SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy

[Drareg]

Lots of words and personal attacks based on amusing assumptions without actually critiquing atheism. Reading posts like this offers a fascinating view to a nightmarish hellscape.

My critique is clear as day,atheism is a religion,faith based,it has all the boxes ticked for it to be a religion.
For example,it has priests,bishops and popes "proselytising" ,Dawkin,Dennet et al,will I link you to a TED talk of said proselytising?
The high priests have also bastardised the original meaning of atheism which is the equivalent of agnostic,now it means no intelligent creative force,hilariously they say this while surrounded by said force daily,they can't prove this but use scientism as their God instead,science will answer and save all they say.
It's also followed in large part by authoritarians mainly males who feel(perceive)social defeated and are looking for energy sinks in society,rage energy. In simpler terms,people who had their feeling hurt and all meanings are filtered through feelings of rejection.

This is the only hellscape,to get stuck in the mental loop of meanings and feelings and claim your perception is correct because it matches your underlying feelings/meaning.

 

[jaa]

My critique is clear as day,atheism is a religion,faith based,it has all the boxes ticked for it to be a religion.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is not a belief in anything, it is a lack of belief corresponding to lack of evidence. Atheism shares few-to-none of the properties people criticise religion for. There are no rules or guidelines to live by to be an atheist. There is no church. And many would believe in [insert god/religion] if there was sufficient evidence for it. Calling atheism a religion is a linguistic trick people either use to attempt to fool others, or use because they've been fooled by it themselves.

For example,it has priests,bishops and popes "proselytising" ,Dawkin,Dennet et al,will I link you to a TED talk of said proselytising?

I have not watched the video, but I'm familiar with both of them. One is not obliged to listen and pay heed to Dennet or Dawkins or whoever, but they may if they choose. It is also acceptable to disagree with them. Giving a ted talk does not make one a priest.

The high priests have also bastardised the original meaning of atheism which is the equivalent of agnostic,now it means no intelligent creative force,hilariously they say this while surrounded by said force daily,they can't prove this but use scientism as their God instead,science will answer and save all they say.

Again, not high priests. But whatever you need to characterise them as to support your flimsy argument.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe there is 100% no intelligent design. It means that you currently don't see the evidence for it and don't require it to make sense of the universe. We can explain the universe pretty well without god. Postulating such a being makes things so much more complicated and resolves nothing. The question of first causes still exist, but at least you don't have to go searching for answers when you can just say god did it.

And you seem to have a lack of understanding about how to weigh evidence (we've been through this before, but now you're getting it wrong in a new way). It's not on the atheists to "prove" a negative. As alluded to earlier, supposing a god creator makes things a lot more complicated and messy and this heavy burden is on the religious to prove. Where is your evidence for this? You can't point to order. That would fly if you were a caveman, but not in modern day when we have natural explanations for such things.

It's also followed in large part by authoritarians mainly males who feel(perceive)social defeated and are looking for energy sinks in society,rage energy. In simpler terms,people who had their feeling hurt and all meanings are filtered through feelings of rejection.

Shout out to authoritarians! Earn 10 Ray Peat points. This is a non-answer so I'll ignore it.

This is the only hellscape,to get stuck in the mental loop of meanings and feelings and claim your perception is correct because it matches your underlying feelings/meaning.

So I'm trapped because my underlying mental meanings and feelings are off and I'm further deluded because that somehow equally matches my erroneous perception? Do you realise how silly that sentence is? And I guess you're somehow aligned on the right track?

 

[Such_Saturation]

We can explain the universe pretty well without god.

No you can't. You can't be asking for proof against atheism when atheism has no proof to stand on in the first place. The fact that you exist and can have an experience REQUIRES a full explanation before you can claim god doesn't exist. And it just turns out that a full explanation implies the existence of god.

 

[jaa]

No you can't. You can't be asking for proof against atheism when atheism has no proof to stand on in the first place. The fact that you exist and can have an experience REQUIRES a full explanation before you can claim god doesn't exist. And it just turns out that a full explanation implies the existence of god.

Atheism does not claim that god does not exist. It claims that there is not enough evidence to believe in the existence of god. It's not surprising that as societies learn more about the universe, belief in god goes down. And it's not surprising the better equipped people are for evaluating what constitutes evidence, the less they believe in god (i.e. scientists believe much less in god than the general population)

Let's hear the full explanation of existence. Maybe you know some important pieces of evidence that I'm not aware of. To be sure though, the onus is on the believers to prove god's existence and not the other way around.

 

[Tenacity]

@jaa @Such_Saturation Perhaps this deserves its own thread? I'm interested in what you both have to say, at any rate.

 

[jaa]

Sorry for the derailment @Tenacity. Interesting thread without the god bickering.

 

[Drareg]

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is not a belief in anything, it is a lack of belief corresponding to lack of evidence. Atheism shares few-to-none of the properties people criticise religion for. There are no rules or guidelines to live by to be an atheist. There is no church. And many would believe in [insert god/religion] if there was sufficient evidence for it. Calling atheism a religion is a linguistic trick people either use to attempt to fool others, or use because they've been fooled by it themselves.



I have not watched the video, but I'm familiar with both of them. One is not obliged to listen and pay heed to Dennet or Dawkins or whoever, but they may if they choose. It is also acceptable to disagree with them. Giving a ted talk does not make one a priest.



Again, not high priests. But whatever you need to characterise them as to support your flimsy argument.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe there is 100% no intelligent design. It means that you currently don't see the evidence for it and don't require it to make sense of the universe. We can explain the universe pretty well without god. Postulating such a being makes things so much more complicated and resolves nothing. The question of first causes still exist, but at least you don't have to go searching for answers when you can just say god did it.

And you seem to have a lack of understanding about how to weigh evidence (we've been through this before, but now you're getting it wrong in a new way). It's not on the atheists to "prove" a negative. As alluded to earlier, supposing a god creator makes things a lot more complicated and messy and this heavy burden is on the religious to prove. Where is your evidence for this? You can't point to order. That would fly if you were a caveman, but not in modern day when we have natural explanations for such things.



Shout out to authoritarians! Earn 10 Ray Peat points. This is a non-answer so I'll ignore it.



So I'm trapped because my underlying mental meanings and feelings are off and I'm further deluded because that somehow equally matches my erroneous perception? Do you realise how silly that sentence is? And I guess you're somehow aligned on the right track?

By your definition here,atheism is a "belief" in a lack of "evidence" ,therefore there are rules to your church of atheism and that is,"only believe evidence as defined by scientists", with quantum physics in mind and human perceptions this makes atheism a religion.
Essentially it's a system of symbols for human meanings as is atheism.

Many religions don't believe in definition of a god,they believe in practice,eastern Christianity believe in the incomprehensibility of a god,Buddhism and Sufi's all believe God can't be defined,some Jewish religions are about best practice rather than a definable God.Hindus also.
They also don't believe in God as a "being" as in man like ,your using linguist tricks.
Overall a creative force is emanating ,forms,the semantics are irrelevant,call it the atheist force if you want ,what's happening is right in front of you,you claim you we need evidence for this,what happens is happening without science fully comprehending it.
I made no claim of a "being"called God and by this you imply I imply human like in the clouds,this is your atheist meanings projecting outward.

"Instead of searching for answers and saying God did it ",this is essentially what you are claiming with atheism expect you are using science instead of God,the evidence you mention is collected articfacts from reductionists methodology that no way explains the whole/God or the parts for that matter,call it what you want ,science and evidence is your God delusion. The religions I mention above explain reality just as well as your "evidence" because reality is evident for them.

Another lame strawman while trying to sound intellectual while hiding behind terms like "experts" "evidence" ,now it's about how to weigh evidence,basically if their is "evidence "to support your bias it's weighted perfectly.
My comments about meanings and perceptions to you and your response claiming it's silly sums up the very point I made to you.

 

[Drareg]

Atheism does not claim that god does not exist. It claims that there is not enough evidence to believe in the existence of god. It's not surprising that as societies learn more about the universe, belief in god goes down. And it's not surprising the better equipped people are for evaluating what constitutes evidence, the less they believe in god (i.e. scientists believe much less in god than the general population)

Let's hear the full explanation of existence. Maybe you know some important pieces of evidence that I'm not aware of. To be sure though, the onus is on the believers to prove god's existence and not the other way around.

Your science is set up to define reality/God,the semantics of the word God is relevant here,science is using a different term,they call it reality.
The onus isn't just on the believers,it's also on science as its they who want to lead society before a religion does,the scienctists claims to lead much better than a religions,delve into this topic and we get example like the "scientific atheist nazis" and many more examples where the scientists are just as psychotic as the worst of religion.

 

[jaa]

By your definition here,atheism is a "belief" in a lack of "evidence" ,therefore there are rules to your church of atheism and that is,"only believe evidence as defined by scientists", with quantum physics in mind and human perceptions this makes atheism a religion.

lol this is such utter nonsense. You can literally say any x is a y by using wordplay like this. I hope for your sake you don't think you're being clever and instead think I'm dumb enough to fall for this. No religion is religion! No belief is belief! When words encompass everything they mean nothing. And you can literally say anything and have it be true when your parameters are unconstrained. I'm not going to waste time reading the rest of your post.

 

[FredSonoma]

As far as I can tell, the real problem is Benzos. The most evil and creepily selfish behavior I've ever seen in my life was from people on them.

Edit: And the Benzo stare... the creepiest thing in the world. Will calmly talk to you and stare straight through you without moving their eyes at all.

 

[Constatine]

lol this is such utter nonsense. You can literally say any x is a y by using wordplay like this. I hope for your sake you don't think you're being clever and instead think I'm dumb enough to fall for this. No religion is religion! No belief is belief! When words encompass everything they mean nothing. And you can literally say anything and have it be true when your parameters are unconstrained. I'm not going to waste time reading the rest of your post.

I think modern day atheism is a religion only because they refuse to call themselves agnostics. It is my experience that many atheists who treat atheism as a religion (there are of course those who do not) often fall into the trap of rationalism (or rather how Ray Peat defines rationalism). A good way for a rationalist to free his mind from such bindings is to practice critically thinking without language or image.

 

[jaa]

I think modern day atheism is a religion only because they refuse to call themselves agnostics. It is my experience that many atheists who treat atheism as a religion (there are of course those who do not) often fall into the trap of rationalism (or rather how Ray Peat defines rationalism). A good way for a rationalist to free his mind from such bindings is to practice critically thinking without language or image.

I don't understand the first sentence. Please explain it.

Atheism is simply a lack of believing in the existence of god based on existing evidence. That is something the theists don't possess. Atheists also don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster cliche either. Believing things for no good reason is the domain of theists. Agnostics simply take the less confrontational position of "I don't know mannnn". I think this position is both meaningless (no human mind can know anything for 0% or 100% certainty) and annoying (often professed with an air of wisdom). I do not know that the moons core is not made of cheese. Hell, I don't know that the whole damn thing isn't. Even if I was able to visit it, I could never know for certain (though I could increase my certainty). But even without visiting the moon, I am not agnostic about whether or not it is made of cheese, just like I'm not agnostic about everything in life. Of course, I could take the position that I am agnostic about everything, but then that term becomes meaningless, so why even have it? When we talk belief, we end up talking about reasons and evidence. Or rationality. Why do you believe what you believe. It is human to believe in god and want to live after death, but it's also human to daydream about other unlikely, but highly beneficial events. That's not evidence of it existing. If people want to believe in religion for whatever reason, that's fine. Just don't pretend that the evidence is on your side.

 

[DaveFoster]

People who take Zoloft (sertraline) or Paxil (paroxetine) often report excessive sedation and consume more coffee. Lumping these drugs all into one category does not do justice to the topic. An atypical like Remeron (mirtazapine), and a tricyclic like Elavil (amitriptyline) both have SSRI actions, but in general they tend to lower serotonin. Prozac (fluoxetine) significantly increases allopregnenolone, so we need to address the mechanism of learned helplessness in this case.

On a side note, mirtazapine increases performance in the forced swim test, and caffeine + mirtazapine increases it even further, so obviously the net benefit (psychologically speaking) is a greater resistance to stress. This is neither to say that mirtazapine is a safe drug, nor that it should never be taken, but things need to be taken in context.

 

[Constatine]

I don't understand the first sentence. Please explain it.

Atheism is simply a lack of believing in the existence of god based on existing evidence. That is something the theists don't possess. Atheists also don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster cliche either. Believing things for no good reason is the domain of theists. Agnostics simply take the less confrontational position of "I don't know mannnn". I think this position is both meaningless (no human mind can know anything for 0% or 100% certainty) and annoying (often professed with an air of wisdom). I do not know that the moons core is not made of cheese. Hell, I don't know that the whole damn thing isn't. Even if I was able to visit it, I could never know for certain (though I could increase my certainty). But even without visiting the moon, I am not agnostic about whether or not it is made of cheese, just like I'm not agnostic about everything in life. Of course, I could take the position that I am agnostic about everything, but then that term becomes meaningless, so why even have it? When we talk belief, we end up talking about reasons and evidence. Or rationality. Why do you believe what you believe. It is human to believe in god and want to live after death, but it's also human to daydream about other unlikely, but highly beneficial events. That's not evidence of it existing. If people want to believe in religion for whatever reason, that's fine. Just don't pretend that the evidence is on your side.

Yes that is what atheism should be. There are many atheists (I cannot say how many as this is anecdotal) that take such a strong position that they become very similar to a religion. If one is seeking truth he/she should have an open mind at all times. The definition of rationalism I am using is different than that you are using. I should have explained myself better, I am using the definition of rationalism taken from here: Can art instruct science? William Blake as biological visionary.

 

[jaa]

Yes that is what atheism should be. There are many atheists (I cannot say how many as this is anecdotal) that take such a strong position that they become very similar to a religion. If one is seeking truth he/she should have an open mind at all times. The definition of rationalism I am using is different than that you are using. I should have explained myself better, I am using the definition of rationalism taken from here: Can art instruct science? William Blake as biological visionary.

Yeah atheism and agnosticism are used somewhat nebulously today. And some atheists strongly identify with the ideology of atheism. I think people should be careful about equating things just because in some instances they share similar qualities. Atheism can be an ideology like theism is. This doesn't mean atheism is a religion. It's like saying I walk around like a duck, therefore I am a duck.

That's a definition of rationalism I wasn't familiar with. When I use it I mean something like using evidence to come to reasonable conclusions.

 

[Catcream]

SSRI's are lethal because initially a little hope is given to some when allopregnenolone increases,this is the initial hook.[/QUOTE]

This is quite an interesting article regarding 'the hook'.
All the Rage

They relieve anxiety and/or depression in lots of people, and sometimes that justifies the side effects. Do you really not believe that?

You're joking , right ?

 

[Constatine]

Yeah atheism and agnosticism are used somewhat nebulously today. And some atheists strongly identify with the ideology of atheism. I think people should be careful about equating things just because in some instances they share similar qualities. Atheism can be an ideology like theism is. This doesn't mean atheism is a religion. It's like saying I walk around like a duck, therefore I am a duck.

That's a definition of rationalism I wasn't familiar with. When I use it I mean something like using evidence to come to reasonable conclusions.

Its a problem that is so widespread in the world now. Words that can easily classify one into a very specific category where much can be assumed about them. Such titles can even change the opinion of the individual who has it because he/she thinks they identify with this bigger idea.

 

[Constatine]

As far as I can tell, the real problem is Benzos. The most evil and creepily selfish behavior I've ever seen in my life was from people on them.

Edit: And the Benzo stare... the creepiest thing in the world. Will calmly talk to you and stare straight through you without moving their eyes at all.

Benzos can cause some strange and as you said creepy effects but I don't know if they are bad for you in the same way SSRI's are.

 

[Mjhl85]

The Atheism Pill

Ridiculous correlation.

 

[member 2106]

SSRI's are lethal because initially a little hope is given to some when allopregnenolone increases,this is the initial hook.

This is quite an interesting article regarding 'the hook'.
All the Rage



You're joking , right ?

No, I'm not joking, and if you're not able to concede the point that SSRIs sometimes help people, then you must be very blinkered. I'm at least prepared to admit that they can, in some circumstances, be very problematic and even dangerous, and that there's a carelessness in the way they're prescribed that gives me pause.

I didn't have much time to read the article, but it appears to be about a woman with bad PMS who sometimes is relieved of her symptoms by SSRIs...