The case for Axl Rose being bipolar

[sailaway]

but even research isn't infallible.

I don't think anyone here would make that claim, either.

The scientific method is the best method we have to figure out how the world works. It is far from perfect, but better than any other we have ever come up with and tinkered with. The best part of the scientific method is of course that it only present working models for how things are. And these models are continuously improved as new scientific evidence comes in, making these models more and more perfect at describing real world phenomena. Hence, science never claims to present "universal truths", only models with varying degrees of confidences. Some of these models are the heliocentric theory (Earth revolves around the Sun), the atomic theory (structure of atoms) and theory of evolution (how life on Earth evolves). All of these have such a high confidence that they are in practical terms proven, although they also all contains elements that are still not fully understood.

I will most definately agree with the valid points you have made,As more information is revealed the further the scientific community can expound on it.

However,I do believe in Spirituality,not organized religion and the tactics they employ.

They constantly refer to the Bible which is inaccurate ie: Adam and Eve were not the first people,the Israelites did not cross the red sea,it was the Reed sea,common temporary occurance for that area.

Also Christmas,nowhere does it say when Jesus was born or to celebrate it.

Easter was originally Oestara a pagan fertility festival,case in point,the bunnies and the eggs.

Organized religion refuses to listen to fact,and is flawed irreparably.

But,I believe in a supreme being,a creator,I'm not buying the story of divine conception,but I believe there is real evil in this life,and evil people just as there is real good.Yin and Yang.

As far as Bipolar disorder goes:

http://nikki-wild.suite101.com/bipolar-brains-more-intelligent-than-most-a293836

Edited May 1, 2012 by sailaway

[FuddMckagan]

^^Jesus was born in Summer, probably May or June.

[sailaway]

^^Jesus was born in Summer, probably May or June.

Yes,my point that nowhere in the bible does it give a certain date,and says nothing about celebrating it.

[Flayer]

A religion vs. science debate on a GNR forum. Wow.

Spirituality and science both have their place. To try to explain the physical world with spirituality is like trying to play Monopoly on a chessboard, likewise trying to explain spiritual beliefs and values with science is like trying to play chess on a Monopoly board. Neither makes sense.

[SoulMonster]

However,I do believe in Spirituality,not organized religion and the tactics they employ.

I have nothing against "spirituality" as long as it doesn't deceive people into believing in things for which no evidence exist.

But,I believe in a supreme being,a creator,I'm not buying the story of divine conception,but I believe there is real evil in this life,and evil people just as there is real good.Yin and Yang.

Compliments to you for acknowledging that you only believe it. I will add to that by saying there is actually no evidence for a supreme creator, and hence that your belief is irrational.

[Flayer]

your belief is irrational.

So what if it is?

[sailaway]

A religion vs. science debate on a GNR forum. Wow.

Spirituality and science both have their place. To try to explain the physical world with spirituality is like trying to play Monopoly on a chessboard, likewise trying to explain spiritual beliefs and values with science is like trying to play chess on a Monopoly board. Neither makes sense.

Right on! This describes the age-old arguement perfectly.

It is Dionysus vs. Apollo again

your belief is irrational.

So what if it is?

One man's elixer is another man's poison. Many things simply cannot be explained by science alone.

[SoulMonster]

your belief is irrational.

So what if it is?

Then it must step aside for any rational evidence that contradicts with it. Basically, irrational beliefs, arguments, statements and thoughts, are baseless and thus pretty valueless when it comes to understanding how things really are. I don't mind people having irrational beliefs, like believing there's a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri full of beautiful centaurs, as long as they realize this is irrational and are prepared to let go of this belief when they are faced with contradicting evidence.

A religion vs. science debate on a GNR forum. Wow.

Spirituality and science both have their place. To try to explain the physical world with spirituality is like trying to play Monopoly on a chessboard, likewise trying to explain spiritual beliefs and values with science is like trying to play chess on a Monopoly board. Neither makes sense.

Right on! This describes the age-old arguement perfectly.

It is Dionysus vs. Apollo again

The idea that science and religion occupies non-overlapping spheres is a myth. As long as people disagree with scientific evidence because they prefer the dogmas created by bronze age nomadic tribes, then there is an overlap and we have a problem.

Many things simply cannot be explained by science alone.

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

[Flayer]

Many things simply cannot be explained by science alone.

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Existential truth, moral truths. I have no scientific means to prove that my experience of reality is true, although it is sensible to assume it is. Science provides no answer as to whether something is right or wrong. With regards to eugenics, for example, science cannot say whether it would be morally right or wrong to prevent people with certain genetic diseases from breeding; it can only say that it would be advantegous to our species (improving the gene pool by eliminating hereditary diseases) or disadvantegous (reducing our genetic diversity and suffering the side effects of that). History can't be proven via the scientific method as it is non-repeatable, as a matter of fact, the statement "science alone can explain all things" in and of itself cannot be proven by scientific method.

The idea that science and religion occupies non-overlapping spheres is a myth. As long as people disagree with scientific evidence because they prefer the dogmas created by bronze age nomadic tribes, then there is an overlap and we have a problem.

This idea was in fact embodied in my statement. Attempting to use religious ideas against scientific evidence in a field explained by science is misuse of religion. In my own personal line of thought, all religions comprise both a philosophy and a mythology; the mythology is what's largely abused because people believe it is incompatible with a scientific explanation of the universe and will in many cases contradict it. Even if the mythology of a religion were to be demonstrably proven false, however, the philosophy could still be of value to a rational person seeing as science cannot explain philosophical concepts.

However, many religious people prefer to focus on the mythology rather than the philosophy of their religion, seeing as it is simpler to learn a set of stories than to understand the deeper values embodied within those beliefs, and this is why they get hung up on stupid debates against science, because they are more interested in upholding the mythology of their faith, which by its nature cannot stand on scientific evidence, rather than its philosophy, which has no need to contradict science.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Flayer

[sailaway]

However,I do believe in Spirituality,not organized religion and the tactics they employ.

I have nothing against "spirituality" as long as it doesn't deceive people into believing in things for which no evidence exist.

But,I believe in a supreme being,a creator,I'm not buying the story of divine conception,but I believe there is real evil in this life,and evil people just as there is real good.Yin and Yang.

Compliments to you for acknowledging that you only believe it. I will add to that by saying there is actually no evidence for a supreme creator, and hence that your belief is irrational.

Science vs Spirituality:

In the minds of many people spirituality is seen as unscientific, and thus as a load of babble that does not actually mean anything. After all, it cannot be proven scientifically speaking, and thus can only be wrong. No amount of math, or physics for that matter, can show the concepts proclaimed by spiritual people, so why even bother?

I would not say that I am a highly spiritual person, neither particularly religious (organised religion as such is a horrible concept). However, I do believe in certain aspects of spiritual teachings, and at the same time, call myself a man of science. How can that be?

After studying several different scientific methods, as well as several spiritually inclined methods, for change and exploring the power of the mind, I have come to realize that both, spirituality and science, are metaphors.

A metaphor is defined as “an indirect comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects. So science is our metaphor for what we think is really happening, when in actual fact of the matter, we are only interpreting results and speculating anyway.

Edited May 1, 2012 by sailaway

[SoulMonster]

Many things simply cannot be explained by science alone.

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Existential truth

What is existential truth and how do you know it exists?

moral truths.

How do you know moral truths exist? Of course scientific methods can be used to study what people people think is morally right or wrong; you seem to believe there is something called moral truth that exists outside of the human consciousness but I have seen no evidence of that. And why humans have morals is easily explained by science.

Science provides no answer as to whether something is right or wrong.

Morally right or wrong, right? Of course scientific methods can be used to study what people people think is morally right or wrong.

With regards to eugenics, for example, science cannot say whether it would be morally right or wrong

What is morally right or wrong is what people think is right or wrong. This can easily be explored using scientific methods (or rather, simple surveys and statistics). Again, you seem to believe there is something called universal moral existing beyond the human mind.

however, the philosophy could still be of value to a rational person seeing as science cannot explain philosophical concepts.

Can't science explain philosophical concepts? Name one...

[Flayer]

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Existential truth

What is existential truth and how do you know it exists?

moral truths.

How do you know moral truths exist? Of course scientific methods can be used to study what people people think is morally right or wrong; you seem to believe there is something called moral truth that exists outside of the human consciousness but I have seen no evidence of that. And why humans have morals is easily explained by science.

Science provides no answer as to whether something is right or wrong.

Morally right or wrong, right? Of course scientific methods can be used to study what people people think is morally right or wrong.

With regards to eugenics, for example, science cannot say whether it would be morally right or wrong

What is morally right or wrong is what people think is right or wrong. This can easily be explored using scientific methods (or rather, simple surveys and statistics). Again, you seem to believe there is something called universal moral existing beyond the human mind.

however, the philosophy could still be of value to a rational person seeing as science cannot explain philosophical concepts.

Can't science explain philosophical concepts? Name one...

Your own answer just demonstrated that science does not explain any of these philosophical concepts - it can account for the fact that these concepts exist and examine the what and the how of the ways people approach them, but it is not a vehicle to actually reaching conclusions about them. A purely scientific point of view can only conclude that there is no definitive morality, that it's just a subjective human invention.

However, morality is a useful subjective human invention, one that most people generally want to have, and a religious/spiritual/philosophical approach is more useful in reaching that than a scientific one.

[sailaway]

your belief is irrational.

So what if it is?

Then it must step aside for any rational evidence that contradicts with it. Basically, irrational beliefs, arguments, statements and thoughts, are baseless and thus pretty valueless when it comes to understanding how things really are. I don't mind people having irrational beliefs, like believing there's a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri full of beautiful centaurs, as long as they realize this is irrational and are prepared to let go of this belief when they are faced with contradicting evidence.

A religion vs. science debate on a GNR forum. Wow.

Spirituality and sciencie both have their place. To try to explain the physical world with spirituality is like trying to play Monopoly on a chessboard, likewise trying to explain spiritual beliefs and values with science is like trying to play chess on a Monopoly board. Neither makes sense.

Right on! This describes the age-old arguement perfectly.

It is Dionysus vs. Apollo again

The idea that science and religion occupies non-overlapping spheres is a myth. As long as people disagree with scientific evidence because they prefer the dogmas created by bronze age nomadic tribes, then there is an overlap and we have a problem.

Many things simply cannot be explained by science alone.

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Uhm, Creativity for one,and charisma.

Spirituality got raped and converted into dogma by the pope who did not allow some of the books to be canonized,notably The book of Enoch,and The Book of Thomas.

[SoulMonster]

Your own answer just demonstrated that science does not explain any of these philosophical concepts

Again, science can only be used to examine those things that truly exist. Human morality is one of them, and the science of morality is interesting.

- it can account for the fact that these concepts exist and examine the what and the how of the ways people approach them, but it is not a vehicle to actually reaching conclusions about them.

On the contrary, science can tell us a lot about how humans think and why we have morals.

A purely scientific point of view can only conclude that there is no definitive morality, that it's just a subjective human invention.

Exactly. And if there is no definite morality, then it is not something for science to explain (remember that I said science could only help to explain things that truly exist). Human morality can easily be explained by science.

However, morality is a useful subjective human invention, one that most people generally want to have, and a religious/spiritual/philosophical approach is more useful in reaching that than a scientific one.

I have never claimed science can be used as a moral compass .

[SoulMonster]

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Uhm, Creativity for one,and charisma.

Why don't you think creativity and charisma can be explained by science? It is quite obvious to me that creativity and charisma, the ability to create something new and valuable and the ability to appear interesting to other individuals, respectively, are traits which would be selected for in evolution. There nothing magical or supernatural about these things. Even other species display these traits at varying degrees.

[sailaway]

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Uhm, Creativity for one,and charisma.

Why don't you think creativity and charisma can be explained by science? It is quite obvious to me that creativity and charisma, the ability to create something new and valuable and the ability to appear interesting to other individuals, respectively, are traits which would be selected for in evolution. There nothing magical or supernatural about these things. Even other species display these traits at varying degrees.

Don't know exactly what your version of Charisma is,but it's far from something new and/or valuable. You either possess it or you don't pretty simple concept.

Some people are born with a creative drive, that can't be denied or effectively explained away by science.

[SoulMonster]

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Uhm, Creativity for one,and charisma.

Why don't you think creativity and charisma can be explained by science? It is quite obvious to me that creativity and charisma, the ability to create something new and valuable and the ability to appear interesting to other individuals, respectively, are traits which would be selected for in evolution. There nothing magical or supernatural about these things. Even other species display these traits at varying degrees.

Don't know exactly what your version of Charisma is,but it's far from something new and/or valuable. You either possess it or you don't pretty simple concept.

Some people are born with a creative drive, that can't be denied or effectively explained away by science.

Uhm, I defined creativity as the ability to create something new and valuable, and charisma as the ability to appear interesting/appealing/mesmerizing to other people. And yes, both of these traits are qualities we are born with and can only to a smaller degree be taught (because they are dependent upon certain neurological structures which are laid down early in development). The reasons why humans have these abilities is that they either confer a positive trait to us as a species (creativity, essential for innovation and hence important for species survivability), and in sexual selection (charisma) where people who appear more interesting to other people (through being charismatic) on average tend to be sexual successful than others, and hence has been evolved. The exact biological adaptation that allow creativity and charisma is of course our remarkable brain that allows us to be creative, witty, mysterious, funny, intelligent, etcetera. Again, there is nothing supernatural or magical about creativity and charisma which prevents them from being studied and understood by science. They fall well within the physical, material world

[sailaway]

Uhm, name one thing that exists and in principle can't be explained by science alone.

Uhm, Creativity for one,and charisma.

Why don't you think creativity and charisma can be explained by science? It is quite obvious to me that creativity and charisma, the ability to create something new and valuable and the ability to appear interesting to other individuals, respectively, are traits which would be selected for in evolution. There nothing magical or supernatural about these things. Even other species display these traits at varying degrees.

Don't know exactly what your version of Charisma is,but it's far from something new and/or valuable. You either possess it or you don't pretty simple concept.

Some people are born with a creative drive, that can't be denied or effectively explained away by science.

Uhm, I defined creativity as the ability to create something new and valuable, and charisma as the ability to appear interesting/appealing/mesmerizing to other people. And yes, both of these traits are qualities we are born with and can only to a smaller degree be taught (because they are dependent upon certain neurological structures which are laid down early in development). The reasons why humans have these abilities is that they either confer a positive trait to us as a species (creativity, essential for innovation and hence important for species survivability), and in sexual selection (charisma) where people who appear more interesting to other people (through being charismatic) on average tend to be sexual successful than others, and hence has been evolved. The exact biological adaptation that allow creativity and charisma is of course our remarkable brain that allows us to be creative, witty, mysterious, funny, intelligent, etcetera. Again, there is nothing supernatural or magical about creativity and charisma which prevents them from being studied and understood by science. They fall well within the physical, material world

“Charismatic” comes from the Greek word, kharis, which is usually translated as “grace, favor, or gift.” A charismatic leader has charisma, a set of personal attributes that cause that person to be favored. In popular usage, the charismatic leader graces followers with the favor of his/her presence, who then return the favor in the form of emotionally laden attention. In theology, at least from the seventeenth century,

the term “charismata” has to do with God's granting of grace—or favor—to humans. Another theological nuance treats “charism” as a special spiritual ability, such as healing or working miracles, possessed by specially gifted individuals. All definitions carry the sense of the root word kharis, revolving around favor, grace, and gift, in varying amounts and order of importance.

**Also:

713-348-6327 Rice University More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual

Rice University study: Scientists think spirituality is congruent with scientific discovery, religion is not

More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual, according to new research from Rice University. Though the general public marries spirituality and religion, the study found that spirituality is a separate idea – one that more closely aligns with scientific discovery – for "spiritual atheist" scientists.

The research will be published in the June issue of Sociology of Religion.

Through in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at elite universities, the Rice researchers found that 72 of the scientists said they have a spirituality that is consistent with science, although they are not formally religious.

"Our results show that scientists hold religionand spirituality as being qualitatively different kinds of constructs," said Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology at Rice and lead author of the study. "These spiritual atheist scientists are seeking a core sense of truth through spirituality -- one that is generated by and consistent with the work they do as scientists."

For example, these scientists see both science and spirituality as "meaning-making without faith" and as an individual quest for meaning that can never be final. According to the research, they find spirituality congruent with science and separate from religion, because of that quest; where spirituality is open to a scientific journey, religion requires buying into an absolute "absence of empirical evidence."

"There's spirituality among even the most secular scientists," Ecklund said. "Spirituality pervades both the religious and atheist thought. It's not an either/or. This challenges the idea that scientists, and other groups we typically deem as secular, are devoid of those big 'Why am I here?' questions. They too have these basic human questions and a desire to find meaning."

Ecklund co-authored the study with Elizabeth Long, professor and chair of the Department of Sociology at Rice. In their analysis of the 275 interviews, they discovered that the terms scientists most used to describe religion included "organized, communal, unified and collective." The set of terms used to describe spirituality include "individual, personal and personally constructed." All of the respondents who used collective or individual terms attributed the collective terms to religion and the individual terms to spirituality.

"While the data indicate that spirituality is mainly an individual pursuit for academic scientists, it is not individualistic in the classic sense of making them more focused on themselves," said Ecklund, director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice. "In their sense of things, being spiritual motivates them to provide help for others, and it redirects the ways in which they think about and do their work as scientists."

Edited May 1, 2012 by sailaway

[The_Universal_Sigh]

What the fuck is that block of text supposed to prove Sailaway? I just read Soulmonster's post - which is 100% correct and pretty obvious to anyone even vaguely familiar with evolution and then you post this copy/pasted block about Scientists with a grossly loose definition of "spirituality" attached to it.... How does that counter that charisma and creativity are not evolutionary traits? I don't know why I'm getting involved in this but I guess it's just my disdain for ignorance.

You have no idea how evolution works if you don't get his explanation for charisma and creativity.

There's no need to get into a debate about if charisma or creativity can be explained by science.

Of course, they can. Everything can.

I'm going to throw out a wide guess and say it's a balance of chemicals in the brain. Some amounts lead people to be docile, uncreative, orderly, while other amounts of this (mystery to me, could very well be completely known) chemical lead people to think outside the box. That, and one's upbringing. Of course the amount of creativity will vary person to person but we can all admit that even the least creative of us are more creative than almost every other animal on Earth so to say "you're either born with it or you're not"... you just don't get evolution.

Whenever in history people say "science can't explain that, you need faith/it's the work of something higher" it ends up getting fully explained by science. It's very well understood that a particular balance of chemicals in the brain cause depression so to think it would jump from that to something "higher" for a different trait like creativity is.... quite a gosh darn leap of faith.

EDIT: There was a point in my life when I thought like Flayer (who's obviously a smart guy) that "spirituality and science are separate, there's no need for either to breach on eachother's 'turf' and people should believe whatever they want". That sounds great, that sounds liberal (which I am) but unfortunately the more science learns.... it starts stepping into "spirituality's" space and imo spirituality is the one that has to adapt, or evolve, to cope with the changes. If your faith says the world is 6000 years old, well, too bad for you. Why? Because you're going to misinform your children with the same shit and that we as a society shouldn't tolerate. Your faith says evolution doesn't happen? Well, too bad, I suggest you don't try and get involved in biology or your head might explode. Your faith says being homosexual is a sin punishable by death? Well, fuck you. Tonnes of species have gay members but only one, due to religion, is homophobic. (what's unnatural now hmm?).

Science and a growing evolving morality go hand in hand and it is why the West is now so much more advanced scientifically and morally better than countries and times dominated by religion. If people's spirituality gets in the way of that.... THEY have to get out of the way and let civilized society progress or move to Afghanistan or something.

Edited May 1, 2012 by The_Universal_Sigh

[Flayer]

Which is why I think it's key for religious people to take a critical look at their faith and seperate the values of it from the history and mythology of it. Christianity, for example, is an ideology which tells you to love your neighbor, to forgive, to not judge other people, and to value love and relationships with other people. A person living by a Christian outlook ought to have no problem with homosexuality. The anti-homosexual stance of the Christian Church is a holdover from the Jewish traditional lifestyle of 2000 years ago on which early Christianity was founded - it's a useless tradition at odds with the general values of the faith, which should not be followed by modern day Christians.

[Nosaj Thing]

I really ask, do we care if Axl is bipolar or not? Who gives a fuck. Goddamn people, stop creating stupid threads for no reason.

[SoulMonster]

Which is why I think it's key for religious people to take a critical look at their faith and seperate the values of it from the history and mythology of it. Christianity, for example, is an ideology which tells you to love your neighbor, to forgive, to not judge other people, and to value love and relationships with other people. A person living by a Christian outlook ought to have no problem with homosexuality. The anti-homosexual stance of the Christian Church is a holdover from the Jewish traditional lifestyle of 2000 years ago on which early Christianity was founded - it's a useless tradition at odds with the general values of the faith, which should not be followed by modern day Christians.

Both the compassionate and human parts of the particular theism called Christianity as well as the homophobic parts, are confirmed and re-established in the New Testament (by Jesus and Paulus primarily) and hence they both date back to the same time (about 2000 years). I find it challenging to discard parts of the religion's ethics while keeping the "good parts", without having to reject the whole notion that the bible itself is a moral code or indeed, any guide at all to modern people living in 2012. Unfortunately, rejecting the bible and/or parts of it, is met with no understanding from the great majority of people believing in the Christian god. So whereas I agree with you that ideally Christian people should reject the inhuman, indecent, gross parts of their scripture and faith, I don't see how that is possible without discarding the bible alltogether, which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be an option .

I am also not certain that you can say that there is anything that could be called the "general values of the faith" when it comes to Christianity . Christianity, like any theism that tries to reconcile an existence in a modern, enlightened age with a scripture that dates back almost 1700 years and more, is a complex mixture of dogmas that are both appalling and appealing to compassionate people. Just look at how the larger Christian sects (Catholicism etcetera) have held women back for the last centuries, how they have discriminated against homosexuals, how they have been parts of instigating wars and torture. I am not saying THIS is Christinianity's true nature, either, and I am not denying all the good stuff Christianity has done, just that with any religion that follows the "wisdom" of bronze age goat herders it is bound to be somewhat at odds with modern thinking.

[Flayer]

Quit trolling with 500 word Ramblings noone reads.

I read it.

This is why short blanket statements like "no spiritual ideas are valid" should be avoided.

But as always, you can blame Axl, or perhaps Sailaway's excessive quoting of him, because that's what led into this.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Flayer

[SoulMonster]

Quit trolling with 500 word Ramblings noone reads.

Should I do like you, and cupcake with...eight words?

In some cases 500 is required and it is therefore unfortunate if your mental capacity is below that number. Eight will just not always do it. But I do thank you for proving that eight words can hold an infinite amount of ignorance.

[Flayer]

Quit trolling with 500 word Ramblings noone reads.

I read it.

This is why short blanket statements like "no spiritual ideas are valid" should be avoided.

But as always, you can blame Axl, or perhaps Sailaway's excessive quoting of him, because that's what led into this.

I never said anything about "spiritual ideas" or whatever. You have the wrong dude.

Wasn't talking to you after "I read it."