantasy increase dopamine production anyway. The chemical reactions are a response to something. Artificially flooding the brain as you admit clearly does not work. More precisely perhaps you could say fantasy and illusion trigger happiness, if you define hapiness just in terms of the chemical response they induce.

But if we truly understood the brain and how it works we would have solved all mental health problems. Clearly that is not the case. Interestingly we have not seen improved mental health outcomes since we turned to chemicals. Suicide rates were lower when we had less mental health science.

Plus illusions and fantasy are just chemical imbalances as well if you reduce the brain to that.

I addressed that all in my post. Anti-depressants don't necessarily make you happier.

The reason artificially flooding the brain with dopamine doesn't work is because it's extremely short lived, and experiencing a sharp increase in dopamine may lead to tolerance of dopamine, which makes you only less happy over all.

The real way to fix it is to hell increase long term dopamine production, instead of just giving it tiny little mega bursts from time to time with drugs.

[Novus America]

So how come the US, being the most hopped up on anti depressants is not the most happy?
Why are people with good lives still sad?

The illusion and fantasy increase dopamine production anyway. The chemical reactions are a response to something. Artificially flooding the brain as you admit clearly does not work. More precisely perhaps you could say fantasy and illusion trigger happiness, if you define hapiness just in terms of the chemical response they induce.

But if we truly understood the brain and how it works we would have solved all mental health problems. Clearly that is not the case. Interestingly we have not seen improved mental health outcomes since we turned to chemicals. Suicide rates were lower when we had less mental health science.

Plus illusions and fantasy are just chemical imbalances as well if you reduce the brain to that.

I addressed that all in my post. Anti-depressants don't necessarily make you happier.

The reason artificially flooding the brain with dopamine doesn't work is because it's extremely short lived, and experiencing a sharp increase in dopamine may lead to tolerance of dopamine, which makes you only less happy over all.

The real way to fix it is to hell increase long term dopamine production, instead of just giving it tiny little mega bursts from time to time with drugs.

Again if it was that simple all mental health problems would be easy to solve. Just create slow release long term drugs. Someone would have done that. The fact is we only understand part of the human mind. Again if we truly understood the human mind there would be no mental health problems, no sadness. If it was just a matter increasing long term dopamine production we would have done that.

[Quokkastan]

I addressed that all in my post. Anti-depressants don't necessarily make you happier.

The reason artificially flooding the brain with dopamine doesn't work is because it's extremely short lived, and experiencing a sharp increase in dopamine may lead to tolerance of dopamine, which makes you only less happy over all.

The real way to fix it is to hell increase long term dopamine production, instead of just giving it tiny little mega bursts from time to time with drugs.

Again if it was that simple all mental health problems would be easy to solve. Just create slow release long term drugs. Someone would have done that. The fact is we only understand part of the human mind. Again if we truly understood the human mind there would be no mental health problems, no sadness. If it was just a matter increasing long term dopamine production we would have done that.

"Simple" doesn't mean "easy."

I mean, all we have to do to end homelessness is find all homeless people a permanent residence, right? Simple.

[Pandeeria]

I addressed that all in my post. Anti-depressants don't necessarily make you happier.

The reason artificially flooding the brain with dopamine doesn't work is because it's extremely short lived, and experiencing a sharp increase in dopamine may lead to tolerance of dopamine, which makes you only less happy over all.

The real way to fix it is to hell increase long term dopamine production, instead of just giving it tiny little mega bursts from time to time with drugs.

Again if it was that simple all mental health problems would be easy to solve. Just create slow release long term drugs. Someone would have done that. The fact is we only understand part of the human mind. Again if we truly understood the human mind there would be no mental health problems, no sadness. If it was just a matter increasing long term dopamine production we would have done that.

Slow release long term drugs wouldn't work though.

[Novus America]

Happiness is a fantasy. Hapiness is an illusion. Is fantasy bad? Is an illusion bad? Is happiness bad? Maybe fantasy and illusion is the only way to in fact find happiness. That it is better than reality for us.

I'm going to stop right there. Truth is justified unto itself.

And to argue otherwise is to invite others to lie to you "for your own good." Once you've made that concession, you've made every concession. You've surrendered all integrity, and there is nothing you cannot be made to do.

We lie to others for there own good constantly. It is common human behavior. We also all lie subconsciously to ourselves. And we see things the way were perceive them, not as they are.
The truth is all humans lie. To ourselves and others. It is in our nature.
We seek the truth sure, but you have not found the truth. And no matter what our search for the truth will be based on many mistruths, as we do not in fact know the truth for certain.

Again chemistry was created by those looking to create lead from gold chemically. You can still learn something valuable even without having the exact truth to start with, and we never have the exact truth anyways. And if you had the exact truth than further discovery would be unnecessary.

Plus who is to say your philosophical truths are better or worse than those of others?

[Quokkastan]

I'm going to stop right there. Truth is justified unto itself.

And to argue otherwise is to invite others to lie to you "for your own good." Once you've made that concession, you've made every concession. You've surrendered all integrity, and there is nothing you cannot be made to do.

We lie to others for there own good constantly. It is common human behavior. We also all lie subconsciously to ourselves. And we see things the way were perceive them, not as they are.
The truth is all humans lie. To ourselves and others. It is in our nature.
We seek the truth sure, but you have not found the truth. And no matter what our search for the truth will be based on many mistruths, as we do not in fact know the truth for certain.

Again chemistry was created by those looking to create lead from gold chemically. You can still learn something valuable even without having the exact truth to start with, and we never have the exact truth anyways. And if you had the exact truth than further discovery would be unnecessary.

Plus who is to say your philosophical truths are better or worse than those of others?

Mine are empirically validated.


Your stance has become that it doesn't matter whether beliefs conform in any way to reality, so long as they make you feel good. This is a stance just begging to be exploited. It screams, "lie to me! Tell me you can cure my cancer with water! And that vaccines are bad! I want to feel justified in my prejudice, so tell me that the people I hate deserve it! I implore you to make me feel good about myself!"