People who believe in god are broken

[MonDie]

In Response to TAR:

---

I didn't see your post while I was editing my previous post, but it says that my last edit was made an hour after you made this post. Anyway, after I read your post from November 29th, I edited in a response to it. That response is in my previous post.

 

EDIT: Okay, immortal's post definitely wasn't there when I made this post. Something is causing delayed post appearance.

 

---

The presentation is 50 minutes long. There should be a time bar below the video screen. You'll spend over an hour watching it if you really want to understand what's going on.

 

In the beginning, he is talking about various ways religiosity was measured when social psychologists were first discovering that religious people actually tend to be more prejudiced. Sometimes it was measured by church attendance.

 

Later, he begins talking about the intrinsic religiosity scale. The idea behind it was that these people are the true believers. Their beliefs don't serve any other end. They are also probably compulsive attendees of church because they are true believers, but it is the personal approach to religion that is measured by the scale, not church attendance.

However, Dan Batson has a bone to pick with the guy who made the intrinsic religiosity scale. The guy who invented it thought it measured a better form of religious belief. However, Dan Batson thinks the intrinsic religiosity scale might be a scale of religious fanaticism.

 

Fortunately, I can show you sample questions from an intrinsic religiosity scale. They are from an article iNow showed me in another thread several months ago.

http://www2.psych.ub...rvais-493-6.pdf

 

My faith involves all of my life.

I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life.

In my life I feel the presence of the Divine.

Nothing is as important to me as serving God as best I know how.

My faith sometimes restricts my actions.

One should seek God's guidance when making every important decision.

My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life.

 

*It doesn’t matter so much what I believe as long as I lead a moral life.

*Although I am a religious person, I refuse to let religious considerations influence my everyday affairs.

*Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important things in life.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

So I really find your extreme intolerance towards religion quite unnecessary and claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part.

 

I can't read his mind so, unlike you, I can't be sure if he's being honest or not.*

However, I can say that I think that people who believe in God are just as broken as adults who never grew out of believing in Santa and the tooth fairy.

 

 

* BTW, if you can't read minds then your post is an ad hom.

[tar]

Mondays Assignment: Die,

 

Read your edit, after I posted.

 

In the questions, that are to determine the religiousity of a responder, there still remains, or maybe still remains, a level of responsibility to the "others" that hold the same belief. That is, one needs to respond to such questions, as if other people are going to judge your character and intentions, and trustworthyness, based on your response...If my theory holds any truth, ones concept of God, as the overall viewer and judge, that one puts themselves in the shoes of, when judging ones own life, is contingent upon the concept of God that others that one includes in one's feeling of self, hold. That is, no man is an island, and we always have the need to relate to the pack in some fashion. Lead it, follow it, join it, run from it, guide it, reject it, or whatever.

 

You, for instance said that one could just stress the fact that we are all human. There is a "humanist" philosophy, that is in vouge these days, as a sort of replacement for standard religions. where all the "good stuff" that religions offer, can be together held on to, with all the silly nonsense, and burning in hell stuff simply discarded. But this might take on some of the "social" characteristics that I am suggesting guide us as humans in the first place, and one could be either a good or bad humanist, as in being a "bad" humanist, if you held your own race or nationality or language above the others. So if you were asked a question, and your status as a good humanist were to be enhanced or depreciated depending on your answer, you may or may not reveal your heart and true beliefs.

 

Regards, TAR

 

You might just say what you think you are "suppose to say" to be held in good regard by your pack.

Edited December 3, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

I can't read his mind so, unlike you, I can't be sure if he's being honest or not.*

 

I have argued with him in the past and he explicitly states in this very thread that...

 

The only force involved here is the conviction of my position, the clarity of my words, and the nature with which I deliver them. These people are not being forced to do anything, and can believe in the existence of santa claus, unicorns, and puff the magic dragon if they so choose. The larger issue is that we as a society really do need to cease and desist from showing special deference and undue respect to these positions. The moment someone mentions faith, their position should be weakened in the mind of the audience, not granted special authority nor become immune from criticism.

 

My primary hope in expressing these points is that these individuals will genuinely consider what is being said, hopefully reflect on the specious and childish nature of their beliefs, and perhaps even show a bit of strength, courage, and mental fortitude by letting go of any belief they've accepted on faith and begin to lead a better life not anchored by fairy tales and nonsense.

 

How is this different from Talibanization? It sounds great when you read his post for the first time but I think its a very extreme position like "I am going to decide what's accepted and what's not", "I am going to decide which hypothesis gets a pass and which don't", "I am going to decide what's childish and what's mature". I find such vitriolic positions often unnecessary and unfounded. The first strawman which he makes is by placing the concept of God on the same grounds as the concept of Santa Claus, unicorns etc. To be honest if the whole of religion was just about Santa Claus, unicorns and puff the magic dragon then obviously no theist would have come to SFN claiming that these entities exist but the majority of religious doctrines are highly philosophical, intellectual and quite rational and he thinks all concepts of God are like belief in unicorns without noticing the genuine differences between the different concepts of God that exists out there in the literature and he concludes all theists are like this and that they only accept things by blind faith and never allow criticism by others and demand respect for their beliefs.

 

On the whole it is just a too narrow of a position to apply for such a broad topic. What are his standards to decide what should be acceptable by the society and what not? How reasonable it is? What makes him think that he is not showing double standards himself?

 

In its original usage, Talibanization referred to groups who followed Taliban practices such as:

 

• usually strict regulation of women, including forbidding of most employment or schooling for women;
• the banning of long lists of activities generally tolerated by other Muslims—movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events;
• the banning of activities (especially hairstyles and clothing) generally tolerated by other Muslims on the grounds that the activities are Western;
• oppression of Shia, including takfir threats that they convert to Sunni Islam or be prepared to be killed;
• aggressive enforcement of its regulations, particularly the use of armed "religious police";
• the destruction of non-Muslim artifacts, especially carvings and statues such as Buddhas of Bamyan, generally tolerated by other Muslims, on the grounds that the artifacts are idolatrous orShirk (polytheism)
• harboring of Al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists;
• a discriminatory attitude towards non-Muslims such as sumptuary laws against Afghan Hindus the Taliban regime enacted, requiring them to wear yellow badges, a practice reminiscent ofNazi Germany's anti-Semitic policies.

 

 

However, I can say that I think that people who believe in God are just as broken as adults who never grew out of believing in Santa and the tooth fairy.

 

That's the same problem with you too. Unfortunately the majority of the literature in religion doesn't really address either about the Santa or the tooth fairy. If that was the case then there was no point in arguing for almost 60+ pages for this thread topic. As I said things are not as simple as both of you guys are thinking.

 

 

* BTW, if you can't read minds then your post is an ad hom.

 

I am not reading any minds, its a claim which he explicitly stated earlier. IMHO, there is no need for such extremism as no true religions encourage hatred as Barack Obama said, "But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate."

 

All religions argue that everything came from the Self.

Edited December 3, 2012 by immortal

[jp255]

That's the same problem with you too. Unfortunately the majority of the literature in religion doesn't really address either about the Santa or the tooth fairy. If that was the case then there was no point in arguing for almost 60+ pages for this thread topic. As I said things are not as simple as both of you guys are thinking.

 

Immortal. You seem to disagree with Cuthber's opinion that deity believers are just as broken as santa believers. I agree with Cuthber's opinion (though I don't care enough to label santa believers as broken) because I consider the amounts of supportive evidence for each belief to be the same. I make the comparison because both beliefs use similar broken logic to adopt the belief (assuming the individual is critically contemplating them before adopting them as beliefs). You disagreed, so either you don't think the comparison should be made in the first place, or you consider there to be unequal amounts of supportive evidence? provide the reasoning for your disagreement please.

Edited December 3, 2012 by jp255

[immortal]

Immortal. You seem to disagree with Cuthber's opinion that deity believers are just as broken as santa believers. I agree with Cuthber's opinion (though I don't care enough to label santa believers as broken) because I consider the amounts of supportive evidence for each belief to be the same. I make the comparison because both beliefs use similar broken logic to adopt the belief (assuming the individual is critically contemplating them before adopting them as beliefs). You disagreed, so either you don't think the comparison should be made in the first place, or you consider there to be unequal amounts of supportive evidence? provide the reasoning for your disagreement please.

 

Not only the comparison is silly but also there are unequal amounts of supportive evidence.

[Moontanman]

Not only the comparison is silly but also there are unequal amounts of supportive evidence.

 

 

Please elaborate, I see equal amounts of evidence for both concepts....

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I can also not read minds, but just from the posts, Inow's concern is with people that take the reality of a certain God, or other entity on faith, rather than on empirical evidence. When one believes that something is real, because they "wish" to believe such, and there is no, absolutely NO evidence that somebody else could view or find supports the claim upon testing fairly, then the belief is a made up thing. Hence basing ones life, and interaction with others on the existence of this figment of your imagination, is not substantially a different kind of thing than believing that pixies are whisperiing instructions into you left ear, as you make your life decisions.

 

You have, yourself, (unless I mixed you with another poster) claimed to know the color of the jewels that God wears, which is, in your imagination, the litmus test, to determine if a person has or has not actually seen God.

 

While I do not disagree with the existence of the numinous, nor each of our undeniable deep connections to, and associations with the greater world around us, there is a similarity between the belief in Santa Claus and the specifically described attributes of the God of the Bible, or the one that wears particularly colored jewels.

 

That is, according to my theory, God exists, but is not containable. As soon as you think you have God in mind, you have made a mistake. You have only come up with your own vision of such, which by definition, is imaginary.

 

Under this theory, agreement between us, as to what is important and valuable, what is good and what is bad, is the closest we are to get to allignment with the numinous.

 

But that takes on a lot of complicated interaction that conflates what is real with what is real because we agree on it and make it real. And I suppose is why, we have to discuss it.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And why some, including myself, sometimes decide to just cut the chatter, and believe simply in the connections we have to reality that can not be fiddled with. I think we all know this already, and count on it. And my theory would suggest that in this, is where ones personal God is real and true. Just not transferrable. If it is the true god you believe in, it must be the same one that everybody else, already knows.

Edited December 3, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

Please elaborate, I see equal amounts of evidence for both concepts....

 

"It is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places, and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences; it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise."

- Broad

C.D Broad.The Argument From Religious Experience, 1930.

 

 

[iNow]

I really find your extreme intolerance towards religion quite unnecessary and claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part.

I'm not intolerant of religion so much as I'm intolerant of bullshit. It's not my fault that the vast majority of religion rests on a foundation of manure. Also, the latter part of your comment here suggests that you've not properly comprehended my position. As I very explicitly shared, I suggest that all people are broken in various ways and fashions, it's just that belief in god(s) given the current lack of evidence in their favor (and given the contradictory evidence in most cases) is a very specific type of broken. It's not dishonest. It may be mean, it may be blunt, and it may hurt your feelings as a theist or believer, but it's NOT dishonest. Learn what that word means, please.

 

As for your attempts to link quantum mechanics with religio-spiritual mumbo jumbo like Deepak Chopra likes to do, I'll leave that to another thread. You may as well be arguing that quantum tunneling is evidence that santa claus is real. It's specious at best, and delusional more likely.

 

I'm perfectly willing to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

 

The first strawman which he makes is by placing the concept of God on the same grounds as the concept of Santa Claus, unicorns etc.

In what specific ways do you suggest they are different except for the popularity of one belief versus the other? I'd genuinely like to know. There are more books about them? So what? More smart people accept god(s) as valid? Again, so what? Truth is not determined by popularity. You request we provide a special deference for one type of belief without explaining how specifically that belief has earned such deference and respect.

 

Further, why should one treat YOUR preferred flavor of god(s) as any more likely or respect-worthy than the countless other flavors of god(s) in which people belief? It's the epitome of broken thinking when viewed more objectively. Your entire position boils down to, "Nuh uh, mine is more better and you're a poopie head." Sorry, that's not good enough for me to respect your belief. I respect your right to believe whatever damned silly thing you want, but the belief itself is hardly immune from criticism or dismissal.

 

Whether you believe in Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Allah, Vishnu, Jahweh, or some "mystical force that underlies the universe," they are all equally products of human imagination and on precisely the same footing as Puff the Magic Dragon and Thundercats.

[ydoaPs]

Thundercats.

 

Hooooooooooooooo!!!!!

[iNow]

Feel the magic? Feel the roar...

[zapatos]

I agree with your perspective and your thoughts on broken, except for one change that I would make. I would remove "unable" from that sentence, since if someone is not aware that their belief might be false they do not have the choice to correct it (and if they did have the choice, how do I know that they wouldn't correct the belief?). Such a person would fall under the "unable" category and so I couldn't call someone broken for that. I, too, would also imagine there are people who have not critically analysed their own belief.

 

Your example about your misguided belief is an interesting one and raises the question "Why shouldn't we then take the broken description and apply it to other instances of belief justified with no evidence?" I wouldn't call you broken for your misguided belief, simply because I'd imagine that you weren't aware that your belief could be wrong. Until you read up on history, you had a genuine belief that you willingly did correct when you were able to critically question that belief. The ability to (and being in a state of awareness to) critically question a belief is something which, IMO, is not under our control as I think there are various factors which can influence it (education for instance). For this reason I don't consider the inability to question a belief as broken, instead I only consider unwillingness to question/correct as broken.

 

Would I consider someone unwilling to correct the belief that santa is real as broken?. maybe If were a character called Scrooge.

As Moontanman's earlier post showed by example, I should have further defined what I meant by 'unable'. There are many reasons you may be unable to contemplate God's existence. If you are unable to do so due to immaturity, I would not consider you to be broken. If you are unable to do so due to a brain injury, then I would say you are broken. I think that generally speaking for something to be considered broken, there must be something wrong with what was expected. So an immature person is not broken, a person who has not yet bothered to examine God is not broken, and a person who has a brain injury is broken.

 

But what if a person has all the prerequisites to contemplate God and still comes to the conclusion that God exists? Is this person broken? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps a trained psychologist/psychiatrist could examine the person and determine if their ability to work to work to a logical conclusion is flawed, thereby determining if they are broken. But you could be broken by arriving at either conclusion (God or No God). Knowing if a person is broken or not has nothing to do with the conclusion they have arrived at, it is dependent on whether or not their capabilities functioned as expected.

 

So to say that a person is broken simply based on the conclusion they draw about God is, in my opinion, flawed reasoning. It would be similar to saying that one football team is better than another based simply on the outcome of a single match between the two.

 

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on similar data.

[jp255]

when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences; it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality

Do similar interpretations of religious experiences lead to the conclusion that the only possible cause of the experience was a deity though? I don't think so, so I don't agree with that conclusion. I think that these interpretations are limited in how much they can explain about the cause of the experience, if they can explain anything at all.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I can also not read minds, but just from the posts, Inow's concern is with people that take the reality of a certain God, or other entity on faith, rather than on empirical evidence. When one believes that something is real, because they "wish" to believe such, and there is no, absolutely NO evidence that somebody else could view or find supports the claim upon testing fairly, then the belief is a made up thing. Hence basing ones life, and interaction with others on the existence of this figment of your imagination, is not substantially a different kind of thing than believing that pixies are whisperiing instructions into you left ear, as you make your life decisions.

 

My point is its not as simple as that, Inow seems to have studied only the organized religions which outer masses practice, you don't really have to believe in God to give thanksgiving and yet society has blindly following these religious holidays and has accepted it but as Sam Harris says "A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion." which deserves a serious discussion and an investigation without being dismissed as childish or wishful-thinking.

 

You have, yourself, (unless I mixed you with another poster) claimed to know the color of the jewels that God wears,

 

Ah, the jewel thing, you seem to have taken it too literally, actually its mystical. Please understand the concept of it, if you had seen pearls, diamonds and other gem stones you will see the bright lustre that emanates from it, now when I talk about the jewels of God I don't mean god is just wearing these jewels instead each and every different light rays that emanates from him are the different manifestations as to how the lesser gods have been created and how this cosmos is working. Vedas looks at Him in two ways. They are the Vishrutha(diffused or spread out form) and Samasthi. Looking at each ray of that mass of lustre is the former way(Vishrutha) and looking at it as a whole (yeka) is the latter way (Samasthi).

 

So this isn't something which I have made it up myself, its in the Vedas and the Upanishads and that's how traditional scholars study and view it. Please kindly understand that.

 

Pushan is one of the highest manifestations of the light rays that exists in the intelligible realm or Platonic realm or Mandala, whatever you might want to call it.

 

"Yes", said Pushan. "That is the Apojyothi. Observe carefully. Though it is burning bright it does not generate any heat. That, that should be the aim and object of a Brahmana. Go a step forward. Look at the Savitrumandala (Savithru disc) closely. Just as you see a sprout or a shoot between the two parts of a dwidaladhanya (gram, like Bengalgram etc) you see something subtle (sookshma) and yellowish (peetha) between the red colour of the Agnimandala and the blue of the Somamandala. That yellow, subtle mandala is the Savithru mandala. Just look! As soon as you face that Savitra. All that you have to do is to 'seize' that ray, bring it to Moola Prana, and then on to Maha Prana. Then direct that ray to Prana mandala, from which you finally transfer it to UdanaVayu. That Udana converts that tejas into sound, which will assume the form of a mantra. That mantra is destined to uplift the whole of mankind. But, Vishwamitra, be warned! If the mantra is given to an undeserving person (ayogya) then it will destroy the giver! If given to a deserving person then it protects him that gives, and him that recieves". Since Vishwamitra was a real friend of the universe. By your anugraha the task of the Brahmarshis has been fulfilled. What you have offered is for the benefit of the deserving. May I beseech you of the underserving also! Please tell me that which will benefit them also".

 

Pushan laughed aloud on hearing this request. His laughter brightened as it were, all the ten quarters. It was the laughter of a highly pleased individual. He said, "Brahmarshi! How magnanimous! Men of your stature may just be a hundred even in this Kritha yuga. Even that number is on the liberal side! Even men like you have doubts. So long as the sense of "I-ness" is there, doubts continue to crop up! That is what is called The knot of the heart. Let that be so! Now meditate on Savithru again! Then untie the knot of the hridyagranthi. Then analyse who is really deserving and who is not".

 

Vishwamitra did as directed. And then said, "Pardon me, Deva. I was wrong. Everyone is deserving in this world. Some are ready;the others are getting ready. I hear someone saying Jathamatrasya Gayathree"

 

which is, in your imagination, the litmus test, to determine if a person has or has not actually seen God.

 

No, it can be a litmus test for yourself and the second person who also knows about it but it can never be a litmus test for the third person. If I claimed I visited hell and came back without offering any shadow of evidence then would you believe me? No right. Empirical evidence is always the correct evidence to figure out the truth of something.

 

 

St. Theresa of Avila almost shattered the whole room so much that the nuns came running to see what happened to her. This is the kind of phenomena which I like to empirically study it.

 

 

While I do not disagree with the existence of the numinous, nor each of our undeniable deep connections to, and associations with the greater world around us, there is a similarity between the belief in Santa Claus and the specifically described attributes of the God of the Bible, or the one that wears particularly colored jewels.

 

As I said you seem to have taken the colored jewels too literally, see above to realize how esoteric is that.

[iNow]

Ah, the jewel thing, you seem to have taken it too literally, actually its mystical. Please understand the concept of it, if you had seen pearls, diamonds and other gem stones you will see the bright lustre that emanates from it, now when I talk about the jewels of God I don't mean god is just wearing these jewels instead each and every different light rays that emanates from him are the different manifestations as to how the lesser gods have been created and how this cosmos is working. Vedas looks at Him in two ways. They are the Vishrutha(diffused or spread out form) and Samasthi. Looking at each ray of that mass of lustre is the former way(Vishrutha) and looking at it as a whole (yeka) is the latter way (Samasthi).

 

So this isn't something which I have made it up myself, its in the Vedas and the Upanishads and that's how traditional scholars study and view it.

You know that's not really any better, right?

[immortal]

As for your attempts to link quantum mechanics with religio-spiritual mumbo jumbo like Deepak Chopra likes to do, I'll leave that to another thread. You may as well be arguing that quantum tunneling is evidence that santa claus is real. It's specious at best, and delusional more likely.

 

I'm perfectly willing to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

 

There have been many attempts to link both of them in the past and have failed miserably. The reason for all such failures have been a lack of basic necessary knowledge in the compared disciplines.

 

 

"Anyhow, these problems are reminders that a certain expertise in the compared disciplines, as well as a fair knowledge of their historical and theoretical issues, are indispensable."

 

While others tried to link it epistemologically and failed miserably I like to keep them separate and argue that only the conclusions about the nature of reality of these two disciplines are converging which is turning out to be the right view.

 

 

"As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind."

As many philosophers and scholars continue studying it they will soon realize it.

[Moontanman]

"It is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places, and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences; it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise."

- Broad

C.D Broad.The Argument From Religious Experience, 1930.

 

 

An appeal to authority? Is that really the best you can do?

 

I think it's more likely that humans share a tendency towards thinking certain things are significant when in fact they are not...

 

On yeah, the jewel thing, I wanted to ask... ruby, emerald, and gold... right?

[immortal]

You know that's not really any better, right?

 

I know but it doesn't end there. There is a core agreement in the religious experiences and doctrines of Gnostics, Vedic Aryans, Neoplatonists, Tibetan Buddhists, Judaism, Carl Jung and many other works. I doesn't want to load all of them here and as you can see there are from different timelines and disconnected places.

 

So tell me what's going on, it deserves an explanation. I hope you don't dismiss this as wishful thinking.

[iNow]

So tell me what's going on, it deserves an explanation. I hope you don't dismiss this as wishful thinking.

What specifically are you asking me to explain? The sense of the numinous and how it seems to be an emergent property of our consciousness that is shared across cultures? I'm not sure what you're asking me specifically.

[Ringer]

 

I know but it doesn't end there. There is a core agreement in the religious experiences and doctrines of Gnostics, Vedic Aryans, Neoplatonists, Tibetan Buddhists, Judaism, Carl Jung and many other works. I doesn't want to load all of them here and as you can see there are from different timelines and disconnected places.

 

So tell me what's going on, it deserves an explanation. I hope you don't dismiss this as wishful thinking.

 

There is also a core agreement of many people who take LSD and other hallucinogens and report a feelings of euphoria and such. The same core feelings attributed to religious experiences. In the book American Shaolin the author reports a religious experience from training in martial arts. There are many ways that these feelings come about, but can be explained much more easily as actions of hormones and neurotransmitters than using mysticism.

 

The doctrines have a much simpler explanation, humans share certain core values and wish to pass these values on. They just so happen to take the form of stories because children listen to stories more than rules.

[MonDie]

 

Religious experiences even though its rare induce an irrevocable change in people lives which cannot be explained using natural causes.

 

LSD helps alcoholics stop drinking.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[jp255]

As Moontanman's earlier post showed by example, I should have further defined what I meant by 'unable'. There are many reasons you may be unable to contemplate God's existence. If you are unable to do so due to immaturity, I would not consider you to be broken. If you are unable to do so due to a brain injury, then I would say you are broken. I think that generally speaking for something to be considered broken, there must be something wrong with what was expected. So an immature person is not broken, a person who has not yet bothered to examine God is not broken, and a person who has a brain injury is broken.

 

But what if a person has all the prerequisites to contemplate God and still comes to the conclusion that God exists? Is this person broken? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps a trained psychologist/psychiatrist could examine the person and determine if their ability to work to work to a logical conclusion is flawed, thereby determining if they are broken. But you could be broken by arriving at either conclusion (God or No God). Knowing if a person is broken or not has nothing to do with the conclusion they have arrived at, it is dependent on whether or not their capabilities functioned as expected.

 

So to say that a person is broken simply based on the conclusion they draw about God is, in my opinion, flawed reasoning. It would be similar to saying that one football team is better than another based simply on the outcome of a single match between the two.

 

Reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on similar data.

I do agree with your comment that people can be broken regardless of what conclusion they arrive at, and that calling someone broken is dependent on whether or not their capabilities functioned as expected. I don't think a physcologist/psychiatrist is required though.

 

Immortal,

 

I can also not read minds, but just from the posts, Inow's concern is with people that take the reality of a certain God, or other entity on faith, rather than on empirical evidence. When one believes that something is real, because they "wish" to believe such, and there is no, absolutely NO evidence that somebody else could view or find supports the claim upon testing fairly, then the belief is a made up thing. Hence basing ones life, and interaction with others on the existence of this figment of your imagination, is not substantially a different kind of thing than believing that pixies are whisperiing instructions into you left ear, as you make your life decisions.

 

You have, yourself, (unless I mixed you with another poster) claimed to know the color of the jewels that God wears, which is, in your imagination, the litmus test, to determine if a person has or has not actually seen God.

 

While I do not disagree with the existence of the numinous, nor each of our undeniable deep connections to, and associations with the greater world around us, there is a similarity between the belief in Santa Claus and the specifically described attributes of the God of the Bible, or the one that wears particularly colored jewels.

 

That is, according to my theory, God exists, but is not containable. As soon as you think you have God in mind, you have made a mistake. You have only come up with your own vision of such, which by definition, is imaginary.

 

Under this theory, agreement between us, as to what is important and valuable, what is good and what is bad, is the closest we are to get to allignment with the numinous.

 

But that takes on a lot of complicated interaction that conflates what is real with what is real because we agree on it and make it real. And I suppose is why, we have to discuss it.

 

Regards, TAR

 

And why some, including myself, sometimes decide to just cut the chatter, and believe simply in the connections we have to reality that can not be fiddled with. I think we all know this already, and count on it. And my theory would suggest that in this, is where ones personal God is real and true. Just not transferrable. If it is the true god you believe in, it must be the same one that everybody else, already knows.

Tar,

In this post you describe Immortal's claim as imaginary. Then you stated your own theory about God existing. Do you apply criticism to your own theory? like you do to immortal's belief?

Also you made the statement "While I do not disagree with the existence of the numinous..." then shortly afterwards presented your theory of God existing. Does this mean you consider your theory not to be numinous? I am just wondering why you didn't write "I agree with the existence of the numinous..." since you stated your theory about the existence of god.

Do you consider your theory to have similar amounts of supportive evidence as the belief in santa?

[tar]

jp255,

 

Perhaps I am using numious incorrectly. Mysterious, and beyond comprehension is more the part of the definition I am alluding to, and the "spirit" part, not the part associated with a particular God.

 

My theory is that, we all are associated with the same mysterious and beyond comprehension, essence of existence. That is, what I consider now is what you consider now, give or take the speed of light. This is important. Yesterday was real for the both of us, tomorrow will be as well, but we are both experiencing today, along with all the quarks and molecules, fish, birds, insects, minerals, viri, bacteria, amphibians, mammals, chemicals wind and water on the planet. The arrangement of all these things changes, the association of one to the other changes, but at any given moment, as in now, there is only one arrangement. If it rained in Ohio yesterday, it rained for everybody in Ohio, and you and I both can look at the records and realize it absolutly did, rain in Ohio (its an example, I really don't know if it rained in Ohio yesterday). It did or did not rain in Ohio yesterday, for everybody on the planet.

 

So I use the term numious, to allude to that "thing" that binds us all to the same now. And it creates a real spirit, or consciousness, that we can all refer to, although not a one of us, can contain it all, or know all of it at once, we can all imagine it is as real and present for another as it is for us. It is in this mode of thought that I allude to a spirit, or god. That imaginary thing that we envision, that is about the same real thing that everybody else imagines.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And plants. I forgot to mention trees. The trees that blew over around here during Sandy, are no longer standing, for anybody on Earth.

 

Immortal,

 

But if i experience Chatra or Vishnu or whatever the teachers experience, but don't know the name they have given to it, have I not still experienced it?

 

Do I need the teachers to experience reality?

 

Have we not all, equal rights to reality?

 

If a special key is needed, to unlock the door, I will be a monkey's uncle.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 4, 2012 by tar

[John Cuthber]

 

I have argued with him in the past and he explicitly states in this very thread that...

 

 

 

How is this different from Talibanization?

I don't know and I don't care how it's different to a moved goalpost.

The point I made was that you accuse him of dishonesty and, as far as I can see, you have not put forward any evidence for that ad hom.

what evidence do you have that he is putting forward anything other then his earnestly held beliefs?