The psychological differences between males and females is not that significant for most except at the extremes.

Most differences noted through numerous studies are based on the mean average. Plucking any random person from the planet and having them take a personal test (based on traits) would not really help you determine their sex.

If however we were to take large cross sections of any given society and averaged out the responses given for males and females, and then tried to figure out which group was male and which female, it would revel a marked difference (the bigger the sample).

From individual to individual there is next to no discernible difference, although there may be some telltale signs due to cultural attitudes or phase of life (I can imagine parenthood and relationship status could reveal something?).

Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. — Gnomon

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. It is more or less the case of asking someone to show evidence of ‘a round sound washing a cup of yellow yesterday weekend’. Evidence of any kind can only be presented when what is being asked of is clear.

Given that the concept of ‘deity’ commonly thrown around is at best extremely nebulous or, at worst, completely nonsensical, how can anyone provide something called ‘evidence’ for such a highly ambiguous or half-hearted fogy concept?

Point being, talking about something literally ‘outside’ of space and time is to talk about something outside of human experience. Which means it is literally nothing to us because we cannot know what we cannot know.

I hope we can agree that what we cannot know is not even a ‘what’. That we can merely pose a question about some vague idea does not make it anything other than an expression of humans doing human things.

The modern concept of a ‘family unit’ is a little stagnant due to tradition.

In reality - there are many examples - a ‘healthy family’ requires children to have strong roel models. Both men and women have different things to offer and from person to person there are obviously differences too.

I think, in general, that a good social environment is needed. A balance of different ages, sexes and attitudes reflective of the society lived in is also a damn good idea.

‘Free love’ (assuming you mean people sleeping around without any problems) has next to nothing to do with how children are raised. If there is one women and two men or two women and one man, no matter. As long as there are examples of loving relationships reflective of the society on ready display to the child everything will be as fine as it could be.

Could you make your point/question a little clearer please?

Perhaps people haven't really worked out what it is they are trying to say. — Tom Storm

If they had there would be no point in saying anything.

@Banno One thing in particular that is present in all ‘religions’ is a tradition of ritual that is known to induce altered states of consciousness:
- Trance Dance
- Prayer
- Meditation
- Fasting
- Sleep Deprivation
- Intense Focus
- Sensory Deprivation
- Mnemonics

All of the above are present in religious practices, but some are more subtle than others. Theatre and ceremony are also pretty much the same thing it is just that in the modern era we have become more and more detached from ‘theatre’. Meaning, in the past we were active participants far more often. Today the ‘theatre’ personal experiences of ‘theatrics’ far more distanced and passive.

In comparison to patriotism we see this is more mild forms with national anthems and memorable symbols infused with emotion.

I’ve always been fond of this one:

Clifford Geertz: “A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”.

It basically describes what it is to be human really. You can literally replace the term ‘religion’ with a number of things and still find that it makes sense.

Note: As you may know the in depth explanation of this is several pages long. I did find Geertz’s over all attitude to the concept of ‘religion’ a little off in places though. The book this is taken from shows his lack of scholarship in that he often veers into opinion rather than giving an objective account.

Here is an example (not picking on this person, it is just a random example):

“Perhaps with the logical anticipation, or hope even, that his conventional foe will physically respond in kind by swinging at or hitting him, the unprovoked initiator/aggressor will feel confident and angered enough to willfully physically continue, finishing what he had essentially inexcusably started.”

I think we can all agree that this sentence doesn’t need to be anywhere near this long. Furthermore, the actual meaning is more easily lost and a second reading may be needed to get at the meaning.

Such writing wastes the time of the reader/writer when it comes to having a fruitful discussion.

And just to make clear I am not picking on anyone here in particular here is a snippet from one of my unedited pieces:

“Competition and cooperation across and between variegated strata, and the relative efficiencies of populations of said competition and cooperative manifolds.”

I have no idea what is in that episode. If you watch them all you’ll get a clearer picture.

I was not suggesting trauma doesn’t factor in. My point was that there are cases where no trauma does not mean no depression, schizophrenia nor bipolar. It is not simply about being beaten or abused.

As for psychopathy having certain genes does make the chances of developing psychopathy more likely. Like you point out, there is not exactly a clear line drawn between genetic predisposition and external factors.

A great many cases where people ask ‘Why are you depressed?’ cannot be answered. It might be more helpful for people to attach a reason for what is happening in their brain, but it can quite simply be your brain and is, I imagine, far more likely to be due to dietary issues than some childhood trauma.

It just feels like exceptions are being given the basis for laying down a general rule. I have had depression and later realised it was brought on by psychosis that I simply blocked out. The issue was my brain chemistry not childhood trauma. The ‘reason’ for my depression was baffling because I had no good reason to be depressed at all. A later in life instance of accidental, self-induced psychosis due to lack of sleep, intense concentration and fasting, effectively awakened my past memories of psychosis (hearing voices in these cases).

At worse I have mild bipolar … but to be honest I think it was something else as it appears the experiences I had were more conducive to other brain disorders. I personally believe it is a lack of trauma that is more damaging to the psyche than individual instances in childhood amounting to little more than ‘growing up’ in a world that is not exactly safe.

We’re like two peas in a pod, you and I :)

‘Communication’ meaning what exactly?

I do assume they are anymore than a future civilisation would view assume a Barbie Doll is the representation of some goddess.

Real anthropologists and archaeologists are VERY careful about applying opinions and personal views to ancient artefacts of which they have little to no information about.

There is nothing wrong with conjecture as long as it is understood as conjecture. Cognitive Archaeology can help a little in this area too.

If you read Orwell’s essay he was not against metaphors at all.

http://www.public-library.uk/ebooks/72/30.pdf

That is dubious evidence at best. I’m well aware of Stone Age figurines … that should not be assumed to be anything to do with religious worship though.

also the understanding of the goddess, which preceded the idea of the gods — Jack Cummins

Where do you get that from?

Here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtImgnj5DN0

It is common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was.

Stephen Fry did a rather informative documentary on bipolar/depression. You can find it on youtube I think? It’s called The Secret Life of Depression or something like that.

Ask god maybe? It’s clear you cannot read or simply don’t understand what you’re reading (which amount the same thing). I won’t be responding any more to anything you say - other than by reporting it to mods.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when the same person calls science ‘dogmatic’.

Nonsense. There are genes related to psychopathy. This is a fact not a fiction.

You can do the research or keep spouting crap that will likely get you removed from this forum. Your choice.

Try reading the entire thing rather going for the ignorant knee jerk reaction. The fact that there are genes that correspond to psychopathic behaviour is OLD news. Very old news.

In conclusion, expression of ZNF132 in neurons and RPL10P9 in both neurons and astrocytes is markedly abnormal among habitually violent offenders and these findings are strongly associated with the degree of psychopathic symptoms. The changes in protein levels observed here point to alteration in insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, and previous literature has shown that abnormal glucose metabolism is the only predictor for violent crimes which can surpass the accuracy of PCL-R [35]. We also observed changes in the opioid system, which has been shown to support prosocial functions, such as empathy, among humans and nonhuman primates [12, 13, 37, 38].

Anything else moron? Care to call me a lunatic again?

Shut up

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0488-z

@Philosophim I was referring to a state I have personally experienced although I may have said it on another thread?

Calling people ‘crazy’ or a ‘lunatic’ simply because they have experienced psychosis is rather insulting. My point was that I understand perfectly well how what I experienced would’ve been seen in a different manner had I not had a particularly secular upbringing.

We map experiences onto stories/ideas/perspectives that make ready sense to us. The Jungian Axis Mundi.

My point was that people can suddenly be depression even though their life has been perfectly fine (including childhood).

Some people can be psychopaths due to a gene. But not all people who possess the gene become psychopaths. Some people’s neurochemistry simply changes to a certain degree in later life that can cause quite severe depression (irrespective of outside influences).

Of course there are some from column A and some from column B, but it is (as has been suggested by some one) plain wrong to state that it is all about life experiences.

Its incredibly important that we don't look down on or consider religious people "stupid" — Philosophim

Agree 100%. But some people are just plain stupid too. Some are religious and some are not. (See above)

Go play with someone else on your low level moron. Bye

Things are not BS just because you say so. Sorry.

Being upset and saddened due to the death of all your family and friends is not exactly the same as having a happy family life, a successful career following the path of your childhood dream, lots of friends, good health (eating, sleeping and exercise), yet you feel like you should be dead or die due to misery.

There is a significant difference.

They offer nothing. I did look.

You really don’t understand what I’m talking about nor seem to understand anything about how the brain functions. Calling them ‘lunatics’ (or insinuating I’m saying that) tells me all I need to know about your ignorance.

This is the crux of it for me. Think of it like trying to explain yellow to someone who is blind. You can kind of attempt do it, by way of references to other senses.

I think it is quite reasonable to understand that people have different experiences and, furthermore, that some people have had some quite powerful experiences that many others have not. These more unique experiences are ‘feel more real than real,’ even though that turn if phrase sounds strange in and of itself. I cannot explain what it is other than to refer to it as a vivid sensation that feels like a transition from a 2D cinematic experience to a fully fleshed out 3D theatre experience. One is far more ‘present’ than the other, more ‘connected’.

If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. When, for instance, people talk about ‘hearing voices’ but the ‘sane’ person would say ‘of course I would understand it was in my head’ but you likely wouldn’t as the voice you hear sounds like it is ‘outside’ and acts as if completely independent from your own conscious thoughts.

This is why I generally think of the whole god/religion concept as something entangled within the human psyche. The ‘space’ between unconscious processes and conscious thought. The interesting thing is there is a common pattern to how such things present themselves as ‘independent beings’. Studies with DMT have shown some fairly strong reported instances from both religiously inclined and non-religiously inclined people. For myself personally I believe what happens is the human brain can naturally produce DMT and the effect of this on conscious is the reason ‘religious experiences’ exist.

If the above is correct then a further problem is understanding what kind of stress the human body has to go through to natural produce enough DMT to induce such profound experiences. DMT has been found in a rats brain, but last I looked there was still no direct evidence that DMT is naturally produced in the human brain let alone in large enough quantities to be of significance.

There was a woman who had a stroke (forgot her name). She was also a cognitive neuroscientist. She describes a ‘connectedness’ and sense of bliss I can relate to. The potential for such experiences is both scary and inspiring in terms of human development. If myself, or the woman here, had been brought up in a religious manner then I can completely understand having a solid and unshakable ‘belief’ in god there after. My upbringing was about as secular as can be so I didn’t end up preaching on the streets. There is little doubt in my mind though that many religious figures experienced something akin to what we both did and tried damn hard to square it and express because they fully understand how powerful the experience was and potential of humanity.

In teh same respect Husserl often liked to look at the ‘obvious’.

It does take a certain perspective to see the mundane as phenomenal (in both senses of the word!). I have been in tears at the sheer beauty of a cracked pavement. That level is not too common, but it is everywhere potentially. The awe and wonder in the experiences of life are right under out noses.

I think a key point is to recognise an object as an arbitrary delineation, and the term ‘object’ as such an object too. Heidegger was mostly concerned with the worded concepts than the sensory explication, likely because when we talk of sensation/perception we do so through these here worded terms.

The true phenomenological path is freewheeling subjectivity. The scramble to communicate these ideas to others will always fall short - but that is okay.

What evidence? Severe clinical depression simply happens. Someone can be living a very happy and productive life then suddenly, for no psychological reason, they become depressed.

From the last I read on this subject it is something that often worsens with age. I cannot remember when this usually happens, but if I recall well enough I believe most cases of this happen from mid 20’s to mid 30’s? It’s been a long while since I last looked at this though.

By far and away the most prominent cause/trigger of items like psychosis and schizophrenia is irregular sleeping patterns. Given that our understanding of sleep and dreaming is fairly limited the reasons likely lie within this area.

They experienced something. That can be investigated. Why they called what they experienced ‘god’ is something we can also ask them about.

It seems that these experiences are just neurological matters. Or rather, we have no other objective way of viewing them so why bother?

If we cannot agree on what we are talking about then all questions regarding it are pointless.

God hasn't made Itself readily apparent, so why would you think evidence comes to those who do not seek? Yet sometimes it does, through psychedelics or NDE's for instance — theRiddler

You think those brain states are ‘god’? Why?

Again, same issue as elsewhere.

What is meant by ‘god’?

If ‘metaphysical’/‘supernatural’ science doesn’t have any input.

If psychological, there is a lot to say about about what human’s mean by the term ‘god’ and why this term exists.

In the later case both the sciences are arts have something to offer. In the former case there is nothing to say on the subject because such is nothing to us because we cannot talk about what we cannot form a concept for.

Not unless there is a VERY clear and VERY detailed definition of what is meant when someone says ‘god’.

Claims of some supreme being existing can only only be verified if said being is understood to a reasonable degree. Given that a ‘god’ is usually outlined as something mostly outside our natural understanding and experience of the world it is often a dead end.

If we’re just talking about a superior race of beings, more or less living as we do, then that seems viable. The question would then be about where they are, why they are hiding from us and why we should care about them (other than as a potential threat to our existence given the assumption their technological capabilities far out stretch our own).

You are not worthy of my time then. Bye

People think they want ‘happiness’ but really they mean that they want to do something ‘meaningful’. The sense of satisfaction gained from struggling, failing and overcoming (even for months/years) is far better than a dull slovenly ‘happiness’.

The journey and all that. Common phrase likely because it is true that we enjoy the act of doing something more than the actual achievement.

You are starting to sound ridiculous. How can you say it is chimera with the technological advances we have today gained by way of scientific investigation through experimentation? Medicine and communications are kind of a large reason why we are talking - I would be dead without the medical attention I’ve received and I certainly wouldn’t be able to communication with you from the other side of the planet either.

Is that a ‘fairy tale’?