Gods never care anyhow!

[SHsheff]

A trite question, I know, but what is "normal"?

 

In England, doesn't that mean that you're a non-believer? I'd have to go check out the statistics but I vaguely think that fewer than 50% of the population believe in (a) god. Or, is it that fewer than 50% actively worship?

 

And, is it ok to assume that 'normal' means merely that you're in the majority?

[Gessa]

A trite question, I know, but what is "normal"?

 

Normality is that which separates you from the goddam.....LOONIES.....whoever they are!

[Gessa]

Perhaps lunacy is the new normality?

[DragonofAna]

In England, doesn't that mean that you're a non-believer? I'd have to go check out the statistics but I vaguely think that fewer than 50% of the population believe in (a) god. Or, is it that fewer than 50% actively worship?

 

And, is it ok to assume that 'normal' means merely that you're in the majority?

 

If it's less than 50% believe in god then I will make up for the shortfall by believing x% more. Is that acceptable?

 

I am currently extremely relieved that Gra-shhh-you know who - ham has not joined this thread.

 

Let's pretend we are talking about the cost of bananas these days. Absolutely atrocious.

[DragonofAna]

Normality is that which separates you from the goddam.....LOONIES.....whoever they are!

 

Perhaps lunacy is the new normality?

 

Are you two people because you keep replying to yourself? I am sincerely concerned because I only thought the two of me was actually schizophrenic.

[epiphany]

In England, doesn't that mean that you're a non-believer? I'd have to go check out the statistics but I vaguely think that fewer than 50% of the population believe in (a) god. Or, is it that fewer than 50% actively worship?

 

And, is it ok to assume that 'normal' means merely that you're in the majority?

 

Perhaps the statistics would show that, but I would hope that people can feel relatively at peace with their own convictions without having to appeal to the mass herd of society for validation of their normality.

 

I think we all find ourselves in a minority at some point, whether it's our sexuality, faith (or non-faith) and values. It saddens me to think that there are people out there who would be pressured into accepting a state of "normality" simply because they feel misunderstood or rejected by an apparent consensus that surrounds them which may be a consensus for very abstract reasons.

[Gessa]

Are you two people because you keep replying to yourself? I am sincerely concerned because I only thought the two of me was actually schizophrenic.

 

One should always remember that sanity is subjective, temporary and:loopy::loopy:

[SHsheff]

Perhaps the statistics would show that, but I would hope that people can feel relatively at peace with their own convictions without having to appeal to the mass herd of society for validation of their normality.

 

I think we all find ourselves in a minority at some point, whether it's our sexuality, faith (or non-faith) and values. It saddens me to think that there are people out there who would be pressured into accepting a state of "normality" simply because they feel misunderstood or rejected by an apparent consensus that surrounds them which may be a consensus for very abstract reasons.

 

It's a good point, but not really what I was trying to say.

 

I was more meaning - if one understands that 'normal' means merely that the majority (ie, over 50%) are in that category, then it's somewhat reasuring to understand that all it takes to be 'abnormal' or 'not normal' is that one doesn't fall into a mere 50% of the population. Eg, fewer than 50% of the population has green eyes. So, technically (if I'm correct that the definition of 'normal' is 'majority') anyone with green eyes is 'abnormal'.

 

Once you see it like that, then you cease to think that if you're not 'normal' then you're weird - you just don't fall into 50% of the population.

But you're still in good company!

[Gessa]

It's a good point, but not really what I was trying to say.

 

I was more meaning - if one understands that 'normal' means merely that the majority (ie, over 50%) are in that category, then it's somewhat reasuring to understand that all it takes to be 'abnormal' or 'not normal' is that one doesn't fall into a mere 50% of the population. Eg, fewer than 50% of the population has green eyes. So, technically (if I'm correct that the definition of 'normal' is 'majority') anyone with green eyes is 'abnormal'.

 

Once you see it like that, then you cease to think that if you're not 'normal' then you're weird - you just don't fall into 50% of the population.

But you're still in good company!

 

Aww...just shatup....GEEK!:hihi:

[epiphany]

It's a good point, but not really what I was trying to say.

 

I was more meaning - if one understands that 'normal' means merely that the majority (ie, over 50%) are in that category, then it's somewhat reasuring to understand that all it takes to be 'abnormal' or 'not normal' is that one doesn't fall into a mere 50% of the population. Eg, fewer than 50% of the population has green eyes. So, technically (if I'm correct that the definition of 'normal' is 'majority') anyone with green eyes is 'abnormal'.

 

Once you see it like that, then you cease to think that if you're not 'normal' then you're weird - you just don't fall into 50% of the population.

But you're still in good company!

 

I see. I get it eventually