Why did God make us as aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

The vagueness is what spawns the competition, you can't stop it. So either ignore it or have a seat, I made popcorn.

I'm truly sorry, really. When someone has such glaring errors in their thinking, I feel it's only my moral duty to help them correct and resolve them through reasonable discourse.

Seriously, I try not to get involved in those things that are beyond my experience. Unlike many people who try to debate the Bible, I've actually spent time reading and studying it (no, I'm not a preacher, nor a divinity student; just a regular guy who really wants to learn about this thing he's believed in for so much of his life). Biblical principals hinge on an objective reality, something fewer and fewer people seem to acknowledge these days.

Phil: I'm only 31 myself. I've been schooled in hard knocks an equal amount of time as I have been academia. You have much to contribute, I'm sure, because of your youth. Your ideals haven't yet been beaten out of you. Whether Sand or I agree with you is not the issue. Be courageous and confront what has been said. If you feel you can't stand with the arguments of others, you have options:

Change your position if you are convinced--no shame in changing your mind.

Alter your worldview to reflect new things you've learned--not changing your mind, but adding depth to your knowledge.

Stand firm, ask and answer questions. "I don't know" IS an answer, and you are certainly free to examine what you really think and come back when you DO have an answer. People like Sand and I CAN be intimidating, but there is ALWAYS room for challenging our ideas or even your own. People like Sand and I need people to hold us accountable. We're really good at demanding answers from each other. PLEASE feel free to do the same.

I'm sorry to disappoint anyone but I have finally come to the conclusion that AngelRho is not competent in clearly thinking about the issues I have presented nor perhaps interested in examining the issues rationally. He seems totally tethered to the idiocies in conventional authoritative religious concepts and keeps insisting I have accepted things I have not. There is no point in continuing on that basis. I have made a genuine effort to point out the obvious inconsistencies in his proposals and he totally ignores my efforts in his adulation of his most odd concepts. I am not conceding anything except that I seem to have exceeded his capability for rational consideration.

I'll attempt to push this a bit further.

In deed everything is heavily subjective, everything its just interpretation. Its natural selection that decided in what way we should interpret patterns. For "simple" patterns, that come up often, theres pretty much unanimity. In vision for example, many interpretations would kill you, so obviously you will not find many people with totally alien interpretations. At the level of thinking, psychosis (example Don Quixote) demonstrate an interpretation of the world, that isn't very viable, so obviously not many people have it. Psychosis is clear cut, none viable, but other interpretations of the world aren't as clear cut. On top of this, very probably, our interpretations just work on average, natural selection injected great diversity in interpretations, so that what ever happens, always some creatures will take the life saving decisions. For example, a species of caterpillar, has to decide if it builds its cocoon up in the trees, or in the ground, depending on the climate it will have, either choice is lethal, natural selection simply sends at random half up in the trees and the other half in the ground. If these caterpillars could have philosophical debates, they would argue about the morality of going to the trees or in the ground. They could even have wars, against the infidels tree-builders or ground builders..... In humans, we think we take very logical and thought threw decisions, but in fact, natural selection just try to send some people in all directions, so that there are always survivors what ever happens. From a programmer with zero intelligence( natural selection) you can't expect any beater.

More specifically
@AngelRho

You say that your house really exist. But if you are really psychotic, this is not guaranteed anymore. If you are psychotic, you'll have some difficulties realizing you are. Being psychotic is obviously not very viable. But in a similar manner, what we believe in, is almost arbitrarily wired in our heads, with some sort of algorithm. Strictly, speaking, psychotics interpret the world in a none viable way, we label them crazy, but here i want to show that theres some "arbitrary" calibration in our brains, with only viability as an objective. Don't brush them by saying, bahh, they are crazy, for crazy people, there interpretations seem to them as logical as yours to your self. Its just like with the caterpillars, send some in all directions, survivor descendent's will tend to regenerate the same decisions.

That is an interesting statement coming from someone who can't even answer the question of whether or not he exists.

That is pretty much exactly what Sand says, so we have two people who are both trying to correct errors in each others thinking. Unless one of them is willing to examine (and possibly correct) errors in their own thinking this conversation has little value other than entertainment for the observers.

Pass the popcorn please Leaks.

I'm terribly sorry but that is not a genuine question, its some sort of sophomoric nonsense as is characteristic if much of your input.

The issue is not whether one can answer the question, but whether one can ask it.

Your postings indicate that you are glib and in no way profound. Do you have a higher opinion of yourself than the facts warrant?

ruveyn

If that is true, then why don't you just answer the question?

It is a sad, delusional person who doesn't even know whether he exists.

That's just it, though. I'm NOT profound. Answering the question of whether or not one exists should not be anything deep or profound. It's rather simple and plain. We often discuss things that ARE deep and profound, often when we don't really deserve to, and we see that as acceptable. So what's the harm in answering a simple question? Do you really perceive a threat in the answer? That answering a question should be threatening IS profound, in my opinion.

To debate otherwise is to evade the question. I mean, REALLY, are we seriously debating a question itself? If Sand has any courage or intellectual fortitude, it only makes sense that he answer. To employ distraction techniques suggests fear or suspicion when none is warranted. If there is no reason to fear, then it appears Sand is suffering from paranoia. I mean no harm.

Does our friend Sand exist at all? No tricks. No wordplay. Just an answer.

Sand, or I or even you could be a bot.

BTW the asking of the question implies its answer. If I can ask: "do I exist" I obviously exist.

ruveyn

As to bots: By nature of internet communication and the involvement of computers in the process, that is very true. But a bot is a bot. It is still SOMETHING.

My personal opinion is as yours, ruveyn, that if I can question my own existence, then surely I do exist. But I'm not the one who needs assurance.

But something else concerns me. Sand appears to be EXTREMELY evasive when I question Sand's existence. That is troubling to me, because for someone who claims to value clear-thinking, this is very odd behavior. I can't imagine living with such a psychosis that would lead me question my own existence. Perhaps Sand should consult a professional counselor to help him resolve his problem. If there's no problem, he should answer.

I have posted this elsewhere but it applies here.

The reason I have decided it is futile to interact with AngelRho is that his open question of "Do you exist" is not simply answerable. And he has exhibited enough open sophistication to clearly demonstrate he is fully aware of this and it is offered as a trap. He is obviously operating under some sort of agenda which indicates to me that his discussion is basically dishonest and I find this offensive. His request for a simple yes or no answer is the key since neither the simple appearing words "you" nor "exist" are simply defined. It is an undercover attempt to prove the existence of God which, under the general concept of an all powerful being is not available for this type of basic query. It is unfalsifiable.

His proposal that only special Christians are qualified to assert the actuality of the supernatural is the obvious scam of the snake oil salesman that only he and a specially selected coterie have the secret powers if insight and undeniable capability to make judgments in this area. The rest of us are provided with inferior brains who cannot penetrate the depths of this wonderful mystery. If it were the simple amusement of producing pigeons or rabbits from secret pockets I could be entertained. In this case I am not amused.

Are you certain about that?

On the surface, that seems to be a good assumption, however, even though I am extremely shy and introverted, I've done my fair share of sinning in my younger days. I was so desperate for friendship & wanting people to like me that I hung around all the wrong people. Because of that, I ended up drinking & doing other things I shouldn't have. These days, I keep to myself - I don't drink, don't do drugs, don't do anything. It's boring, yes, but at least I didn't end up dead in a ditch somewhere.

E333

That's a very interesting thought. The problem of sinning is an extremely profound one in that there is no escape. While avoiding temptation and a destructive lifestyle is effective in preserving your well-being as well as keeping you from sin, it also prevents you from taking an active part in doing what is right.

But we're all guilty of that. I do more than my fair share of hiding!