Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Joshpantera

Ex Christian Spirituality: The rough treatment

Recommended Posts

The above is addressing free range, non-organized or non-cult centered woo woo. I see no problem with the self help oriented magick based on feeding your own sub conscious, knowing that's what you're doing. It's a type of personal spiritual view based on mind over matter oriented issues and interconnection. Not too much harm in that, it would seem. 

 

I would however treat New Age replacements for religion differently, though. The Ramtha Cult. Abraham Hicks. And so on.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha's_School_of_Enlightenment

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Hicks

 

Because these are obvious con jobs aimed at utilizing all of the New Age material (Atlantis, Aliens, Channeling, Crystals, etc.) to literally and consciously dupe other people out of money. And watching through videos about these con jobs puts them on a level playing field with religious cons in the mainstream religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is where it ceases to be fun and games in my view. It hinges on lying to people and pretending to be channeling the spirits of ancient wise men and other such nonsense that you can literally catch them slipping up with as the acts go on. They're identical to christian faith healer cons and mega church preachers and people of that genre. And they sweep up the gullible for monetary gain. 

 

So an extreme view could be that by laying over and allowing these minor issues to go unchecked, the larger issues could go unchecked as well and people can be damaged mentally and other ways. And wouldn't we feel responsible to step in and say something about delusion that is literally causing monetary or mental damages? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of these women are clearly two charlatan's who took in all of the New Age material dating back to the channeling of 19th century Theosophy and issues related to HP Blavatsky, and rehashed it. Which were issues of claiming that very ancient wisdom teaching spirits, who basically espouse eastern mystical ideas, can be channeled. That was fashionable in the late 19th century. 

 

Notice how the voice of "Ramtha" is JZ Knight trying to speak in an Indian sounding accent. Keeping with the old Theosophical ideas. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 10:18 AM, florduh said:

Do you (anyone) think Christianity and other god/magical beliefs should all be treated equally and open to scrutiny? Why or why not?

 

I think all beliefs should be open to scrutiny. The spiritually section here is a bit of a curiosity. We have a forum dedicated to those those have utilised their free thinking to escape Christianity but we have a section where questioning of beliefs in that section is openly discouraged. To the point we have to shift the topic here in the den to question it. Doesn't happen in science forum, religious forums, ToT and even ex c life. Only spirituality. Speaks volumes to me. Anyways that's a side note. I'm preparing answers to others who have responded to me... quite a lot. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time I looked, the term "spirituality" uses the term "spirit" in its definition.  The term "spirit" has 12 definitions, some overlapping and some not.  I've frequently had some difficulty communicating with people when the conversation is based on or uses the term "spirituality", either because I do not understand or because the other persons involved with the conversation are not clear in what they mean by using that word.

 

I'm sure glad folks in this thread has chosen to use the term "woo" instead.  It's much more precise. :dumbo:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, florduh said:

The "why" was all I asked for. Thanks.

 

You're welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

Great point!

 

That is an interesting concept. What if some actual alternate cause(s) for an effect was not given the time of day because some group of dogmatic experts/authorities had a fixed idea about how something 'should' work and would not even entertain other possibilities outside of their personal preference? 

 

 

Regarding magic, for what I do it's not that important  that an outcome is coincidence or not. Sometimes an event occurs that directly corresponds to being a result of casting a spell. Sure, it 'could' happen without my 'wish' for it to happen, but the odds of it just happening by itself were pretty small. Because it was such a specific effect I wanted and probably not something that is 'just gonna happen by itself." :)

 

Regarding placebo effect, something I've heard before is that Bob might have healed himself because he thought that the sugar pill was a new cancer treatment...but he still died 5 years later. But you know, the same goes for conventional medicine. People on fully approved medicine still die. Does this mean the placebo effect doesn't work? Does this mean that conventional medicine doesn't work?   If someone offered you a experimental treatment for a terminal illness at a reasonable price as a clinical trial , that would 'maybe' give you a few years more of life, would you say, "Hmmmm, have 1000 scientists approved of this treatment? What evidence is there that it works? Let me spend my final weeks or months of life researching that experimental med first."

 

I suppose I could poo-poo the idea that phillips screwdrivers are actually helpful and vow never to use one. I mean, after all they just spin the screw head anyway. Why bother with one? Or I could try learning more about using the correct size instead of just announcing to my wife, "phillips screwdrivers suck.'

 

I 'know' that in some very very rare instances people who have spent all their lives playing the piano have 'supposedly' become professional concert pianists .... but the factual evidence shows that 99.9% of the world population cannot play the piano at all. So I think the handful of famous pianists is anecdotal and thus unacceptable to my rigid thinking. If  most of the world cannot play the piano, why would I think that I could either? I mean I tried it 'once.' Couldn't do it. Nope. My playing was nothing like a professional who had  been doing it since birth. Therefore, it's impossible. :)

 

The same goes for anything that I dont personally like. If I dont want to try it then it doesn't work and I'll back up that claim by quoting 1000 other people  who spent 2 minutes trying and failed at it...or merely poo-pooed the idea out of hand without giving it a fair shake...because my belief system must be maintained. /sarcasm

 

 

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is the placebo effect is an ACTUAL effect. It's not just "subjective feelings of being better". This is why this is such a freaky thing in the medical field. People have a hard time understanding that. They think it's about "subjective feelings" when often what is being measured is more than that. Even so... let's take the experiment of "placebo knee surgery" the experiment where one group was given actual knee surgery and another wasn't given any real surgery at all but thought they were. Both groups improved to the same degree. I've experienced knee pain before. And when you have a pain like that... you just want the pain gone. I mean the problem here IS THE PAIN. So if the pain is gone, the pain is gone, problem solved. I'm really not sure what the argument is. Also I agree with you re: conventional medicine has the same issues with later failure. And sometimes drugs don't even work.

 

Like one thing they don't tell a lot of people is the "number needed to treat", this is the number of people a drug needs to be administered to to help someone. Some statin drugs are as high as 54 people before you have someone who "gets better" objectively from the treatment. So you need FIFTY FOUR people taking this drug that is not going to help them in any measurable way (and in some cases will cause another health problem) but then that 55th person gets better. How is THAT not woo? I'm not saying the drug doesn't work, but it obviously doesn't work on everybody or even most people. This is also why we have drugs tested against the placebo effect. You have to have a better than placebo effect result than the drug result and in some cases you have a pretty high placebo effect. The placebo effect for antidepressants is so high you may as well just tell people to exercise and get more vitamins. (most people. I'm not denigrating anyone for whom an antidepressant has been a lifesaver. There are those cases obviously)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

So an extreme view could be that by laying over and allowing these minor issues to go unchecked, the larger issues could go unchecked as well and people can be damaged mentally and other ways. And wouldn't we feel responsible to step in and say something about delusion that is literally causing monetary or mental damages? 

 

People can be damaged mentally and in other ways by many things. Most things in life are "play at your own risk" and while I think children and teens should be safeguarded from crazy shit because their brains aren't even fully developed yet, grown adults should have the freedom to play whatever they want at their own risk. I hate all this "for your own good" nannying that goes on as a pretext to control people and shut down opinions you don't like. (not you personally.)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think all beliefs should be open to scrutiny. The spiritually section here is a bit of a curiosity. We have a forum dedicated to those those have utilised their free thinking to escape Christianity but we have a section where questioning of beliefs in that section is openly discouraged. To the point we have to shift the topic here in the den to question it. Doesn't happen in science forum, religious forums, ToT and even ex c life. Only spirituality. Speaks volumes to me. Anyways that's a side note. I'm preparing answers to others who have responded to me... quite a lot. 

 

 

 

Re: the questioning of beliefs in this section, I really feel there is a difference. Ex-C is a site dedicated to helping people who want to leave Christianity or who are in the process of leaving, to leave. When people come uninvited into the ex-c spirituality forum for those of us who LEFT Christianity but found something else that works for us, and start just constantly arguing with us, it honestly feels more like harassment and shaming and like we didn't "properly" and "fully" deconvert like the magical wonders who went "all the way" to atheism.

 

So I think the difference is... Ex-C is not about going out into the world and finding Christians to harass and deconvert. It's about supporting people who of their own free will want out. Well those of us who have found another spiritual path don't "want out" so it just really feels like other people pushing what they feel is "best for us" onto us.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think all beliefs should be open to scrutiny. The spiritually section here is a bit of a curiosity. We have a forum dedicated to those those have utilised their free thinking to escape Christianity but we have a section where questioning of beliefs in that section is openly discouraged. To the point we have to shift the topic here in the den to question it. Doesn't happen in science forum, religious forums, ToT and even ex c life. Only spirituality. Speaks volumes to me. Anyways that's a side note. I'm preparing answers to others who have responded to me... quite a lot. 

 

 

The reason we have a protected ex-spirituality forum is because if it wasnt protected, every thread in there would be infected with the "WOO IS BULLSHIT" disease. Even with protections in place, threads there still get infected.

 

Could I seriously have a discussion about my favorite tarot cards or magical correspondences anywhere on this site without some anti-wooist on their crusade making sure that everyone is aware that whatever I'm talking about is BULLSHIT? No.

 

The anti-woo agenda must stamp out all woo...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

The reason we have a protected ex-spirituality forum is because if it wasnt protected, every thread in there would be infected with the "WOO IS BULLSHIT" disease. Even with protections in place, threads there still get infected.

 

Could I seriously have a discussion about my favorite tarot cards or magical correspondences anywhere on this site without some anti-wooist on their crusade making sure that everyone is aware that whatever I'm talking about is BULLSHIT? No.

 

The anti-woo agenda must stamp out all woo...

 

Fucking exactly. It's like a compulsion. They actually make a medication to treat OCD. Just like we've all heard about Christianity and rejected it. Those of us with some "woo" have ALL heard all the "woo is bullshit why are you so stupid and irrational" crap. And we don't accept it. I would really recommend some people who can't leave other people's beliefs alone in any context read the book: "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne. A lot of it is about understanding the differences in other people and the only way you can be truly free is to stop trying to control others.

 

I don't have a problem with non-woo people who are curious about why I think like I do. That's fine. I enjoy those discussions, with Christians also, but if there feels like there is a conversion or deconversion agenda, I'm not so into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I think all beliefs should be open to scrutiny. The spiritually section here is a bit of a curiosity. We have a forum dedicated to those those have utilised their free thinking to escape Christianity but we have a section where questioning of beliefs in that section is openly discouraged. To the point we have to shift the topic here in the den to question it. Doesn't happen in science forum, religious forums, ToT and even ex c life. Only spirituality. Speaks volumes to me. Anyways that's a side note. I'm preparing answers to others who have responded to me... quite a lot. 

 

I think there's a reason that area is protected, and that's because people who have deconverted yet feel a need for some sort of spirituality don't necessarily need to be treated as many were during deconversion ie attacked for their non belief by family and friends, emotionally abused etc. Additionally, some of them may see this spirituality as part of their recovery process; it could just be experimentation before they move on to another phase. Not all of us are able to let go of beliefs just like that. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with practicing a bit of woo if it harms no one. Some people have might have emotional needs that are met this way, and more importantly, for some they may be coping mechanisms. So, if someone copes that way and it assists them and hurts nobody, I don't think critiquing with logic and reasoning is the best method. I can understand some will take it like an attack, even if not meant that way. Like it or not, that area is this site's "safe space," and I'm in favour of it remaining that way. I know you like to debate the hell out of everything and its fun for you, but I'm just saying, feelings count in this area.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

 

Re: the questioning of beliefs in this section, I really feel there is a difference. Ex-C is a site dedicated to helping people who want to leave Christianity or who are in the process of leaving, to leave. When people come uninvited into the ex-c spirituality forum for those of us who LEFT Christianity but found something else that works for us, and start just constantly arguing with us, it honestly feels more like harassment and shaming and like we didn't "properly" and "fully" deconvert like the magical wonders who went "all the way" to atheism.

 

So I think the difference is... Ex-C is not about going out into the world and finding Christians to harass and deconvert. It's about supporting people who of their own free will want out. Well those of us who have found another spiritual path don't "want out" so it just really feels like other people pushing what they feel is "best for us" onto us.

I agree with you here and I can see your perspective. I see something quite clearly here: some are in favour of critiquing the hell out of beliefs just because they like it (or then they think only their perspective/approach is valid), instead of realizing 'hey, other people have other ways of looking at things, and mine isn't necessarily the only way, and if this gives something to other people, why the hell can't I leave them alone if they get something out of it?'

Ultimately I think some think that there is a "proper" way of thinking and approaching things, and that those that don't match it aren't fully deconverted. Well guess what, that's just your standard, which is one of many.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I suppose the argument can be made. Especially with spiritual being wrapped up in feelings of interconnection, unity of all things, oneness between man and cosmos, etc. What is the divine? The whole of it all. What does that include? Everything. 

 

There couldn't be anything not-spiritual, not even material. There's a saying, "spirit, matter, no separation." And the seemingly dark and evil in the world gets rolled into the 'hide and seek' game that the absolute is playing with itself, basically, to summarize. 

     This is the same sort of argument that tells me that YHWH is god, and my god at that, whether I like it or not.  Okay.  I guess he is.  I can't escape it.  I can only deny it.  Oh, and the entire lack of evidence for that assertion but that's irrelevant.  The truth, in that I am mistaken, will be revealed...one day.  I'm still secretly living by these rules anyway.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 3:28 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

You in on the experiment then? 

 

I haven't seen anyone on roller skates in years, maybe decades. Let along pink roller skates. That's pretty off the wall considering. 

 

I've already started, but not using any particular method. Does it require any particular method other than saying "I will see a person on pink roller skates this week"? If so why does the spell require a particular way?

 

(PS yes you are right, been a while since I've seen roller skates)

 

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

Now woo-free people:

 

1. Is a woo lifestyle a good thing for the people in whom it resonates?

 

I suppose. Assuming you are not harming yourself or others. It's like asking is believing a flat earther a good thing for people in whom is resonates. Well to a degree, such a belief is not per se harmful. But that depends on situational context.

 

Let me clarify. Regardless of woo or not woo, I think a good lifestyle is to try and believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. Personally I'm always asking is this 'thing' that I believe actually true? Why do I think its true? If I find its not true I automatically stop believing it. I don't choose to stop believing something that's not true if you get what I'm meaning. Also by "true" I am not meaning in the 100% absolutely certain god told me so true. Simply that which I have good reason to accept as true.

 

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

2. Do you feel woo will harm someone?

 

Similar answer to the above. Situational context is important. For example you I have no concerns about at all. I guess coming out of Christianity I've realized that false beliefs can be harmful, and I know I'm a priori assuming woo here to be false, but that's because I adopt the null hypothesis that something is false unless it's demonstrated to be true, rather than assuming something is true until proven false. And of course so far no one has given me sufficient reason to accept any sort of woo whatsoever except the vaguest "I feel one with nature" kind of spirituality.

 

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

3. Can you wish woo people a good life in their woo-ness?

 

Yes, and I do.

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

4. Do you feel you need to change pro-woo people's minds about woo?

 

No, but I like discussing why people believe stuff. I would assume that you'd agree that curiosity and discussion are as harmless as woo beliefs?

 

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

5. Do you accept wooists though their philosophy is opposite of yours?

 

... What do you mean "accept"? I am resigned to the fact that despite your many meaningful posts that I like, you have this wacky wooist side and I must accept that.... that kind of accept? :D 

 

13 hours ago, midniterider said:

6. Is non-woo the one true way?

 

This question assumes there is a one true way, and this hasn't been demonstrated yet so no.

 

But there are ways in which one can build an epistemology to help them understand reality as best they can. Some find this in science, some in woo. However I would say whatever you are using should comport with reality as close as possible. If it doesn't I think you just end up fooling yourself.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

Re: the questioning of beliefs in this section, I really feel there is a difference. Ex-C is a site dedicated to helping people who want to leave Christianity or who are in the process of leaving, to leave. When people come uninvited into the ex-c spirituality forum for those of us who LEFT Christianity but found something else that works for us, and start just constantly arguing with us, it honestly feels more like harassment and shaming and like we didn't "properly" and "fully" deconvert like the magical wonders who went "all the way" to atheism.

 

So I think the difference is... Ex-C is not about going out into the world and finding Christians to harass and deconvert. It's about supporting people who of their own free will want out. Well those of us who have found another spiritual path don't "want out" so it just really feels like other people pushing what they feel is "best for us" onto us.

 

If we take this same argument and apply it to science does it hold water? Because some people here will blast the crap out of science, the scientific method, experts etc. So is it a good argument for me when posting in the science forum to say you are harassing me, telling me I'm religious for accepting science etc? Should we shut out the science section to anyone who argues against it? I'd say no. I simply will either ignore, or more often, attempt to engage with reason the best I can.

 

Midnite says I'm defensive of science and the scientific method, and maybe that's at least partially true. I've been drawn to science for as long as I can remember, it's really what started me on the road out of Christianity. I also think, flawed as it is, its still our best method for getting to the best understanding of reality and what really pisses me off is when people claim that I (and others) have a religious devotion, or think science can do no wrong etc which is simply not true. I have taken this on board and try to be less defensive and more engage with a topic.

 

Midnite asks me why I feel the need to defend science. I ask you and him why do you feel the need to defend spirituality? Are we two sides of the same coin here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

 

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is the placebo effect is an ACTUAL effect. It's not just "subjective feelings of being better". This is why this is such a freaky thing in the medical field. People have a hard time understanding that. They think it's about "subjective feelings" when often what is being measured is more than that. Even so... let's take the experiment of "placebo knee surgery" the experiment where one group was given actual knee surgery and another wasn't given any real surgery at all but thought they were. Both groups improved to the same degree. I've experienced knee pain before. And when you have a pain like that... you just want the pain gone. I mean the problem here IS THE PAIN. So if the pain is gone, the pain is gone, problem solved. I'm really not sure what the argument is. Also I agree with you re: conventional medicine has the same issues with later failure. And sometimes drugs don't even work.

 

Like one thing they don't tell a lot of people is the "number needed to treat", this is the number of people a drug needs to be administered to to help someone. Some statin drugs are as high as 54 people before you have someone who "gets better" objectively from the treatment. So you need FIFTY FOUR people taking this drug that is not going to help them in any measurable way (and in some cases will cause another health problem) but then that 55th person gets better. How is THAT not woo? I'm not saying the drug doesn't work, but it obviously doesn't work on everybody or even most people. This is also why we have drugs tested against the placebo effect. You have to have a better than placebo effect result than the drug result and in some cases you have a pretty high placebo effect. The placebo effect for antidepressants is so high you may as well just tell people to exercise and get more vitamins. (most people. I'm not denigrating anyone for whom an antidepressant has been a lifesaver. There are those cases obviously)

 

It's not woo in that it can be tested and probabilities given. For some drugs its a high probability at high confidence level, other drugs its so hit and miss that I don't think they should be using them. (Statins for example... should be used sparingly and only in certain circumstances). Usually in drug trials they attempt to control for the placebo effect. It's not an unknown woo effect. It's very well known that people can feel better simply because they believe they are receiving treatment. (One could argue this is a case of mind over matter, however I'd argue its a case of your mental state affects your physiological and physiological functions.) So they try and control for this so when they say this drug will work on 90 out of 100 people they are fairly certain its the drug working, not other factors. Anti depressants I agree are a type of drug that its generally better to exercise etc rather than go on drugs. If that's failing then put people on drugs, but these days with certain classes of drugs e.g. Blood pressure, anti depressants, etc, doctors are too quick to say take a drug rather than go for long walks and chill out. (Note this is all personal opinion, I'm not a doctor, this is not advice, take it with a pinch of salt and a carrot stick).

 

Well after that ramble my point is is that if woo could be demonstrated with the same results and confidence I have when taking Panadol or asthma medication then I'd be a believer in woo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, midniterider said:

Now woo-free people:

 

1. Is a woo lifestyle a good thing for the people in whom it resonates?

     Maybe.   It depends on how we define "woo."  It's a coping mechanism.  So "woo" in the sense of smoking some pot every now and again might not be a problem however "woo" in the sense of shooting heroin might be an issue.

 

Quote

2. Do you feel woo will harm someone?

     Maybe.  I could picture someone missing out because they decided a nice Taurus was not compatible with them but a not so nice Leo was the better sign so they overlooked red-flags because of the "woo" they found important.  This is the same sort of thing as having OCD control your life.  If a drug can help sort that out for you then you should take that drug.  Making decisions based on what is essentially nonsense, even if it doesn't *seem* like nonsense to that person, is not a good way to live.  And it can be harmful it just depends on what is meant by harmful (among other things).

 

     I think that Christian Scientists are a form of woo.  They pray instead of going to the doctor.  It's very harmful.  This is no different than anyone in time past would have done to cure someone with magic(k).  It doesn't cure anyone except through coincidence.  Science, on the other hand, has managed to create solid methodology to actual try to understand the underlying issues with disease as opposed to the symptoms and this is what is allowing us to make great strides in treatment.  Woo, all woo, fails miserably in this arena.

 

Quote

3. Can you wish woo people a good life in their woo-ness?

     As opposed to what?  Is there an assumption of animosity or something here?  How about I don't think about "woo people" unless I'm confronted with it like when things like this thread come along.  Just like a lot of things in life.

 

Quote

4. Do you feel you need to change pro-woo people's minds about woo?

     Do pro-woo people feel the need to change anti-woo people's minds about woo?  Or indifferent people's minds?  Or ignorant people's minds?

 

     I deal with "woo" people the same as I deal with anyone.  I tend to leave it alone unless I become annoyed with it.  So if someone is talking along about woo and I've had my fill then I'll probably speak up.  Otherwise I let it go.  If I didn't then I'd interrupt every time anyone muttered "jesus" or "bless you" (no matter the context) or anything like that.  I'd live my life trying to change everyone.

 

Quote

5. Do you accept wooists though their philosophy is opposite of yours?

     No.  Once I identify a "wooist" I immediately abduct them and drop them into the middle of the ocean.  Problem solved.  I don't accept them.

 

     What kind of silly questions are these?

 

     You do understand that asking questions about "woo" (including asking for actual proof) or even saying that "woo" is shit on a forum such as this is entirely separate from acceptance of the wooist, right?  We do this with xians in this forum and in our daily lives.  If you guys can't sort this out then I feel sorry for you.  If you don't like this just curse me.  Now that I've said that should I now be afraid that something "bad" (for various definitions of bad) could befall me or maybe someone I know at some undefined random point in the future?  Nothing bad has ever happened to me or anyone I've ever known up until this point in my life so I'm actually getting a little nervous.

 

Quote

6. Is non-woo the one true way?

     The one true way for what?

 

     Imagine a man who has retired from his job.  Now  a gal meets him and says "What do you do for a living?"  He says "Nothing."  The hardworking gal is confused since she imagines everyone has a profession.  She can't believe he does nothing.  He must have a profession.  So she persists and asks if he's a banker, or a lawyer , or maybe something like a trucker or a farmer.  He answers "no" to each.  She asks what he does all day.  He says that he watches a little television, then maybe he reads or visits with friends.  She asks if he does anything else?  "Well," he adds, "I do a little water colors.  I'm not very good but it's a simple little hobby to pass the time."  "Aha!", she thinks, "so he's an artist.  I knew he had to have a job.  No one does nothing."

 

     I'm busy telling people that what I'm doing isn't what they think it is.  What they want it to be.  And apparently I'm wrong.  Anything I do just happens to qualify me as a practitioner in their belief system.  No one does nothing.  No matter how hard they protest.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mwc said:

     This is the same sort of argument that tells me that YHWH is god, and my god at that, whether I like it or not.  Okay.  I guess he is.  I can't escape it.  I can only deny it.  Oh, and the entire lack of evidence for that assertion but that's irrelevant.  The truth, in that I am mistaken, will be revealed...one day.  I'm still secretly living by these rules anyway.

 

          mwc

 

 

No doubt the enlightenment arguments have similarities to Judeo-Christianity. I've heard some that think that even if we've left the churches, we're still christian. We're confused or mistaken, but still YHWH's lot. But in contrast the other more popular view is that we never were "real christians" to begin with, and we're still not now. 

 

The only difference with the enlightenment view is that it's all god. Existence is god. You're god. I'm god. Everyone's god. With the enlightenment view there's no sense that we never really were god, and are not now. Or that we once were god, but even though we somehow left god we're still god. No, that doesn't make any sense against the enlightenment view. We always were god, are god now, and will always be god and there's no way of breaking the unbroken chain of godness, if you will. 

 

And we're only god because god = existence itself, infinite and eternal, all present, transcendent and immanent. 

 

That's why there's no,"not god" by that view. 

 

That's much more involved than Judeo-Christian reasoning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

No doubt the enlightenment arguments have similarities to Judeo-Christianity. I've heard some that think that even if we've left the churches, we're still christian. We're confused or mistaken, but still YHWH's lot. But in contrast the other more popular view is that we never were "real christians" to begin with, and we're still not now. 

 

The only difference with the enlightenment view is that it's all god. Existence is god. You're god. I'm god. Everyone's god. With the enlightenment view there's no sense that we never really were god, and are not now. Or that we once were god, but even though we somehow left god we're still god. No, that doesn't make any sense against the enlightenment view. We always were god, are god now, and will always be god and there's no way of breaking the unbroken chain of godness, if you will. 

 

And we're only god because god = existence itself, infinite and eternal, all present, transcendent and immanent. 

 

That's why there's no, "not god" by that view. 

 

That's much more involved than Judeo-Christian reasoning. 

     This seems a lot like a form of pantheism.  Even if it's something different I'm secretly living by these rules, correct?  I can't escape them, right?  I should probably get used to it and just sort of accept it.  Maybe even participate.  And yet they're all unproven assertions.   I don't think perceived complexity changes anything.  It just gives it a nicer veneer than xianity.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

If we take this same argument and apply it to science does it hold water? Because some people here will blast the crap out of science, the scientific method, experts etc. So is it a good argument for me when posting in the science forum to say you are harassing me, telling me I'm religious for accepting science etc? Should we shut out the science section to anyone who argues against it? I'd say no. I simply will either ignore, or more often, attempt to engage with reason the best I can.

 

Midnite says I'm defensive of science and the scientific method, and maybe that's at least partially true. I've been drawn to science for as long as I can remember, it's really what started me on the road out of Christianity. I also think, flawed as it is, its still our best method for getting to the best understanding of reality and what really pisses me off is when people claim that I (and others) have a religious devotion, or think science can do no wrong etc which is simply not true. I have taken this on board and try to be less defensive and more engage with a topic.

 

Midnite asks me why I feel the need to defend science. I ask you and him why do you feel the need to defend spirituality? Are we two sides of the same coin here?

 

I'll try to be less defensive about woo. I defend woo because I like it. Similar to your irritation over people claiming science is your religion, I get irritated over people seemingly thinking that if I cast a spell now and then that I will not be able to deal with reality, and/or that witchcraft must be the central focus of my life and I will suffer some kind of negative effect over it.

 

I suspect neither you nor I tout our personal philosophies much to other people outside this website. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual picture of myself living my normal everyday life:

 

As you can see, not much woo involved here.

 

gandalf-770x470.jpg

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mwc said:

     Maybe.   It depends on how we define "woo."  It's a coping mechanism.  So "woo" in the sense of smoking some pot every now and again might not be a problem however "woo" in the sense of shooting heroin might be an issue.

 

     Maybe.  I could picture someone missing out because they decided a nice Taurus was not compatible with them but a not so nice Leo was the better sign so they overlooked red-flags because of the "woo" they found important.  This is the same sort of thing as having OCD control your life.  If a drug can help sort that out for you then you should take that drug.  Making decisions based on what is essentially nonsense, even if it doesn't *seem* like nonsense to that person, is not a good way to live.  And it can be harmful it just depends on what is meant by harmful (among other things).

 

     I think that Christian Scientists are a form of woo.  They pray instead of going to the doctor.  It's very harmful.  This is no different than anyone in time past would have done to cure someone with magic(k).  It doesn't cure anyone except through coincidence.  Science, on the other hand, has managed to create solid methodology to actual try to understand the underlying issues with disease as opposed to the symptoms and this is what is allowing us to make great strides in treatment.  Woo, all woo, fails miserably in this arena.

 

     As opposed to what?  Is there an assumption of animosity or something here?  How about I don't think about "woo people" unless I'm confronted with it like when things like this thread come along.  Just like a lot of things in life.

 

     Do pro-woo people feel the need to change anti-woo people's minds about woo?  Or indifferent people's minds?  Or ignorant people's minds?

 

     I deal with "woo" people the same as I deal with anyone.  I tend to leave it alone unless I become annoyed with it.  So if someone is talking along about woo and I've had my fill then I'll probably speak up.  Otherwise I let it go.  If I didn't then I'd interrupt every time anyone muttered "jesus" or "bless you" (no matter the context) or anything like that.  I'd live my life trying to change everyone.

 

     No.  Once I identify a "wooist" I immediately abduct them and drop them into the middle of the ocean.  Problem solved.  I don't accept them.

 

     What kind of silly questions are these?

 

     You do understand that asking questions about "woo" (including asking for actual proof) or even saying that "woo" is shit on a forum such as this is entirely separate from acceptance of the wooist, right?  We do this with xians in this forum and in our daily lives.  If you guys can't sort this out then I feel sorry for you.  If you don't like this just curse me.  Now that I've said that should I now be afraid that something "bad" (for various definitions of bad) could befall me or maybe someone I know at some undefined random point in the future?  Nothing bad has ever happened to me or anyone I've ever known up until this point in my life so I'm actually getting a little nervous.

 

     The one true way for what?

 

     Imagine a man who has retired from his job.  Now  a gal meets him and says "What do you do for a living?"  He says "Nothing."  The hardworking gal is confused since she imagines everyone has a profession.  She can't believe he does nothing.  He must have a profession.  So she persists and asks if he's a banker, or a lawyer , or maybe something like a trucker or a farmer.  He answers "no" to each.  She asks what he does all day.  He says that he watches a little television, then maybe he reads or visits with friends.  She asks if he does anything else?  "Well," he adds, "I do a little water colors.  I'm not very good but it's a simple little hobby to pass the time."  "Aha!", she thinks, "so he's an artist.  I knew he had to have a job.  No one does nothing."

 

     I'm busy telling people that what I'm doing isn't what they think it is.  What they want it to be.  And apparently I'm wrong.  Anything I do just happens to qualify me as a practitioner in their belief system.  No one does nothing.  No matter how hard they protest.

 

          mwc

 

 

 

 

Thank you, MWC for your reply. Working, so no time for comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I'll try to be less defensive about woo. I defend woo because I like it. Similar to your irritation over people claiming science is your religion, I get irritated over people seemingly thinking that if I cast a spell now and then that I will not be able to deal with reality, and/or that witchcraft must be the central focus of my life and I will suffer some kind of negative effect over it.

 

I suspect neither you nor I tout our personal philosophies much to other people outside this website. :)

All of us like woo, I suspect. Some of us indulge in it with reading fantasy, sci fi, etc. Some of us go further and "practice" it. I think woo is just the fun side of life, and indulging in it doesn't mean that you can't deal with reality. It's when the woo is used to gain power/influence over people or is harmful, just like some other beliefs are, that it goes off the rails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

All of us like woo, I suspect. Some of us indulge in it with reading fantasy, sci fi, etc. Some of us go further and "practice" it. I think woo is just the fun side of life, and indulging in it doesn't mean that you can't deal with reality. It's when the woo is used to gain power/influence over people or is harmful, just like some other beliefs are, that it goes off the rails.

 

Moderation in all things. Too bad my employer would not agree with that. Ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I agree with you here and I can see your perspective. I see something quite clearly here: some are in favour of critiquing the hell out of beliefs just because they like it (or then they think only their perspective/approach is valid), instead of realizing 'hey, other people have other ways of looking at things, and mine isn't necessarily the only way, and if this gives something to other people, why the hell can't I leave them alone if they get something out of it?'

Ultimately I think some think that there is a "proper" way of thinking and approaching things, and that those that don't match it aren't fully deconverted. Well guess what, that's just your standard, which is one of many.

 

 

 

By the same token, one might also argue that those who can't leave others the hell alone without trying to change their beliefs never really stopped being fundamentalists.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.