All negative emotions spring from a separation from God
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
All negative emotions spring from a separation and lack of God.
I do not agree to defining as negative emotion as one that inherently is one a person seeks to end while feeling it because I even know of people who feel bad when too confident and happy, in fact it is very offensive to confuse the 'laughing' Buddha statue for a real Buddhist monk as they try to avoid getting addicted to happiness (and so to Taoist practioners and others).
Imagine yourself now a really feisty heroine (or even villainess) and a really strong, mighty hero or cunning, wily and streetsmart male villain... They tend to be empowered by embracing the very 'negative' emotions Pro is saying are wanted to be ended. Anger gets them out of bed in the morning, they are prone to feel restless, angry and enjoy their aggressive way of being.
The god/s of this reality, if he/she/it/they exist(s) is/are not concerned with only positive emotions, it is blatant why we were granted negative ones; it is a beautifully tragic and yet empowering part of nature. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that humans have dominated Earth not due to our raw intellect at all but due to the extent of motivation and emotional dissatisfaction we had with just letting things be without inventing and improving them. We are negatively motivated not due to an error in our connection with God and nature but because it is an intricate part of it.
it is a beautifully tragic and yet empowering part of nature. In fact, I'd go as far as to argue that humans have dominated Earth not due to our raw intellect at all but due to the extent of motivation and emotional dissatisfaction we had with just letting things be without inventing and improving them. We are negatively motivated not due to an error in our connection with God and nature but because it is an intricate part of it.
I think Pro has completely misunderstood life and god(s) that may exist to create this debate.
You see, when you get properly in touch with a god that isn't batshit or the fundamentalist psycho sort, you probably realise that all god is is a sociopathic onlooker
Being overly friendly and giggly leads to stagnation and is why a super feminine world would probably have not invented much, they are too busy enjoying what is there and not what could be
I do not even understand how all 'negative' emotions can spring from separation from god when I've met very emotionally healthy and happy people who are agnostic as it gets, atheistic even and met others who are severely emotionally deranged and who live and breathe their connection with the almighty deity they believe is behind/above/within this reality.
One of the most common questions people ask about religious words is whether to capitalize the word “god.” The name or title of any specific deity is capitalized just like any other name, so when “God” is used to refer to “the one God” (in other words, in any monotheistic religion), it is capitalized.For example, you’d capitalize “God” in these sentences:
- Some Christians give thanks to God before every meal.
- Dear God, please let my team win tonight.
When referring to gods in general, though, or when using the word "god" descriptively, keep it lowercase:
- The Romans believed a god named Jupiter ruled the heavens.
- The Greek gods were always causing trouble for humans.
The same rule holds true for Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, and the names of gods in other religions. They’re capitalized.
1God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such asa: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universeThroughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …— Jame Schaefer… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant BansalbChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind2or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powersspecifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of realityGreek gods of love and war3: a person or thing of supreme valuehad photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall4: a powerful rulerHollywood gods that control our movies' fates
a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being
That's not true, though. Anger is a natural emotion that alerts us when something has violated the natural order of how we think things should go. This natural order may be societal; for example, when a shopper has 20 items in a 10-items-or-fewer line, this may make us angry because it's a violation of a clearly defined rule. But it can also show us that things are not happening the way that we as individuals expect them to go.The bodily effects of anger are meant to motivate us to take charge and restore the balance of right and wrong. But for this to occur, you have to get angry for the right reason and express your anger appropriately. As the images on our TV screens and monitors show us, this is a fine line to walk.You can probably think of lots of things that make you angry. A sports referee who doesn't call fouls on the opposing team. A friend who forgot your lunch date. A child's bedroom that is never cleaned. The driver who cut you off this morning. The price of gas. Telemarketers, politicians, cell phones.
The list could go on and on, but what all these things boil down to is two things: violation of expectation and blockage of goals [source: Carpenter]. We expect to be treated fairly and get angry when we're yelled at for no reason. If your goal is to get a refreshing drink but the soda machine is empty, that could cause some anger. If others don't adhere to your social or personal norms, you'll get angry. To take a silly example of this, let's say that you don't think people should wear socks with sandals. When this aberration walks through your door, it violates your expectations of taste.
Anger triggers differ for everyone. They vary by age, gender, even culture. One study evaluated anger in babies of different ethnicities. Chinese babies were generally found to be calm in any position they were placed. In one experiment in which a cloth was briefly pressed against the baby's face, American babies tended to get fussy and push the cloth away, while Chinese babies usually put up with the cloth, not letting it anger them [source: Tavris].
While this study is interesting, it doesn't mean that anger is hardwired into a particular culture. It doesn't even mean that a baby will grow up angry; studies have shown that even a 1-year-old with a penchant for throwing temper tantrums can be a perfectly mild-mannered 5-year-old [source: Tavris]. Each of these babies, though, will learn the triggers that are acceptable for that culture, and the way that the culture deals with them.
Anger in women is more likely triggered by their close relationships; they feel let down by family members and friends, or they feel that these people expect too much of them without anything in return [source: Thomas]. A man is more likely to be angered by strangers, objects that aren't working correctly and larger societal issues that prompt concerns about right and wrong [source: Thomas]. Men's anger is a little more abstract, while women's anger appears to be intermingled with the hurt they feel with those closest to them. Children's anger tends to be about goal blockages and objects; if you've ever seen a child separated from toys, this likely makes sense [source: Carpenter].
But these triggers by themselves aren't enough to get us angry. There's a mental component in which we evaluate whether anger is a justifiable response against this person or object. In a split second, we take in who's to blame, how harmful the trigger is, whether the action was avoidable and whether anger will even be useful in this situation [source: Linden et al.].
We also evaluate the intent of the person behind the trigger, based on the information we have. In rush hour, we may get angry at the driver who cuts us off because it violates the rules of the road. But what if you knew that the driver was trying to make it to the hospital for the birth of his first child? Would your response be different? These are the assessments we're weighing. In less than a second, our brains determine if this trigger justifies our anger.
In their book "Discovering Psychology," authors Don Hockenbury and Sandra E. Hockenbury suggest that an emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three distinct components: a subjective experience, a physiological response, and a behavioral or expressive response.2In addition to trying to define what emotions are, researchers have also tried to identify and classify the different types of emotions. The descriptions and insights have changed over time.
- In 1972, psychologist Paul Ekman suggested that there are six basic emotions that are universal throughout human cultures: fear, disgust, anger, surprise, happiness, and sadness.3
- In the 1980s, Robert Plutchik introduced another emotion classification system known as the "wheel of emotions." This model demonstrated how different emotions can be combined or mixed together, much the way an artist mixes primary colors to create other colors.4
- In 1999, Ekman expanded his list to include a number of other basic emotions, including embarrassment, excitement, contempt, shame, pride, satisfaction, and amusement.3
Plutchik proposed eight primary emotional dimensions: happiness vs. sadness, anger vs. fear, trust vs. disgust, and surprise vs. anticipation. These emotions can then be combined to create others (such as happiness + anticipation = excitement).Key Elements of EmotionsIn order to better understand what emotions are, let's focus on their three key elements, known as the subjective experience, the physiological response, and the behavioral response.Subjective ExperienceWhile experts believe that there are a number of basic universal emotions that are experienced by people all over the world regardless of background or culture, researchers also believe that experiencing emotion can be highly subjective.5 Consider anger, for example. Is all anger the same? Your own experience might range from mild annoyance to blinding rage.While we have broad labels for emotions such as "angry," "sad," or "happy," your own experience of these emotions may be much more multi-dimensional, hence subjective.We also don't always experience pure forms of each emotion. Mixed emotions over different events or situations in our lives are common. When faced with starting a new job, you might feel both excited and nervous. Getting married or having a child might be marked by a wide variety of emotions ranging from joy to anxiety. These emotions might occur simultaneously, or you might feel them one after another.Physiological ResponseIf you've ever felt your stomach lurch from anxiety or your heart palpate with fear, then you realize that emotions also cause strong physiological reactions.Many of the physiological responses you experience during an emotion, such as sweaty palms or a racing heartbeat, are regulated by the sympathetic nervous system, a branch of the autonomic nervous system.The autonomic nervous system controls involuntary body responses, such as blood flow and digestion. The sympathetic nervous system is charged with controlling the body's fight-or-flight reactions. When facing a threat, these responses automatically prepare your body to flee from danger or face the threat head-on.While early studies of the physiology of emotion tended to focus on these autonomic responses, more recent research has targeted the brain's role in emotions. Brain scans have shown that the amygdala, part of the limbic system, plays an important role in emotion and fear in particular.6The amygdala itself is a tiny, almond-shaped structure that has been linked to motivational states such as hunger and thirst as well as memory and emotion. Researchers have used brain imaging to show that when people are shown threatening images, the amygdala becomes activated. Damage to the amygdala has also been shown to impair the fear response.7Behavioral ResponseThe final component is perhaps one that you are most familiar with—the actual expression of emotion. We spend a significant amount of time interpreting the emotional expressions of the people around us. Our ability to accurately understand these expressions is tied to what psychologists call emotional intelligence, and these expressions play a major part in our overall body language.Research suggests that many expressions are universal, such as a smile to indicate happiness or a frown to indicate sadness.Sociocultural norms also play a role in how we express and interpret emotions. In Japan, for example, people tend to mask displays of fear or disgust when an authority figure is present. People in the United States are more likely to express negative emotions both alone and in the presence of others, while people in Japan are more likely to do so while alone.8
again I am not saying a connection to god cannot coincide with a healthy psychological status but it is not a causal agent of all negative emotions.
Last two rounds imply concession
Pro actively dropped out half way through, with statements strongly implying a concession to this precise resolution.
By the topic terms, it is basically clear that if there is proven 1 case of negative emotion unrelated to the separation of God, Con wins. Overall, Con has a stronger argument by proving there to be a lack of connection between negativity and God in any terms, also bringing up that "negative emotions" also indeed do have a purpose that should not be just outright removed. Not only that, Pro appeared to use several points without sufficient backing, including one where he just says that it is his own interpretation, instead of treating all of them like proven facts.
All Pro's R1 and R2 arguments are based on pure rationalization but not critical methods, and this method would be essentially proposing that everything has been caused by a green alien. Don't know why this thing happened? The green little alien did it, don't ask why. That is what Pro's argument sounds like. He has not proven in its core why God exists, and by that, I deem this a non-solid proof.
Instead, Con cited scientific sources on emotions and definitions related to God to show that there is no reason God would be involved, which Pro failed to respond for either of the latter two rounds. Overall, Con wins.
Solid effort, I suggest stipulating the existence of your conception of God for the debate although the issue never came up. The case illustrates a standard of God's from which all negative emotion deviates: a result of deviating faith in the prospect of an immortal soul holds very strong refutation resistance. Pro can argue additionally that human nature entails distance from the divine nature of God based on ontology alone. That God's consciousness observes his creation that is only capable of acting upon moral reasoning, but not moral nature.
Fun debate my beloved.
Keep crying straw boy.
"Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism."
suspension definition: An interruption or temporary cessation
denialism definition: To declare untrue; assert to be false.
To refuse to believe; reject.
yeah, clearly the same.
"do you like chocolate ice cream"
suspension of belief would go: i dont know i havent tried.
denial would go: no i havent even tried i just know i wont like it.
Way to demonstrate the classic strawman fallacy.
There is no God. You cannot prove the unprovable.
Especially when God, the monotheism version, was created out of a perversion of many gods.
The entire concept of religion and deities is man-made. Period.
Religion is the first best example of not only mass hysteria, bit also mass psychosis.
Any fallacious belief in an unknowing so-called God is a farce.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments are replete with one contradiction after another.
You've directly said there is no God, within this comment.
Suspension of disbelief is not different than denialism.
Potentiality does not equal actuality. Neve has. Never will.
No one knew anything about evolution, realistically, until Darwin made that discovery and addressed it.
Unknown knowledge becomes knowable. Which is precisely why much if Bible (written over thousands of years by hundreds upon hundreds of men with a scripted agenda) has been discredited.
Try agian.
there's a difference between refraining belief and saying something isn't true or potentially true. You've previously made the statement God DOESNT exist at all. In the past we also couldn't prove evolution. Does that mean it wasn't true that evolution happened back then? I'll leave you to ponder that one.
"..and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools."
That makes no sense. You do not know me. You have no info to substantiate this tripe.
I am no fool. I never get into any discussion where I cannot bold my own. When people like you reply as you just did, that just demonstrates it is to you who are in over our head.
#DunningKrugerEffect
The fact that you cannot prove the existence of any deity you claim to exist is all the evidence I (we) need.
It is no different than trying to prove ghosts, poltergeists, etc. exist.
You are at a loss. Period. Fact. Period
"no one can prove god exists, therefore no god." is essentially what you're saying.
Just as i may or may not be able to prove Gods existence, you too cannot disprove it. So it strikes me as odd you're just as dogmatic and black and white as the ones you claim to be fools.
Nice #intellectualcoward retort/thinking
Nice black and white thinking.
There is no God. You cannot prove the unprovable.
Especially when God, the monotheism version, was created out of a perversion of many gods.
The entire concept of religion and deities is man-made. Period.
Religion is the first best example of not only mass hysteria, bit also mass psychosis.
Any fallacious belief in an unknowing so-called God is a farce.
The Bible, Old and New Testaments are replete with one contradiction after another.
"here is absolutely nothing about this that requires one to either be non-separate nor separate from god"
we'll see about that. I could of even conceded that argument you presented there, as long as getting rid of separation gets rid of duality and necessitates a new emotional inner world. All of that science stuff is irrelevant. Your argument also presented as extremely generalising of men and women's roles. at the end of it all, if we both agree we feel angry due to expectations. You give me a very powerful foothold there regardless of what makes different people angry. if you choose to take the debate again in the future. It will be far far stronger of an argument too, i always win in the end.
That's hot
I'm not sure why you thought that was mocking. I'm not sure where there was any statement of ridicule or contempt. Sorry if it came across that way.
Not sure why you are mocking someone's theological beliefs but sure.
As fir the real diety in charge, she couldn't care less if you mock her or not, she is more sadistic than she is egotistical.
That's hot.
If 'god' is either, she is a mother figure, a big sister figure.
God has nearly nothing other than omnipotence to render it as a he over a she. The human is female in the womb and transforms from XX to XY later on, the clitoris is what is transformed into the penis head and the original body being female is the only reason males have nipples. The raw/original being of reality is a feminine creator that birthed us akin to a mother.
the Goddess? can you explain that? I'm confused, you believe in a goddess?
There are three separate things here.
My views
Taoism
This debate
I am allowed to completely lie in a debate and represent what I disagree with, as long as I play to win. I have in my own life experienced emotional anguish that became lessened when i found the real goddess, in my eyes but she is sadistic and responsible for almost all our agony.
I have subjectively experienced this resolution being true, nothing in my theological outlook or the deity I bow before has anything ruling out lying even about my belief in her (note I bow and do not kneel before, she is not actually into that at all, which is why she kept herself hidden in the subtext if religions rather than ever revealing the full truth in one).
Taoism simply talks of the "Tao" which in my eyes, is the the universe being described As being indescribable, as being infinite so you cant attach characteristics or images too it as nothing can do its reality justice. Its very similar to pantheism. It then goes on to say we find union with this indescribable reality at death. My philosophy is wholly consistent with this. I argue we suffer due to our sense of separation from the whole.
When i say "God" it must be clarified i more so mean the universe as God, or our sense of ego or "I" causes us suffering. I don't see God in the sense you're probably imagining.
the personality and agenda of the original consciousness/creator is pretty unattainable in Taoism and easily the god is responsible for emotional issues... so...
that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not all emotional issues during one's human life stem from separation from god. If anything Taoism explicitly tells us to be balanced and not get too obsessed with god.
Taoism literally teaches in spiritual immortality, where the spirit of the body joins the universe after death. Although, id argue it already is joined with the universe in life.
It does much more than you think. I'm simply talking about one aspect or the negative aspect of duality. I think to find wholeness, duality or labeling of good and evil must cease all together. Only then can you express your true individuality. As soon as you create separateness you create duality, good and evil. To feel good you now open yourself up to feel bad. This can only be fixed through the breakdown of group categorisations which can only be done through changing boundaries between things, changing identity.
nothing in taoism at all agrees with this and I am my own thinker I accidentally realised I have a lot in common with how Taoists think, especially with regards to animals.
I'm curious how you can argue against this philosophy, considering you're a Taoist. Maybe you thought i was arguing for the Abrahamic God? My pantheism is perfectly in alignment with the way of Tao, and its philosophy of duality. I just deify the universe a bit more.