Ask a p-psychologist anything!
I'm h-here (though late) for you Anonymous!
No, absolutely not.
Depends how often you do it; how much is "a lot"?
Do you do it to relax or wind down? Or is it intrusive, happens whether you want it or not?
I grew up very christian. I was a fundamentalist whack job. However, when I was about 18, I became an atheist. that was about ten years ago. However, I have constant fears that god is going to judge me, that i'm going to hell , and sometimes I pray. I get tremendous anxiety about sex and pornography. I'm always afraid I'm going to get HIV or something terrible is going to happen to me. I still have nightmares about hell.
Fine, just in the shower
Well, tell me more. What changed in your relationship?
Sorry, there's no god. You are freaking yourself out over nothing.
Sometimes when Im in bed at night I feel like the walls are breathing and taking all my oxygen away.
Is this a question? Go see a doctor and get a referral to a therapist Shaggy; you have anxiety issues.
Why would you want to be?
That's the job of any good clown, desuuuu!
Hey, come on now. Psychology is a real science! Now Sociology....
Well, both of my degrees are STEM so....I did?
So seek therapy man; you are clearly having some form of intrusive thoughts.
It's okay *hugs tightly* You'll be okay, you just have a little bit of anxiety and intrusive thoughts. Happens to the best of us.
Oh hey Furuta. Glad to see you saw the wreckage that is my thread.
One hell of a practice?
And yeah, I mean, I have been here since 2011 as Alice (and since 2004 before that). I know /b/ inside out. Literally.
Atheist guy here.
I've been seeing a psychologist about it for years now, but I fear it will never go away. Is there any hope that it will? Or am I going to be like this my whole life :(
*blinks* You need a different psychologist then. What treatment are you going through? I would recommend CBT, honestly.
I wouldn't miss it for the world!
Whoa! I didn't know your therapy had such, umm, experimental methods.
Ok, that was a poor and excessive way to phrase my question. Excuse my lack of social skills because I'm fucked up and anti-social. Lol. What i meant to say was, why did you pick psychology over the core sciences, being physics biology or chemistry?
Mmh. I'm late; good morning Alice. How are you? Busy today?
Someone wishes for senpai to notice them!
I've been through a few.
A lot of it is CBT (challenging delusions). I've tried a ton of different medications (none worked, in fact it just made the anxiety worse so I stopped taking them).
I am otherwise really well adjusted and successful. In fact, I wound up getting several college degrees (one of which was in psychology). I'm very gifted and it's quite obvious that there is no god, but this lie has been in my life for so long and it's inherently unfalsifiable so it's a struggle everyday.
I'm constantly haunted by this unrealistic idea of an eternal hell and how I'm going there. Throughout the day I'll have intrusive thoughts of going to hell forever, how the people I work with will all be going there, how we'll stand before god in judgment.
It's just reached a point where it's becoming unbearable.
I just want it to stop :(
Well, I did take a lot of biology, and I will probably complete my minor in it; evolution and ecology were very interesting.
I took some chemistry, to complete my biology minor I'll need to take more, and I find it....computationally too easy. I keep thinking I want to write a program in order to solve many of the equations and calculate things, and then I start to write it and I get distracted and now I'm a CS major.
Same for physics; I used to be employed to wrangle physics calculations. So every time I go into hard science, I end up merging back into my CS major.
So, that's why I'm psych and CS; psych is the highest bar we still can't compute. And yet, here I am, making a recurrent neural network to train it to learn how to rap. So clearly, I'm still trying.
It's just psychology is where CS becomes much much more difficult.
It takes all kinds.
Working from home. It's pretty great.
What medications did you take?
And who are you? Seems like you're more unnoticed than me.
I think a lot of what you're talking about is falsifiable, though. God might not be falsifiable, but hell as a concept is in of itself demonstrably mythology. You can even trace the origins of it historically and identify that way that this is a cultural notion developed and altered over time across multiple different locations, by multiple different cultures.
SSRIs, Seroquel, Seroquel XR, Welbutrin, Remeron.
Welbutrion was the last one I took. I was driving down the street one night and I had the most horrible anxiety attack ever. I thought I was going to have to go to the hospital.
Since then I struggled with anxiety attacks. They're basically under control now but they still sneak in sometimes.
God is falsifiable; any axiomatic system precludes such concepts.
Oh, you don't even want to know.
And I won't tell you, because they are confidential.
Yes, that must be stressful!
Walk away; neither are worth it.
....they gave you antidepressants for anxiety? Ask them about beta blockers; they actually block the physical anxiety response.
I have no idea why someone would prescribe SSRI's, given they can cause anxiety as a side effect.
That explanation makes sense. I personally never really had any interest in biology or chemistry. Physics was cool but by year 12 my mathematical capabilities were insufficient to pursue physics. I was always better suited to analysis and argumentation.
Oh? You'd do well in discrete logic <4
Ahh~ That must be nice. I'm taking it slow today after my trauma at the dentist
Hey Alice. I've seen your threads a lot, but never participated till now.
So I'm 22, and I have a hard time connecting to people. I'm very good at faking it, so people generally don't notice it, but I still feel bad since it doesn't come naturally. Also I don't feel any empathy towards other people - I'm not some deranged psychopath, since I've fallen in love with a few girls, but that's it; I'm afraid to admit that I would happily(or rather, not regretfully) kill everyone around me if it was necessary to further my goal(s) in life. I'm scared that I'm not feeling pity towards other people. I thought initiailly it was simply because the people around me are jerks(they are), but then I moved to another place where the folks are really good, but I still can't connect to them. But I'm really smart( think MIT,etc) and so I've gotten the art of faking my emotions around people down to the details.
The other day, someone I know committed suicide and when one of my friends told me, I literally felt nothing but of course I acted all sad and surprised, etc.
I think I'm rambling at this point, and not sure if I'm making sense. Will post more if you have Qs.
Oh? The dentist? Show me where he touched you on the doll.
Well, for starters this assumes an axiomatic system which has its own problems. Moreover, axiomatic systems don't necessary preclude the existence of god either. They preclude certain conceptions of god, such as that which would induce nightmares of hell, which is why I said hell is falsifiable, however they don't necessarily preclude the idea of god as first cause.
Why do i keep thinking of her? How do i stop?
Also, how to motivate myself to become a better keys player and lead my band to great success and popularity by composing sick alt-post-rock electric organ riffs?
Because any asshole can sit through school and become a psychologist (I say that as someone with a psych degree).
I've run through the gauntlet of mental health and know that finding a good psychologist is like finding a good girlfriend. Especially when so much of what comprises clinical psychology is not where it needs to be yet.
Also, god is not falsifiable. You need to read more on that.
pic related is where he touched me ;_;
>Im the type of person (age 21) who doesn't bother faking it. Lol. I just exude cynicism and sarcasm.
I understand - I sometimes do that when I don't care what the people I'm around think about me. But the point is that I realize I have a problem and want to blend in/correct it, and if I don't fake it, people would just be scared and what I mentioned would never be possible.
*nodnod* So you have reduced empathy, mood blunting, and a bit of ruthlessness, yet enough self awareness that you feel bad about it?
Do you feel bad because you desire such interaction, or because you think you SHOULD feel bad?
Yes they do; they preclude fixed limitations on power. Is someone who can punch you really hard and kill you a god? If so, well, most MMA fighters are gods I guess.
Because tomorrow could be better; what do you want to do with your life? Now that you have no will to live, you can sacrifice literally anything to get it.
So why end the ride before you even started?
I'm pretty sure you can't do that, given being a psychologist requires certification in most places.
I laughed pretty hard. Good show.
Both of these people don't know about Godel.
That's dumb; let HER decide if you are disappointing, not YOU. After all, only she can make that decision. In bed.
how to broke a relation from 6 years? she do not like me more...
You do you, furuta.
Say "I think we should see other people"; there's no magic words or secret mantra. Just two hurt people not being together anymore.
Again, this still is dependent on the properties you prescribe to god. It precludes god in accordance with the biblical properties ascribed to him, but it does not preclude other more sophisticated philosophical conceptions of god that exist. I'm saying this as an atheist with a background in philosophy myself. I do get your point in so far as that it precludes any conception of god that asserts god has omniscience, omnipotence, etc.
Is it normal to talk to yourself? I don't just mean occasionally saying something to yourself, I mean pretty much narrating everything that I'm doing and constantly thinking out loud. Sometimes I catch myself pretending to be speaking to someone else or expressing my thoughts through conversation. I don't hear any voices back or anything like that, I just say something as if it was in conversation with someone and respond to things that haven't even been said by anybody. I'm an only child and have been doing this for as long as I can remember. I don't do it around other people but sometimes my parents have heard me when I thought nobody was home and I've been going about my day talking to myself. AM I BROKEN?!
I've started fapping on sissy movies on the internet, I'm addicted to BBCs, but all this time I've considered myself as normie. What the fuck has happened, why it starts being attractive to me? Is it normal or I completely fucked by all these trap thread and /b?
I realize I'm different but I don't perceive this to be a problem. On the contrary, I view my cynicism and intolerance of what I perceive to be stupidity as a positive intellectual trait. Whilst I would like to change socially, I refuse to do this at the expense of my intellectual capacity.
>*nodnod* So you have reduced empathy, mood blunting, and a bit of ruthlessness, yet enough self awareness that you feel bad about it?
ruthlessness? Why? I don't have longings to kill people - I just said I'd do it without feeling too bad.
>Do you feel bad because you desire such interaction, or because you think you SHOULD feel bad?
Ok I feel I should explain at this point. I lived in a third world country(one you people probably haven't heard of since it's not well known for anything) where all the people around me just cared about themselves. Not really unempathetic, but they were all selfish bastards and I had no problem not connecting with them. But then I moved to the US a year or two ago for my PhD and then all the folks there were really kind and decent, the kind of people I want to help. Yet I'm having a hard time actually feeling any sort of emotion around them(except the mad falling in love randomly, but that's probably beacuse my shit ass nigger country had ugly bitches), and I guess I want to just fit in.
Being really smart, I was always isolated in my country, and I guess I'm just tired of always being the different one. For once, I'd like to just fit in without trying. So I genuinely feel bad.
I really wish I could. Do another me, I mean. That is someone I can go gay for. Or would that be considered masturbation, Alice?
I never share my life story with my good friends, Lately, whenever I start a new friendship, I begin talking about my most horrific moments or I just make sad things up.
Why do i this? And how can i stop it?
This is the guy that was asking about the god-related anxiety.
And this is why I'm glad I didn't finish grad school. You have no idea what you're talking about but, in typical grad student fashion, you assume that because I don't share you're lack of understanding I must not know "drop name here" and wash your hands of the conversation.
God forbid you ask me to clarify my point when you can just mention Godel (who, if I may, is not as relevant to this discussion as you might think).
For your information, I do know Godel. In fact, I taught logical calculus / math logic at unviersities for years now. Psychology was only one of my undergraduate degrees (I have three), all of which I got on a scholarship because I was in college since I was 14.
The reason I left graduate school is because it's filled with pompous frauds who (as in your case) confuse certification with education. The STEM field is typically filled with swollen technicians who have no understanding of philosophy yet feel like they're more than equipped to can tackle questions like this one.
>I'm pretty sure you can't do that, given being a psychologist requires certification in most places.
No, you cannot universally disprove a negative. The only thing that comes close is disproving a universal negative, which doesn't fit the "god" concept - especially the judeo christian god which is defined as ultimately untestable. You cannot disprove a thing that is untestable. Moreover, you cannot disprove something that is defined ambiguously with the exception of the idea that we have no reliable information about it.
So there are no lousy psychologists out there because they have t get certified? Have you really been working this field for long? Sounds like you have a very swollen opinion of your own capabilities.
Thanks for nothing. You should probably stick with /b/tards asking about body issues and why they can't talk to girls because philosophy is clearly too big for your britches.
Yes, this is normal. Don't worry. They're many cases like that. You're bored and trying to think up of stuff. Many people do this, less imaginatively. Alice may say something else, and she's far more experienced than me.
You've clearly not read the actual math behind the incompleteness theorem; any conception of god necessarily is more complex than the von Nuemann universe.
Otherwise, it's not supernatural; it's just natural. If you want god to just be a strong person, go worship an MMA fighter.
Even very very minor increases in power are precluded; basically, any logically consistent definition of god is just a stronger, faster, smarter, etc person. Turing completeness is very potent.
If it is impacting your life, seek medical attention; it could be mild OCD. However, if it isn't, it is probably just you being bored.
It's normal in the sense that it is a natural variation of what people like.
That's pretty ruthless.
I see; you may simply have adapted to your prior environment. It doesn't seem like true ASPD, as you are able to love and feel affection.
Have you seen anyone about this?
I think, since it's a clone, it's another person, and thus gay.
I'm not a grad student. But you clearly don't actually know the mathematical basis behind Godel and the connection to Turing machines.
As well, you can universally disprove a negative; it just requires a transfinite proof, such as proof by induction (in the CS sense).
Gonna go ahead and just ignore everything else you said; your precepts are wrong, so your conclusion is unproven from it.
God-anxiety guy here.
This. Funny how academia trains people to name-drop irrelevant shit that they have a passing familiarity with as if it proves something.
You could just as easily have said "god is real because Descartes."
>I view my cynicism and intolerance of what I perceive to be stupidity as a positive intellectual trait
Oh no anon, you misunderstood me. I don't perceive the stuff as stupid. Of course, I can see lots of people's decisions in life as being stupid and I'd never support it. In fact, people have become used to me as kind of being a pessimist, although not in a bad way because what I predict is usually true(I'm not just randomly spewing negative thoughts - they are calculated statements).
What I mean is that I think as a society, feeling empathy towards one other is an important trait. Coming from a CS background, I've seen the changes tech can do to the world and I believe that progress of society should be the #1 concern for anyone, even at the cost of human lives,etc. Now connecting to other people seems important to me towards this, and so I try to fake it so that atleast other people would feel comfortable enough to let me in their social circles.
College since you were 14? Are you sure?
Hey there, I just had a date with a girl.
She told me that she does not want a real relationship atm, but at the same time, she shares very personal stories with me, even to the point where she almost cried talking about it.
The puzzle does not fit together. Any advice?
Btw, she has a major in Psychology... Maybe she's playing with me?
Both of you, tell me more!
*puts one arm around one anon*
*puts her other arm around the other*
*hugs both at the same time*
I need far more information if you want to get a real diagnosis rather than me simply spouting off about what it COULD be.
Yeah, you still clearly don't know Godel's work.
Hey, he did better than me. I only got in at 16. Maybe you should listen to him, despite his clear misunderstanding of basic set theoretic proofs.
It seems quite clear that the pieces fit fine; she doesn't want a relationship, but she does want a friend.
I'm sorry I have little else to give you. I'm so so sorry... *hugs* But that is how it is.
Well, like I said, that is someone I'll go gay for. So, do you think McDonalds gets more hate than it deserves?
I didn't say you ARE a grad student. I said you were one.
>As well, you can universally disprove a negative; it just requires a transfinite proof, such as proof by induction (in the CS sense).
It's sad watching you try. I don't know whether I should feel bad for how misguided you are or be frustrated at how confident you are in something that's so objectively and demonstrably incorrect.
Like other Anons here have mentioned, you don't understand Godel. Moreover, Godel and turing machines are not at all related to this question.
Holy shit, haven't you ever heard of Russel's Teapot?
>>I'm pretty sure you can't do that, given being a psychologist requires certification in most places.
Sorry, but she's not entirely wrong and makes a good point god guy. Whilst axiomatic systems don't disprove god in all philosophical interpretations it does in fact demonstrate that god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. God cannot have the power to send you to hell. This is demonstrable not only mathematically, but, in the fashion of Bertrand Russell, also philosophically. If god cannot create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, he cannot be said to be omnipotent. If god gives us free will, he must not know our destiny. If he knows our destiny, we cannot have free will. Thus, god cannot be omniscient. I would cite the Epicurean paradox as evidence that god cannot be omni-benevolent. The issue is simply that OP is thinking about god in biblical terms. Taking that into consideration, OP's assertion is in fact correct. Further, you cannot define a thing as "untestable". As I have just demonstrated, the properties given to the god of the testaments is inconsistent with logic. It does not withstand the test of logic. All assertions are at bear minimum rationally testable. So, in closing, you cannot disprove god completely, but you can disprove certain definitions and manifestations of god as a concept, including the one you appear to be anxious about.
Hm. So, in the 90's, there was a big conference to deal with the obesity epidemic, and it was actually Kellogs I believe that said they would NOT compromise on flavor....and basically no one changed anything.
Mc Donalds, to its credit, did try to change a few times....and no one gave a shit, because we really like fat and salt.
I think they offer some good items, and they do a lot here in NYC to allow people to make good choices. But they ARE a business, or basically a drug dealer if you think about it; of course they will do what profits.
So, basically? Mixed feelings.
Russel's teapot isn't a formalized mathematical argument.
>I have no idea why someone would prescribe SSRI's, given they can cause anxiety as a side effect
Like, a week ago you were arguing for them.
Regardless, I have anxiety and depression, could I take an SSRI and a beta blocker?
My doctor has only given me an SSRI because I haven't really pushed for anxiety treatment (that is, I haven't really brought it up as much of an issue other than saying that I'm anxious) so I'm going to ask him for it next time, but I'm scared of meds as a whole.
Can I take both? Should I?
I'd be very thankful for any input.
I'm sexually attracted to my partner but sometimes I'll get so anxious during sex like "what if I can't keep it up" and its a self-fulfilling prophesy. What would you recommend?
Excuse me. I SINCERELY doubt someone who's spouting out that they were in college since they were 14, have a million and one degrees, and are seconds close to saying they solved the hodge conjecture with a ti-82. Do you have any proof of your BS?
I disagree with this. There are manifest conceptions of god as first cause that don't assign god with agency. These would not be disposable via this means. The idea of a naturalistic god is also philosophically established, such as in the works of figures like Spinoza. However, for the purpose of dealing with anxious god guy, I would agree with you. There are demonstrable mathematical and philosophical proofs that the conception of god he is anxious about cannot exist.
I can't get rid of the seed of doubt that this is all made up in my mind. My friends have told me that I'm just over-reacting, but the more I think about it, the more I'm unsure of if my surroundings are real or not. Is it too late, or can I bounce back? Because I feel like now that I think this way, I will never be sure if I'm living in "reality" or not.
Good point. I heard they were also the first to introduce non-plastic packaging. So, what's your favourite piece of literature? I enjoy many books and poems. Currently I'm reading Tristram Shandy.
Oh...I think you meant that in relation to the guy you were replying to, my bad.
Hello psychologist it is me again when I thank you about giving me advice for me about intimacy with my gf and I have another question. Tomorrow is my birthday and I plan on going out with my girlfriend to dinner and hanging out with her in the car talking to her and holding hands etc whatever the mode. We have been dating for 3 months almost and a half and never told her I loved her yet because I feel like if I tell her that she wont know how to react and won't be ready for it and create that awlard situation. I really do care for her and love her even though it been sort should I just wait until her birthday which is July to tell her how I really feel or should I go for it and tell her after our date tomorrown ight.
>I see; you may simply have adapted to your prior environment. It doesn't seem like true ASPD, as you are able to love and feel affection.
>Have you seen anyone about this?
No Alice, and I don't think I ever would.
I think the primary reason is that I don't think a shrink could help me. I consider myself really smart(I think you can probably see my egoist side from my posts) and because of my low empathy, and at attempts to fit in, I've become really good at psycho analyzing people - that kind of makes evolutionary sense, since it's a defense mechanism to blend in and survive.
No single person has ever felt deceived by me just because I am that good(I'm trying my best not to sound arrogant, but I'm trying to get a point across that might be obvious if you meet me). So I don't believe seeing a shrink would ever help me, since I don't think they could add anything of value.
So the natural Q now is why I'm asking you. Well to be honest, I thought it was time to give venting out my feelings a go, but it doesn't really seem to be helping. Plus, being a psychologist, you might have medical terms that would save me a couple of hours of learning up the topic myself.
I'd still like to hear your take on this, if that's ok.
Is it immoral to flirt and look around while trying to get my ex back? It's not like I'm cheating or anything since we're not even together but is it questionable behavior anyway since I intend to have a long term relationship if I do get her back?
She also made sexual advances. Forgot to mention that.
Do friends with benefits talk about emotional stuff? If so, then what's the point in not having a relationship? Not binding yourself to one person? Sorry for these questions, but I'm kinda helpless atm.
There are SO many problems with this explanation I don't even know where to begin...
>Whilst axiomatic systems don't disprove god in all philosophical interpretations it does in fact demonstrate that god cannot be omnipotent,
>God cannot have the power to send you to hell
>This is demonstrable not only mathematically, but, in the fashion of Bertrand Russell, also philosophically.
Proof. I love Russell, but he proves no such thing. In fact, he demonstrates the opposite with his TeaPot.
>If god cannot create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it, he cannot be said to be omnipotent
This is true, but has no bearing on my argument. Again, you (and this psychologist) are assuming a particular précising definition about god (in this case, YHWH) and MANY more assumptions about which theology should be attached to it (as in, "God gives free will," which isn't shared by all Christians in the first place).
Take it from someone who has actually been to seminary that there are THOUSANDS of different theological concepts defining even the christian god. Trying to hold one over the other and saying "Well this doesn't make any sense, therefore they're all wrong" is demonstrably silly.
>the issue is simply that OP is thinking about god in biblical terms. Taking that into consideration, OP's assertion is in fact correct.
OP is assuming a specific theology about god and attempting to disprove it logically, which doesn't make sense for several reasons.
Disprove my point easily: Disprove Russell's Teapot.
Sure, for depression and many other things!
Yes, you could take both at the same time; ask your doctor!
Have you talked to your partner about it? They can try to make you more comfortable, and make it less anxiety inducing for you <4
Actually, it has been formalized into a mathematical argument. So, wrong?
Sounds like anhedonia; tell me more.
That's sort of my point; I think we were talking past each other.
Eh? Is this a question? Are you disassociating perhaps?
Hm. From a Buick 8. It's a pretty brilliant immersion horror novel.
*thumbs up* Keep it up, Anonymous!
Now it DOES kind of sound like ASPD or narcassism....
Perhaps we should take this to email? [email protected]
Yes it's pretty questionable
Okay guys, 12:30, I need to actually get some work done today.
I'll be back at 8PM or 10PM (depending if I do a cooking thread or not).
Email me at [email protected] if you need anything
Yeah anon, I guess. But then again, I think diversity's what makes people fun to observe.
It's always nice to see different POVs.
So if you're cynical in RL, how do the people around you treat you(you might not care, but I just wanna know)? Are there people similar to you around you?
>Actually, it has been formalized into a mathematical argument. So, wrong?
Bullshit seeing as Russell's teapot and the existence of god are the exact same argument.
Arrogant piece of shit. Have fun babysitting retarded people's made up problems because you can't handle having a real education.
So I've been unemployed for 5-6 months, after falling into a depression. I live alone and don't go out at all anymore for most of that time, despite friends reaching out- I just make excuses. I talk to people on the internet often, though.
I drank a lot, but have recently cut back as it isn't fun anymore and leads to depression that is hard to fend off that lasts for a few days. Upon feeling again I'll dry having some drinks, but this usually leads to blackout and hangover even with smaller amounts (like 5-6 drinks). I used to drink a liter+ of booze in a night and wake up fine.
So clearly my life is falling apart, and I'm quickly running out of savings. I used to make a lot of money, but now I don't know what to do with myself.
Also, I've started to gain fat and lose muscle mass at an accelerated rate, and have become physically unappealing, when just months ago I was quite fit and exercised regularly.
I don't really know how all of this started, but I think it all had to do with a girl I was dating who I cared for too much. I believe her neediness is why I lost my job, and then she just left. She reached out a few times in the first 3 months of this fall into depression, but I ignored her because fuck that bitch.
I've never really been in this situation and it isn't looking good. I can't find motivation to do, well, anything. Except eat and waste time on the interwebs. I used to go out and do shit every day...
So, what do Psych-Anon?
Do you maybe know of any two tht go well together?
I'm going to look into this tonight as I'm getting off right now, but I wouldn't mind the opinion of someone with experience in this field. Like I said, I'm scared of meds so I just want to feel as confident as I can when I talk to him and take them.
>Now it DOES kind of sound like ASPD or narcassism
Ah, I was trying to not have myself come across as narcissistic, but was forced to due to the nature of the convo.
I should explain better. I've invited you to hangouts(adolfnigler), that might be better perhaps.
1 of my 2 best friends killed himself a couple months ago. Lost it. Got my head shrunk 1 time. Lost appetite. (I am a fat beckbeard) not sleep almost at all for a month. Shrink had gross as fuck office, was a fairy princess style faggot. I don't judge, but I want nothing to do with those. Said would give me sleeping pills. Never faxed the pharmacy. Filed papers 3 fucking times with them to let my wife call and schedule stuffs. They have no record. Politely called and cancelled all appointments. Shrink litteraly did nothing but increase my rage. The only reason I went. And a couple weeks ago. Other best friend got a concussion and can't drink water without puking. He's slow af. Maybe permanent. Can't stop uncontrollable drinking. Can't function. Wife hates me atm. Can't see shrinks or seek AA or anything cause of job. Litteraly cannot make half what I do here without 2 hour drive every day. Cannot take off. Work by myself. What do? Am legit losing my fucking mind and seeking help will make my already fucked situation even more fucked. What in the fuck am I supposed to do?
Yeah, even though I was one of the first posters in this thread. You fucking suck. All you did was dismiss my argument and didn't even address it.
Literally your argument was "nuh-uh."
Thank you for proving my point that you can a perfect dumbass as still be a clinical psychologist - the queen of all pseudo sciences.
Oh, you need to spend some more time with the people in your life who care for you. Do you have family your close to? Stick with them. Consider seeing a therapist. Try thinking positively. Make a to-do list everyday, that you HAVE to try and meet. Think of some incentives to give your self if you succeed.
Im not a professional but i think i moght be mildly schizophrenic. Its taken me a long time to realize it but there is a voice in my head which is my voice and its always telling me what a piece of shit i am. Im not sure why i hate myself but i dont think i can solve this problem myself becausd the problem is myself
Yes, I'm qualified. I've helped in these threads before.
Hmm yeah, I actually find it fun to bully people, but rarely do it. Kinda like people not masturbating I guess - awesome sensation, but try to keep away from it.
That's why all these raids on /b/ excite me a lot and since I'm a CS major, I contribute to these heavily as well.
T-that wasn't actually me responding you know; I use pictures. You may notice they have a specific file name and such.
I didn't dismiss your argument; your argument was a non-argument, showing you didn't understand the concepts on an actual mathematical basis. Again, look into discrete logic and turing machines before speaking on the subject again; you sorely need it.
*vanishes to work*
Is it possible to fuck a 2hu without the means of using fantasy, fleshlights and sex dolls?
Again, you refuse to address my point, yet claim that it is so obviously wrong.
Russell's teapot (since you're clearly unfamiliar with it) was an argument modelled after the Christian God because it illustrates that a thing which is obviously unlikely is still inherently unfaslifiable.
You claim that this claim isn't unfalsifiable, but somehow the exact same claim it was create to illustrate is.
I don't want to hear "how little I know." I've taught discreet logic in fucking universities and have read Godel inside and out. It doesn't disprove my point and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Not sure if you realized but we're citing the same philosopher. I already said clearly that god as a whole is not a disprovable concept, however a god with substantial power the likes of which is prescribed to him in the bible clearly IS. And yes, I am aware there are thousands of theological interpretations of god. I'm not arguing they are all wrong, I'm simply arguing that the ones you should feel anxious are all demonstrably wrong.
Frankly I think the problem here is that you need to revise Russell's teapot. You don't appear to understand it. The teapot argument demonstrates that it is incumbent upon Christians to find proofs for their conceptions of god because god is empirically unfalsifiable. The teapot argument demonstrates that there is no epistemic reason to believe in Christian concepts of god. That is literally all it does. I don't need to disprove Russell's teapot to say that specific definitions of god are dismissable because they are logically inconsistent and rationally disprovable. OP and I are simply assuming and addressing any theological interpretation involving omnipotence or hell, as these are the only ones that are rationally relevant to your anxiety.
What happened to that? I had to leave for work. The last one I remember was people texting with that lauren or whatever and she was all like yeah that's him. Did any of the relatives respond?
I sort of burned bridges with people, and even those I still know care- I'm embarrassed to let them see that state I've let myself fall into. The only family I have left is my step father, who I put on a front of happiness and growth as his reaction to anything negative in my life is just disappointment, which I let affect me negatively.
I had an appointment with a therapist, but blew it off as I lost my car keys a week ago. I don't want to get new ones, as they HAVE to be in my home, and like I said I'm running out of money quickly at this point. I feel like I've looked everywhere though.
I haven't physically written a to-do list, but I make small efforts to accomplish things. I usually end up justifying my distractions and procrastinating. Maybe a physical list would help, but I struggle holding myself accountable anymore, instead falling into some stupid sort of selfish mode of self-pity.
The stress of everything falling in, my lifestyle being unsustainable both with habits, health, and money, leaves me with no real incentives that I can think of. I need to get a job, but I feel sort of unemployable at the moment, to be honest.
I understand the intention of Russell's Teapot.
However, it is still unfalsifiable.
If you read the bible cover to cover, there is a very consistent, systematic, and logical argument that god creates people with no free will and no ability to know whether or not he (it) exists - sending most of his creation to hell.
It, like Russell's teapot, is unfalsifiable.
What you two are doing is taking a grand generalization of certain theological attributes of god and demonstrating that they are universal negatives (which can be disproven) yet are ignoring that you cannot universally disprove negatives.
Universally disproving negatives =/= disproving universal negatives.
Although I'll give you credit because, at least in you're case, you don't say "OH YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND GODEL / TURING MACHINES *pwned* and then abandon the conversation. At least you're addressing my points (although I don't think you're making any ground).
There aren't many people like me around because Im cynical to an extreme lol. I don't really have many friends. Like, 2. lol. One is as cynical as I am and another isn't a close friend but we hang out occasionally. People in general perceive me as a rude and intellectually elitist pessimist but that's not very far from what I actually am to be honest lol.
I typed it on my phone.
Please, if you want to disprove my point, address the point. The surest sign that you don't know "fuck all" is that you'll take the time to tell me I don't understand something without actually addressing the point.
I didn't really perceive myself as bullying her. Frankly she said something stupid, so I showed her just how stupid it was, in my usual rude and obnoxious way. That said, the intent was to correct her, not harm her, so whilst my approach was poor my purpose was just.
I'm a guy that was sexually molested by a male pedo a long time ago. It took place when I was 12-14. I am now considering getting legal justice against him. Do you think this will help me to move on?
lol sure dude sure you typed it out on your phone. that's why other common idiomatic phone mistakes aren't in the text
you clearly dont have any clue of the concepts you are using so refuting you is like trying to refute creationism; a waste of time.
That's the trend of this thread. The psychologist here isn't much better. It's pretty much this.
>She says god is falsfiable.
>Homeboy says it isn't, and gives an example
>She just keeps saying he's wrong
>he explains his position (which sounds reasonable to me but I'm no philosopher)
>she just says "you're wrong and I'm smarter than you, you clearly don't understand what I do.
>She doesn't address his example
At least the one dude is talking about the guy's ideas but idk
Nuclear like bush is weird, but discrete as discreet is an understandable mistake, especially (like I mentioned) in a long post. When I have lots to type, I'll be sounding out words in my head and often mistype common words. This is something that happens A LOT.
Start asking the right questions.
Next Caller please.
You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it's the exact same argument.
In point of fact, that's why it exists. Russell created the argument as an illustration arugment ad absurdium to the original argument.
So no, you're wrong.
Dude, that's not what Russell's teapot demonstrates. You are citing an argument you do not understand. The point of it is that empirically unfalsifiable claims have no epistemic merit or value. If anything it attests to OP's and my own position.
I have no energy or desire to do anything with my life. what should do?
let's be honest, you're going to die around 80 anyway, and being old fucking sucks.
What are you, 20? 30?
You have another 60 years at most and around 45, it really starts going down hill.
They call old people, over the hill for a reason, once they got over, it was only downhill from there.
hey psycho senpai
what a serendipitous discovery
i was just thinking of this thread but didn't expect to see it at 12:48 (my time)
how are you doing?
Ok, so you do understand. Again, in that case, this simply means you do not understand what OP and I are contending. We are not contending that god as a whole in unfalsifiable. We are arguing that any agency based form of god with defined properties is disputable, on the basis that these presupposed qualities themselves are logically falsifiable. OP is not abandoning the conversation, you have simply fundamentally misunderstood OP's position, and OP is correct. The bible presupposes that god has certain qualities. These qualities are demonstrably inconsistent with reality and are therefore reject-able.
fml i figured that may be the case
what a depressing life
Once again, I see a whole lot of dismissing but nothing addressing why what I (or thousands of other philosophers, mathematicians, and other authorities) have illustrated with logical calculus.
Honestly I'm surprised so many people think this is debatable. It's a basic premise of propositional logical that you cannot universally disprove negatives.
Whether it's Russell's Teapot or Carl Sagan's invisible dragon, the point still remains.
Just because people show up and say how hysterical it is that autocorrect wrote discreet instead of discrete, or because someone shows up and says "well you don't understand X" and vanishes into thin air, it doesn't change the fact that the point remains unproven.
In point of fact, it remains entirely unaddressed with the exception of one anon.
Well, I'm studying to get my Psy.D degree. Not much else. Oh, I'm notorious for shitposting on the TG threads.
Yes, I know, and you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose Russell has in doing this. The point of the argument is not merely that god is unfalsifiable, it is that unfalsifiable claims unsubstantiated by evidence are invalid and epistemically worthless.
I see someone saying that this isn't true in response to the post I'm directing you towards.
I'll look back, but the actions mentioned in the post I directed you to disappoint me.
No, I understand the argument very well.
What you are failing to understand is that the intention of the argument is irrelevant to my point about it because, regardless of what Russell was trying to say, it still illustrates that the claim in inherently unfalsifiable.
Which was my original point. The idea of a deity which is (by definition) unfalsifiable remains in fact unfalsifiable.
There's nothing there I'm misunderstanding. I just cannot believe how many people are taking issue with it, and am moreover impressed with how few of them are citing reasons that even make sense.
He must be the maniac who clownposts on the Tokyo ghoul threads. I knew it was one guy (or some crazy hivemind)
The point doesn't 'still remain', you are missing the point. The point is that the flying spaghetti monster is unfalsifiable. That is the point of the tea pot argument; any number of things are unfalsifiable, therefore they should not be accepted or believed in.
Long story short, i feel like people can hear my thoughts and are going to judge me in a bad way (everyone can hear my thought but i can't hear theirs) (afraid they'll think i'm gay or racist or that i feel superior which is not true) and in response to that, my thought process kind of go crazy and i can't control it anymore and i start to insult people (like words from up without my doing).
This problem started with shrooms and weed. Now if i smoke weed i can't move anymore, i shake and i hear people insulting me, for example if i look at 2 persons down the street i'll hear them insulting me while talking to each others.
That's quite a problem as i have a hard time being with people now, for some time i couldnt even look at my family anymore without being sad of those thoughts (insulting them) that were killing me.
This has been killing me for about 6-7 years now
You have anxiety issues as well as pretty severe paranoia. Do you hear "voices"? Try to calm down on the weed.
No, it's just as silly as worshiping anything else.
Again, she was talking about god as described in the bible. God in the bible has particular qualities that are falsifiable. She is not saying god as a whole is dismissable, she is saying biblical conceptions that ascribe to god particular qualities are falsifiable. He means of doing this was mathematical. There was nothing objectionable. God guy is simply assuming OP was talking about all manifestations of god when she was not. She was talking about a specific set of manifestations.
>she even said qed what more do you want
I want her to prove her point. She mentioned a very large and ambiguous concept (there's literally thousands of different books written on each of them), yet failed to explain how it's relevant to her point.
I don't want her to say "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about, you clearly don't understand Godel, discrete logic, or how it relates to turing machines. By the way, Russell's teapot isn't a formalized mathematical argument, but the counterargument it addresses via argument-ad-absurdium is a formalized mathematical argument."
That's what you call someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. If it's such an absurd claim, fucking prove it. She wrote about it for like 6 posts, but never once did she address it meaningfully besides name dropping and "lamsosmart" tactics.
It's not rocket science. If what I'm saying is so obviously wrong and I so clearly don't know what I'm doing, just show everyone why and I'll fucking shut up.
A claim being unfalsifiable doesn't make it valid. The fact that it is unfalsifiable is meaningless. Moreover, you still don't get the point. The teapot argument doesn't prescribe qualities like omnipotence to the teapot. If it did, it would be rationally falsifiable. OP was not talking about god in all philosophical manifestations. She was only talking about manifestations that yield god to be capable of sending people to hell, ie those that prescribe to god levels of power in contradiction of the mathematical proofs she presented. In other words, the purpose was to eliminate manifestations of god that allow for conceptions of hell, not to falsify god as a whole. And again, you cannot define something as unfalsifiable. This does not make epistemic sense. Whether or not a thing is falsifiable is dependent on whether there are means to falsify it, not on how you personally define it.
>the point of the argument is not merely that god is unfalsifiable, it is that unfalsifiable claims unsubstantiated by evidence are invalid and epistemically worthless.
Again, I am aware of this.
The issue is that you seem to be mistaking the intention of his argument (and epistemology as a whole) as something to be conflated with objectivity.
A thing can still exist and we not know it.
Which was my original point that seemed to upset so many people - including the OP who was hyper arrogant about it.
lol is this maniac supposed to be me? i was just asking what the acronym stood for kek
>i've seen Tokyo Ghoul but never been in a thread for it :|
nah, i meant the other guy you were replying to. he clownposts non-stop to derail the thread
I'm not 'proving she is full of shit' you simply are asserting her contention was something it is not. She was responding to a (your?) complaint from someone that they were having nightmares about god and hell. Naturally, this sets up a context whereby her contention is to eliminate concepts and definitions of god that permit the existence of hell. Her contention was never to prove that all concepts of god were falsifiable, only the ones relevant to this users personal problem. The issue is not OP's comment, it is your removal of the comment from its context. Frankly, I am a university student and it is clear to me that she is not "full of shit", on the contrary you are, by taking her statement out of its original context.
Yeah i can't smoke anymore didnt touch that for 4 years, and yeah i heard voices from people, very clearly insulting me.
It's just that this feeling can't leave me anymore.
If i start to enjoy myself with people it will come
bite me in the ass at some point and ruin me.
Every 2-3 years i go see a psych to get drugs
until my brain kind of start to work normally.
But at the end of the day i stay as far as i can from people, i droped every kind of expectation i had of myself. I realised i sort of lost hope.
I'm both furious, sad and alone nowadays.
So i just wanted to rant a bit.
thanks mate for taking the time to repond.
First of all, that is not Russell's point anyway.
Russell's point is that there's no reason to build an entire religion / base your life off of something as epistemologically dubious as the teapot.
The point is that things which are unfalsifiable CANNOT BE KNOWN.
That does not mean THEY DO NOT EXIST.
Your understanding of Russell's point is ahistorical and lacks an understanding of the scientific method. Case in point, try proving to people in the 13th century that germs are actually what made people sick. It would have been largely unfalsifiable because the technology to test / empirically observe this phenomenon did not exist until fairly recently.
Similarly, because a thing is currently unfalsifiable does not mean that it doesn't exist.
My point was that I have religious trauma syndrome and I wanted her help with it.
In the process, she proved she doesn't understand the topic (like, at all).
I normally wouldn't care, but she was an arrogant bitch about it.
Clearly you are not, as you are placing epistemic value to whether or not OP successfully falsified god. Whether or not OP falsified god is irrelevant if there is no epistemic value to the claim anyway. Moreover, again, OP's intention was not to invalidate all manifestations of god to begin with, as I have already explained. OP successfully demonstrated that all manifestations of god that could result in the existence of hell are mathematically and philosophically void. This was OP's contention and aim to begin with. OP was right. You are simply ignoring the purpose of OP's efforts.
Man, you need to see a doctor. This is pretty serious schizophrenia. Not just a bit for drugs, you need CBT AND a entire course of drugs. This needs to be stopped.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I've said 500 comments in a row now. And again, OP IS NOT SAYING ALL PHILOSOPHICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD ARE FALSE AND NEITHER AM I. Frankly, neither OP nor I were arguing that all manifestations of god are dismissable. You are assuming this is what we are saying when it is not. We are specifically addressing god claims wherein which god is assigned specific falsifiable properties, as I have already said, multiple times now. Russell's teapot argument is not even relevant to this pursuit.
>A claim being unfalsifiable doesn't make it valid.
Never said it was valid. All I said was it was unfalsifiable (which, apparently, you now seem to be agreeing with).
> OP was not talking about god in all philosophical manifestations. She was only talking about manifestations that yield god to be capable of sending people to hell, ie those that prescribe to god levels of power in contradiction of the mathematical proofs she presented. In other words
Your words, not hers. Her words were
>God is falsifiable
>And again, you cannot define something as unfalsifiable. This does not make epistemic sense. Whether or not a thing is falsifiable is dependent on whether there are means to falsify it, not on how you personally define it.
The scientific method is established on principles of self correction and falsifiablity. If a thing is defined as unfaslifiable (such as the teapot or Sagan's dragons) then it is unfalsifiable.
My greater issue with your argument is that you seem to assume that a god who sends people to hell is demonstrably falsifiable, but it simply isn't. Sure, you attach a lot of baggage to it that you argue is falsifiable, but that isn't the question.
Simply put - imagine there's a god and, whenever people die, they have a soul which goes to hell. This soul has no material qualities that can be tested, this god stays outside the range of empirical testing, and there is no way to know this hell place exists until you go there. Once you go, you can't come back.
Argue until you're blue in the face, but that claim is unfalsifiable.
>"B-BUT THAT WASN'T RUSSELL'S POINT HAHAAHA U DON'T GET IT"
Doesn't matter. The reality is that the position is unfalsifiable.
That was my only claim.
Unfalsifiable claims are unfalsifiable.
Then 4chan got their panties in a bunch and tried to debate faith with me (and clearly lost).