People who believe in god are broken

[Prometheus]

Earlier in the thread, "broken" was defined as a mental defect in the ability to reason rationally.

 

The loss of function in a given lifestyle is often attributed to significant changes in in thinking, feelings or behaviour (from http://ispsuk.org/?p=312 ,international society for psychology...), so my definition similar in some regards (i.e. mental causes).

 

If you all agreed to accept 'broken' as a mental defect in the ability to reason rationally, then fair enough, but i would take issue with it. Utmost is the term 'broken' implies that rational reasoning is the norm for humans. I would argue it is the exception, and so the vast majority of us are broken. If belief in god(s) renders one broken, then the vast majority of humans are broken. I would say a definition for some kind of mental disability which renders the vast majority broken, is itself broken.

 

Edit note: Sorry if this discussion's already been had, just point me there.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Prometheus

[iNow]

If belief in god(s) renders one broken, then the vast majority of humans are broken.

I have no problems with this conclusion, and since (as mentioned above) truth is not determined by popularity, this particular conclusion appears to be the most valid (despite it's obvious uncomfortable ramifications).

 

The fact that many many people share the problem does not mean it's inappropriate to call them broken. It just means that many many people are broken.

[rigney]

It's a bit fool hardy looking at such a conundrum while trying to find a logical answer to: Are people who believe in God broken? Neither an entire history of religion or the few short years of scientific knowledge can do little more than add fuel to the fire. Below is a short philosophical paper describing beliefs. Are all beliefs religious? Will those who have a belief in "anything" eventually be broken? I don't necessarily agree with this guy, but what he writes does make sense.

 

http://mnichopolis.hubpages.com/hub/Do-you-believe-in-gravity

Edited May 31, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

The loss of function in a given lifestyle is often attributed to significant changes in in thinking, feelings or behaviour (from http://ispsuk.org/?p=312 ,international society for psychology...), so my definition similar in some regards (i.e. mental causes).

 

If you all agreed to accept 'broken' as a mental defect in the ability to reason rationally, then fair enough, but i would take issue with it. Utmost is the term 'broken' implies that rational reasoning is the norm for humans. I would argue it is the exception, and so the vast majority of us are broken. If belief in god(s) renders one broken, then the vast majority of humans are broken. I would say a definition for some kind of mental disability which renders the vast majority broken, is itself broken.

 

Edit note: Sorry if this discussion's already been had, just point me there.

I wouldn't say all agreed to accept the definition, just that it was the one offered in response for clarification. I think the OP was purposely left ambiguous in this regard to elicit a wider variety of perspectives.

 

I have to say this thread has helped me make certain distinctions with regard to how reason is used. Faith in a concept has no rational basis due to a complete lack of evidence. Faith is literally pretending to know something for certain I can't possibly know for certain. Hope, however, is based on at least some evidential support. I can hope that a concept will prove true based on what I've learned about it. Trust is what I consider to be accepting the explanation with the most evidence to support it. I can trust a concept validated by the scientific method because it represents a great deal of testable, predictable, observed reality. Faith, hope and trust are all part of a belief system for me, and I now have these distinctions to help determine the strengths of the foundations of my beliefs.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Phi for All
added clarification

[Prometheus]

The fact that many many people share the problem does not mean it's inappropriate to call them broken. It just means that many many people are broken.

 

In itself that's fine. If a majority of people had heart failure, we'd still call them sick. However, this is slightly different. If everyone had sickle cell disease, would we still call them sick? No, it'd be a norm, something we just grew up with (as a species), but lowers our chance of catching malaria, i.e. an evolutionary trait. We have evolved to believe in god, whether it be by genes or memes (now that'd be an interesting discussion). For better or worse it's a human trait, for now. It was, and still is, the norm. Broken suggests deviation from this norm. Broken suggests we once had reason, then lost it.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Given proper upbringing, all children ( with a few unfortunate exceptions who can be thought of as "broken" for this discussion anyway) are able to learn to use rational thought.

Those who lost that ability (even if it's just in respect of some facts) are broken.

The norm is to be able to tell fact from fiction.

The norm is to learn that fairies are not real. The norm is to recognise that there are no unicorns.

Believing in a God is a departure from that norm.

[iNow]

I wouldn't say all agreed to accept the definition, just that it was the one offered in response for clarification. I think the OP was purposely left ambiguous in this regard to elicit a wider variety of perspectives.

 

I have to say this thread has helped me make certain distinctions with regard to how reason is used. Faith in a concept has no rational basis due to a complete lack of evidence. Faith is literally pretending to know something for certain I can't possibly know for certain. Hope, however, is based on at least some evidential support. I can hope that a concept will prove true based on what I've learned about it. Trust is what I consider to be accepting the explanation with the most evidence to support it. I can trust a concept validated by the scientific method because it represents a great deal of testable, predictable, observed reality. Faith, hope and trust are all part of a belief system for me, and I now have these distinctions to help determine the strengths of the foundations of my beliefs.

This whole post was really bang on, Phi. I'm also glad you've benefited from the discussion in the ways you mention.

[MonDie]

Perhaps the vague OP is the reason for the circling nature of this thread. It would have been nice if different arguments were labeled as they appeared, then all subsequent posts concerning labeled arguments contained the respective labels.

 

http://mnichopolis.h...ieve-in-gravity

I don't think acceptance of public science (I know it's odd terminology) is an acceptance of every single claim made by any scientist. Everybody knows that scientists have disagreements. Acceptance of public science is at least partially because the claims of scientists are often right, so we would do good to utilize them, whereas religious claims are often wrong, so we wouldn't do good to sell all our possessions in repentance every "doomsday."

Edited May 31, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

In itself that's fine. If a majority of people had heart failure, we'd still call them sick. However, this is slightly different. If everyone had sickle cell disease, would we still call them sick? No, it'd be a norm, something we just grew up with (as a species), but lowers our chance of catching malaria, i.e. an evolutionary trait. We have evolved to believe in god, whether it be by genes or memes (now that'd be an interesting discussion).

It was.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65651-people-who-believe-in-god-are-broken/page__view__findpost__p__680289

 

For better or worse it's a human trait, for now. It was, and still is, the norm. Broken suggests deviation from this norm. Broken suggests we once had reason, then lost it.

Is not the norm to use reason prior to accepting claims as true, especially extraordinary claims like the existence of god(s)... and to require adequate empirical evidence prior to believing something, and to reject things as baseless, unfounded, or based on wish thinking alone when they truly are? Deviations from that are broken since we did/do once have that.

 

---

Perhaps the vague OP is the reason for the circling nature of this thread.

No, I don't think so. The "circling nature" of this thread is one you find nearly anywhere you try to hold theists accountable for their claims. They evade and obfuscate and ignore the requests of them for reasonable rational logic and evidence. It's not the vague use of the word broken, but the concept of god itself that has led to this, IMO.

[zapatos]

I wouldn't say all agreed to accept the definition, just that it was the one offered in response for clarification. I think the OP was purposely left ambiguous in this regard to elicit a wider variety of perspectives.

 

I have to say this thread has helped me make certain distinctions with regard to how reason is used. Faith in a concept has no rational basis due to a complete lack of evidence. Faith is literally pretending to know something for certain I can't possibly know for certain. Hope, however, is based on at least some evidential support. I can hope that a concept will prove true based on what I've learned about it. Trust is what I consider to be accepting the explanation with the most evidence to support it. I can trust a concept validated by the scientific method because it represents a great deal of testable, predictable, observed reality. Faith, hope and trust are all part of a belief system for me, and I now have these distinctions to help determine the strengths of the foundations of my beliefs.

Just wanted to clarify the bolded part a bit. Are you saying that if someone claims to have faith, that you feel they do/should believe in God with certainty? Is it possible for someone to have faith without certainty? For example, you definition seems to exclude an agnostic theist from having faith.

[Phi for All]

This whole post was really bang on, Phi. I'm also glad you've benefited from the discussion in the ways you mention.

Well, thanks. I had real problems in the beginning with the distinction between broken people believing in concepts and people believing in broken concepts. Now I can see that the ones who are broken are the ones who see faith as a strength. Faith will make you change the way you live your life, it will cause you to make decisions that will affect the outcome of real world events, based on a certainty that has no basis in reality. That kind of thinking is broken, imo.

 

If I want to play the lottery and I have complete faith that I'll win, it might cause me to run out and start spending money I don't have yet, or make promises I can;t keep if I lose. Or I can buy a ticket and hope that I'll win, but I won't do anything crazy I might regret later. That hope might make me a more positive person for a while, might even affect the way I treat others in a beneficial way. Or I can trust that the odds will make it highly unlikely that I'll win, and save my money for something else, like buying a cup of coffee for a friend, something I'm 99% sure will be a great thing.

 

Just wanted to clarify the bolded part a bit. Are you saying that if someone claims to have faith, that you feel they do/should believe in God with certainty? Is it possible for someone to have faith without certainty? For example, you definition seems to exclude an agnostic theist from having faith.

It's a distinction I'm making, based on what those people I know who claim to have faith have told me. To them, faith is a certainty, assurance where nothing assuring can be seen, surrendering to an inevitable power, acceptance that what your religion says is the Truth, perseverance in the face of all criticism, endurance despite all adversity. They are absolutely certain, and they call this faith.

 

I guess I would say what the agnostic theist has is hope. I can have hope that my consciousness will live on after my body dies, even with no evidence to support the hope, and it's not really going to affect the way I live. I'm still going to treat life as a learning experience, one I hope will survive after my body dies. The agnostic theist can hope that there is a higher power, perhaps one that doesn't require a direct and specific worship ritual, one that doesn't intervene in daily life or that will condemn him for his lack of complete acceptance.

[Prometheus]

I have to say this thread has helped me make certain distinctions with regard to how reason is used. Faith in a concept has no rational basis due to a complete lack of evidence. Faith is literally pretending to know something for certain I can't possibly know for certain. Hope, however, is based on at least some evidential support. I can hope that a concept will prove true based on what I've learned about it. Trust is what I consider to be accepting the explanation with the most evidence to support it. I can trust a concept validated by the scientific method because it represents a great deal of testable, predictable, observed reality. Faith, hope and trust are all part of a belief system for me, and I now have these distinctions to help determine the strengths of the foundations of my beliefs.

 

Useful distinctions. As a side note, i have far more respect for people who simply claim they have faith in their god, rather than the people who claim there is evidence for it.

 

Given proper upbringing, all children ( with a few unfortunate exceptions who can be thought of as "broken" for this discussion anyway) are able to learn to use rational thought.

Those who lost that ability (even if it's just in respect of some facts) are broken.

The norm is to be able to tell fact from fiction.

The norm is to learn that fairies are not real. The norm is to recognise that there are no unicorns.

Believing in a God is a departure from that norm.

 

 

But few children are given 'proper' upbringings. Most are raised to believe in a god. We all know how important are our formative years. These teachings are so part of childrens' make-up by the time they get to adulthood all the reason the world only makes for a few atheists. Apparently.

 

 

Is not the norm to use reason prior to accepting claims as true, especially extraordinary claims like the existence of god(s)... and to require adequate empirical evidence prior to believing something, and to reject things as baseless, unfounded, or based on wish thinking alone when they truly are? Deviations from that are broken since we did/do once have that.

 

I'm starting to think i'm using a different meaning for the word norm than you guys. Take a look around, take a look at the statistics. The norm (i.e. most common) is for people to believe in god. Even in our age of reason, there are plenty of people who believe not only in god(s), but unicorns and mystics and astrology and space-faring dolphins (no sh*t, i've come across people who believe this) and UFOs and...

 

 

But it seems that reasoning predates religion in our evolutionary history. There is no clear evidence of religion in apes, although some people speculate (e.g. "Chuck Blanchard"), and you might find some early examples of religion if you bend the definition. In contrast, we now know that apes can reason and have some surprising mental skills (e.g. chimp eidetic memory), and it's obvious that these mental skills, including reasoning, were advantageous. Thus, it seems obvious that, when reasoning and religion conflict, we should follow reason.

In conclusion, religion shouldn't impede reasoning because, whatever adaptive functionality religion had or has, reasoning clearly has more adaptive functionality.

 

Interesting. I guess this is where the gene/meme admixture makes things complicated. A couple of objections though. It is unclear whether apes will go on to develop human-level intelligence, and if they do what their 'beliefs', if any, would be. If they do, just because apes followed one evolutionary path to this end, it does not follow that humans followed the same path. And (sorry to any anthropologists), this type of research cannot be as tightly controlled as the physical sciences, and so will never have the same level of accuracy. It can only ever be suggestive, rarely reaching firm conclusions from which predictions can be made.

 

I agree, when reasoning and religion conflict, we should follow reason. I'm not a religious apologist. But what is at issue here is what is, not what should be.

 

 

 

[doG]

Given proper upbringing, all children ( with a few unfortunate exceptions who can be thought of as "broken" for this discussion anyway) are able to learn to use rational thought.

Those who lost that ability (even if it's just in respect of some facts) are broken.

The norm is to be able to tell fact from fiction.

The norm is to learn that fairies are not real. The norm is to recognise that there are no unicorns.

Believing in a God is a departure from that norm.

 

[tar]

I was hoping for a response from Villain to my invitation to describe God in a "real" way. For I thought it was certain to yield some truth. Truth about what real thing it is, that believers in God, believe in. It must be "something". Mustn't it? Has it "no" real components?

 

I ask these questions, because while I believe, that when it comes to determining facts, about objective reality, scientific method is superior to faith (pretending to know what you do not know), but when it comes to looking into the eyes of another human, who has just lost a loved one, and "knowing" what to do about it...pretending to know, what you do not know, seems to be the only available option. Scientific method in this case falls, rather meek and empty, to the floor, with no good answers to "what to do about it." "Eh, that's life" is a rather factual but inappropriate answer.

 

And what seems to become apparent to people, when faced with death, is that "life goes on"...without the dead person. That reality exists, with or without him/her, and therefore reality will continue to exist, with or without ME. This realization automatically gives you knowledge of something you don't need to sense. Because you know it will be the case, even when you are "no longer the case". How can we pretend to know this that we do not know, this objective reality thing that was before we were, and will be after we are not? What is this thing that is so absolutely required for us to be at all, that has the audacity to be without us?

 

We must believe in this objective reality thing. And our certain knowledge of its existence is not pretence,

 

Might be silly to give it a name, as if you know it, or talk to it on a one to one basis, as if it is your friend or enemy, or consider it will still contain you in some way when you die. But it might not be broken to believe in it, and associate with it in such ways. In fact, its existence seems to be very much the case, and the associations our forefather's claimed to it are not so very different from ours. Not really different. Not different enough to call them broken, and us fixed. Not different enough, at all.

[tar]

Given proper upbringing, all children ( with a few unfortunate exceptions who can be thought of as "broken" for this discussion anyway) are able to learn to use rational thought.

Those who lost that ability (even if it's just in respect of some facts) are broken.

The norm is to be able to tell fact from fiction.

The norm is to learn that fairies are not real. The norm is to recognise that there are no unicorns.

Believing in a God is a departure from that norm.

 

Just wondering, considering this "mortality" concept we have, where you draw the line, between fact and fiction when it comes to dead relatives. Consider this thought experiment. Take your Grandmother, or Great Grandmother, or someone who you knew and touched, who is now nonexistent (or dead if you please.) Now consider a time period, between the last time you saw her alive, and the first time you learned of her death. At what point, if any, did you remove her from the "real" category, and put her in the "nonexistent" category? Does that moment coincide with the actual moment of her death? Was there any length of time, that passed, where she was "alive" in your memory and model of the world, where she was actually not alive in reality? Would this knowledge of her, as a living Grandmother, that you had for that brief time, be considered by you, to be fact or fiction? Is your current knowledge of her, as a living Grandmother, fact or fiction?

 

Just a thought experiment, a challege to your contention that unbroken people are able to tell fact from fiction. Where and how exactly, do you draw the line?

 

And consider a "dream", an ideal, or a plan, or invention, that is completely fictional, as a concept in your mind, that "becomes" a fact, as soon as you bring it into existence. As soon as you build it, or draw it, or share the idea with another human. Take a simple thing like the statement "let's meet at Joe's at seven". When does the fiction become fact? As soon as it is said? As soon as it is heard? As soon as it is agreed upon? As soon as you are on your way to Joe's? When you and the other(s) are actually at Joe's?

 

If two people look up at the night sky on a clear summer night and imagine together that each belongs to the same reality that includes the other, and the both together belong to that greater reality, and one suggests, let's me and you, call "it" God. Where exactly would you draw the line, between fact and fiction?

 

And where exactly did those two people make any logical error, or do anything contrary to reality? Where is the fact part and where is the fictional part? In your estimation?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 2, 2012 by tar

[John Cuthber]

My mother died shortly before Easter.

Prior to her death she had, of course, a real existence (towards the end of her life she didn't do a lot- but she did exist.)

She died on a Friday: the best estimate I can come up with is about 08:30.

I found out an hour or so later, from my brother.

Form my personal point of view, something like 50 miles from where she died, she was only imaginary anyway. I couldn't ask her a question or see what she looked like.

She actually became imaginary the last time I left her. That would have been some time previously- probably at the railway station- some time (Months) before she died.

 

It's hard to see this as having any effect on the discussion.

 

"At what point, if any, did you remove her from the "real" category, and put her in the "nonexistent" category. "

When I found out that she no longer existed. That is, when my brother called me and told me so.

"Does that moment coincide with the actual moment of her death? "

Nope, it took a while, but that is par for the course of scientific observation. At best there's a delay due to the finite speed of light.

"Was there any length of time, that passed, where she was "alive" in your memory and model of the world, where she was actually not alive in reality?"

yes but ditto.

"Would this knowledge of her, as a living Grandmother, that you had for that brief time, be considered by you, to be fact or fiction? "

No, neither, it would have been a mistake. I thought she was alive. In reality she was dead.

Ignoring how I would (for example) have actually reacted to someone asking if I should refer to my mother in the past or present tense, and ignoring the fact that I knew she was gravely unwell, I would probably have said " I don't know". That's often the scientifically correct answer to difficult questions.(* I will come back to this)

 

" Take a simple thing like the statement "let's meet at Joe's at seven". When does the fiction become fact? As soon as it is said? As soon as it is heard? As soon as it is agreed upon? As soon as you are on your way to Joe's? When you and the other(s) are actually at Joe's?"

Which fact do you mean?

The existence of an intention, the existence of a plan, the existence of (at least ) one party at Joe's or the existence of the meeting?

I think it's easy enough to answer the question, as long as you say what the question means.

 

 

*

It's often the case that the sensible, scientific, honest, answer is " We don't know". Religion often asserts that it knows the answer, yet, on examination, that answer is found to be unsupported.

[iNow]

Not just unsupported, but also completely unsupportable. Thousands of years of trying. Still, nothing but wish thinking and abandon of reason.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

Thanks for entertaining my experiment. And forgive me for directing it at you. I forgot your mother had just recently passed.

 

 

And the bearing on the discussion is my attempt to isolate the "real" components of our mutual understanding of what "actually is the case".

 

You have in you mind, this model of reality, that you "know" exists outside your mind. So do I. We can both conceive of ourselves and each other, as actual existing beings. We can both take an "objective" scientific view of the situation. We know it exists in the manner you suggest, with things separated by the speed of light, yet existing similtaneously from a "god's" eye view, to be "later" understood as consistent and connected, as the "knowledge" or information of the one time and place reaches the other. And the whole operation can be "understood" as actual and real, and we can both easily and automatically adjust our models appropriately, as soon as the facts come in.

 

But we are not constrained from this understanding by any expectation that it is only when the facts come in, that something is real. We know reality ahead of time, and in retrospect. We know there is "something" we are modeling, that is real, in and of itself, with a power and size and age and consistency that dwarfs our limited, mortal selves. A thing that will be the final judge of what was real or not, what actually happened or did not.

 

How is knowledge of this actualness, normal, rational human thought when held by a scientist, and broken, irrational, faulty human thought when held by a theist?

 

Why this has bearing on the discussion, is because it is one of the main pro OP points that this kind of thinking is what "believers" do, that makes them broken.

 

If it turns out to be the same kind of thing that scientists do, then one would have to be careful not to poison the well.

 

Just seems to me a reasonable assumption that we must, on many levels, and in many ways, be drawing from the same well. Whatever notion of God we may consider to exist or not exist.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And this is a potential central consideration, in answering the question of why we give a pass to "believers".

 

Inow,

 

Sorry, cross posted.

 

But how many thousand years will it take to support the notion that there is currently actually something going on on the other side of the Milky Way? Seems rather unsupportable a notion, to me.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited June 2, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

 

However, I see no purpose in trying to convince theists that they are wrong... there is really no point for this since there is no point to our existence at all. I would rather them be happy on this random rock in the middle of nowhere. Who cares. Why fight it.

 

 

I care, I think Moontanman was right when he said that it is people who have moderate beliefs are the one's really broken since they don't criticize those fringe extremists of their own cult. These religious leaders come on streets and fight when a politician of their own cult is arrested for corruption but they don't criticize or even raise a single voice when a false self-proclaimed leader of a cult openly exploits women and sexually abuse both men and women.

 

We expect that the world around is good, but its not, this is where the scientific attitude of critical thinking should be exercized, just as we criticize pseudoscience and frauds with a scientific attitude we should criticize religious beliefs. I am not asking anyone to abandon their belief but stop blindly accepting things as true, stop believing in god so much that it affects your life and the lives of others especially when you have no knowledge of god. Its normal to have doubt and if a god is true he won't be angry at me for not believing in him when I didn't had sufficient evidence to accept his existence. We should make our children develop critical thinking and a scientific attitude to not to fall into pseudoscience or frauds and put one's life in jeopardy. Therefore scientific attitude is very essential and I think same kind of standards should be applied for religion too.

 

But that doesn't mean that we should expect evidence for god to come from a peer-reviewed journal, that would be unwise but don't accept things as true unless you see it with your own eyes.

 

 

 

 

The video is not in english but the following example of a case study clearly depicts her narration of how she was exploited by this cult leader who seem to have a foundation in the U.S

 

http://www.lifebliss...org/default.asp

 

 

Dominance and Submission: The Psychosexual Exploitation of Women in Cults - Janja Lalich

 

 

An Example of Sexual Abuse in the Name of Spiritual Enhancement

 

In one guru-based meditation cult with a strong bias toward a transformational-psychotherapy worldview, the leader, who had taken vows of celibacy and poverty, began to have sex with various female members in his inner circle. He described his behavior to them as a Acoveted yoga practice,@ and Ameditate@ became a sort of code word for having sex. The guru extolled the virtues and value of Ameditative sex,@ and told each disciple that it was an honor to be invited into a relationship with him. He explained that he was bestowing upon them the wisdom of a 7,000-year-old secret, which only the inner circle of renunciates would share.

 

 

For a longer, first-person account of membership in this same group, see Katherine E. Betz=s article in this issue. When challenged about these teachings, the guru would say, AI am the Teacher, you are the student, and that is that.@ In the evening, the women sat around him and he would teach and then choose which woman he would Ameditate@ with that evening. When some women from the inner circle began to marry in efforts to escape the secret sex scene, the leader, who often referred to himself as AGod=s agent,@ expanded his horizons and incorporated his sexual style into the group=s teachings. Others in the group were now expected to also participate in his secret yogic Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 14practice. The guru=s yogic secret was that anyone who desired could ask any other member to take part in this spiritual technique. It did not matter who was married or partnered; everyone was up for grabs.

 

Feelings of jealousy and betrayal were looked down upon, seen as sins, human traits, spiritually negative and backward; divorce was not an option. So, if someone knocked on your door one night and said, AI want to meditate with you@Coff, you=d go, like it or not. If your partner displayed or expressed any sign of jealousy, he or she was made to watch the two of you make love until all feelings of jealousy and betrayal disappeared.

 

 

One teaching meant to alleviate feelings of guilt or pangs of morality was the guru=s concept of Anon-doership.@ Three times a day at darshan, the guru repeated: ACelibacy, non-doership, non-ownership. Renounce the world, including sex and money. Live a life of working contemplation and meditation.@ Non-doership meant that you could do things without being responsible. The idea was that if one relaxed and let the energy of Anatural meditation@ move the body, then responsibility evaporated. It was, after all, only the energy acting. By this logic, it became acceptableCeven desirableCto have sex with anyone through this agency-free method of natural meditation. In fact, you could be celibate and still have sex because it was your energy doing it and your energy was not you. The daily ritual evolved into 45 minutes of meditation leading to sex. By blending a form of dissociation and a philosophy of personal nonresponsibility, the guru was able to justify his sexual scheme among his followers.

 

 

The guru would have sex three to four times a day, and everyone else was expected to do the same. Among this group, it was considered Areligious@ and Abetter@ to have sex with many partners; the more sex, the more magnanimous disciples felt. And since no one was the Adoer,@no one was to get upset when his or her partner had sex with others. Falling in love was verboten, and infidelity was seen as a positive attribute. The guru regularly praised those who boasted having perhaps five different partners in a day. AYou=re so spiritual,@ he would say.Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 15

Although the circle had broadened to include most of those living at one particular ashram, the guru was clever enough not to make this a widespread practice among his worldwide followers, so that the majority of regular members had no idea about the sexual abuse going on around the guru and certain higher level disciples. This strategy served to reinforce both the secrecy among the inner sex circle and the loyalty of all members.

 

 

When one woman decided to leave both her arranged marriage and the ashram community, she was sent before a tribunal of members, deemed unfit, and cast out. She was condemned and warned not to expose any yogic secrets. The guru came personally to her house and condemned her for seven lifetimes. Aided by the distance of the excommunication, the support of her new partner, and counseling at a rape crisis center, the woman was finally able to stop protecting the cult leader. After having given 20 years of her life to a psychological con artist, at last she was able to see that yogic secrecy was not a spiritual technique. She realized that the secrecy only served to shield her abuse and that of many others. This realization put her on the path to recovery.

 

Don't believe in anyone who is self-proclaimed without testing them even though he claims to be a God. I don't understand why someone has to build a foundation to make people believe in him or in his god, put your evidence on the table people will follow you but such evidences are really hard to come by, while there might be some truth in such a philosophical practice don't accept it on face value, research and analyse it from all perspectives and sources. For example - This philosophy of non-doership is used to evade from sin while doing basic actions not to justify yourself for your wrong doings which causes harm to others.

 

 

http://www.lifebliss...pirituality.asp

A second amazing aspect of Swami's deep meditation was that the lower portion of his mesial frontal areas lighted up in a very significant way. This area roughly corresponds to the reputed location of the mystical "Third Eye."

 

Associated with both cosmic and inner knowledge and thought to be a place of clarity and peace, the Third Eye is considered by many to be the seat of the soul. Were we seeing an indication that deep meditation can open an area of the brain responsible for communicating with the divine, looking deep into the mysteries of self or creation? I believe the PET scan revealed what I call the brain's "D-spot." Whether you consider the "D" in D-spot to stand for delight, the divine or even dopamine, the chemical through which our bodies experience pleasure, initial indications are that meditation can stimulate it.

 

 

 

 

This is pseudoscience, this isn't science. There is no such thing as "third eye" in the brain, if it exists it is non-empirical and metaphysical, it definitely doesn't exist in the brain.

 

In an another incident a man had gouged both of his eye balls and the justification that he gave was that god came in his dream and asked for his eyes. I agree with the OP that we should minimize ignorance and perhaps keep religious beliefs out of our real world activities as much as possible so that its effects are insignificant but we don't have to go to such an extreme as to make everyone look down on all those who believe in God treating those who harm and those who don't equally.

[Prometheus]

Broken also implies a teleology to our evolution: that we are destined to be perfectly rational beings, rather than simply being evolutionary products of an ever changing landscape. We are not 'meant' to be anything

[Greg H.]

Who's broken? Everyone but you?

 

Sadly, that's just about always the case. The idea of what's normal and abnormal is subjective (at best) and often defined by a society over time. The further away from the subset of "normal" an individual is, the more likely they are to be viewed by that society as in need of some kind of help or intervention.

 

We are not 'meant' to be anything

 

We are what we are and that's all that we are?

[Prometheus]

We are what we are and that's all that we are?

 

What else can we be except what we are?

 

Getting off topic now though, not that i mind...

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Two splits made

New Thread on definitions of god within theories of Abiogenesis and Self-Replication
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66874-god-and-abiogenesis/

New Thread of What is the point?
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66875-the-truth-that-i-cant-escape-is-that-there-is-no-deeper-meaning/

Any posts missed or mis-split please PM me

[Villain]

 

Yes, but sometimes I skim quickly and make mistakes. As much as I wish it were otherwise, I'm simply not perfect.

 

Atheist preaching, though? How is holding your claims about god(s) to the same standards that I hold everyone else's claims about everything else... preaching? Oh, that's right. It's not. It's being consistent and presenting some academic integrity... Ensuring consistency in my approach to the claims people make, regardless of the subject matter.

 

It's perfectly normal to make mistakes and I realised that is what happened, but the 'atheist preaching' does not stem from that. Perhaps you might afford me some concentration just this once though.

 

If God does not exist, then as many have correctly pointed out, there is no pre-determined meaning to life. It is what it is. The only meaning is a personal meaning, there is no meaning in science, there is no meaning in reality, there is no meaning in anything, only meaning in what we decide. Now from that point we move to the meaning that the individual gives their life by believing in God and an implied universal meaning. The individual finds meaning in a creator which implies that the individual was created and perhaps even created for a purpose. You, on the other hand, are saying that such a meaning cannot be and furthermore are not replacing that lack of meaning with anything, but rather destroying meaning and leaving them desolate. In that sense you are preaching against individual meaning, which is the only truth that can ever exist without belief. Hopefully you will come to understand this and leave others to have what we all ultimately want, whether it is real or not. Unfortunately you have given your life meaning by believing that you are living as per an universal meaning, by spreading the 'truth' to others, much like an atheistic disciple. Your choice for meaning in life is to destroy the meaning of others.

[iNow]

You, on the other hand, are saying that such a meaning cannot be and furthermore are not replacing that lack of meaning with anything, but rather destroying meaning and leaving them desolate.

Close, but not quite. I am not even bothering with the question of meaning. That is peripheral to my arguments. It's not my job to replace something that is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

 

Overall, I am primarily demonstrating that the root of these feelings people hold via a belief in god(s) is almost certainly a fairy tale. I am suggesting that their quote unquote "meaning" is rooted in a childish myth. That's fine. People can find meaning in anything they want. I never attacked the meaning people find in their religion or belief in unfounded, unsupported, highly unlikely deities. My attack is on irrationality of the belief itself. My attack is on the way people exhibit double standards when it comes to the extraordinary claim of god(s). My attack is on how this type of thinking bleeds throughout society and impacts all of us in real, tangible, and lasting ways.

 

I don't discuss the "meaning," though. That's not my concern. As has been demonstrated in this very thread, meaning is wherever you find it and whatever you want it to be. That's powerful, and emancipating, and inspiring. I didn't bring up meaning. Apollinaria did. She hinted that if god doesn't exist, neither does meaning in her life. As most here have pointed out, that's a load of horseshit.

 

Either way... I am suggesting to believe in god(s) is no different than to believe that Harry Potter is a real boy who can do real magic, or that Clifford the Big Red Dog is actually a gigantic crimson colored canine living on Birdwell Island that you could go visit. Whether or not you find personal meaning in the idea of Clifford the Big Red Dog is moot. My arguments are focused on the suggestion that he actually exists and my position is to demonstrate the irrationality and lack of reason that is required to hold such a ridiculous belief.

 

 

Hopefully you will come to understand this and leave others to have what we all ultimately want, whether it is real or not.

Sorry, but no. You're again asking for a respect you haven't earned. You're again asking that I apply a double standard, and treat your claims differently than I would treat any others. You're again demanding special deference where none is due. People are free to believe any damned silly thing they want. I'm equally free to openly criticize, challenge, and cast aside those beliefs as the unfounded fairy tales they are.

 

If that forces people to find meaning in other ways, then so be it, but unlike your continued assertion to the contrary I'm not seeking to destroy meaning, only ignorance and ludicrous beliefs in all of their various forms and manifestations. That's not about atheism. That's about integrity and advancement. Don't expect me to sit idly by while you argue for a return do dark aged thinking. If you want me and people like me to leave you alone, then earn it. Answer our questions in a way that doesn't always fall back to the total non-answer of, "I believe this because I want to, or it makes me feel good, or I have faith."

 

---

It could be seen more charitably. I don't know iNow, so I don't have any idea whether you're interpreting his motives accurately.

Thank you, but it's irrelevant. My motivations are irrelevant to my arguments. Villain seems consistently unable to address the merit of my points, and so he instead speculates about me as a person and my motivations. It's a fallacious form of argument, and is completely tangential to any of the positions I espouse.

 

Him suggesting he knows what my motivations are is roughly equivalent to him suggesting he knows what my ice cream preferences are. He has no way of knowing the true answer, and it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand anyway.

 

I'd like to second Appolinaria's comment above... Your first few posts have been articulate and thoughtful. Welcome.