The Artist vs The Scientist

[VerbosityCat]

I think the disconnect between hardline materialists and ex-c people who are spiritual has to do with the archetype of "the artist" and "the scientist". I think we are dealing with a category error here. I think there are basically 2 types of people who leave Xtianity and they end up in different camps because they ARE two diff types. Some people see life in a more mystical/spiritual way. For those people leaving Xtianity is about breaking free of a slave cult that tried to force them to "obey without question" instead of finding their own spiritual answers. The more materialist/scientific people leave Xtianity to break free also and have the ability to be who they are which is different than who the artist/mystic is.

 

But the atheist assumes that the point of leaving Xtianity is "leaving all spirituality" (which is true for them), so they project that onto a totally different type of person with a totally different goal and reason for leaving something like Christianity.

Basically we are two different groups with two very different ways of seeing the world who were BOTH harmed by Christianity but that is where our similarity ends so to assume that spiritual people "aren't done deconverting yet" or that atheists were "just too hurt by Xtianity to see the spiritual side of life" employs a category error in assuming we are "all the same type of person with the same end goals" and we just simply are not.

 

Discuss?

[florduh]

30 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

But the atheist assumes that the point of leaving Xtianity is "leaving all spirituality"

I beg to differ. I think that with some investigation on this very site you will find that almost everybody who leaves Christianity initially looks into other religions or spiritual practices. After trying those roads and finding them as fruitless as Christianity they eventually realize they don't believe in any gods, Christian, Pagan or anything else. Christianity didn't work so does this work? Does this make sense? There just MUST be something real that Christianity and other religions are based on. No? Well, moving on then.... becomes an atheist who demands evidence from now on.

 

But sometimes an unfamiliar or exotic brand of belief catches one's attention, at least for awhile. Sometimes that interest lasts. Sometimes it doesn't. I know people who have become disillusioned first with Christianity and then Buddhism and various strains of Paganism. We evolve with how much we need to believe and how much we can believe.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

But the atheist  materialist/scientific assumes that the point of leaving Xtianity is "leaving all spirituality" (which is true for them), so they project that onto a totally different type of person with a totally different goal and reason for leaving something like Christianity.

 

I'm not sure the term atheist is the correct to use in this sense because I see no reason why a person cannot be both atheist and spiritual. Remember atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. You are a theist, and a spiritual one, but you could also have no belief in the Norse gods and still retain all of your spirituality.

 

The correct term as you used is probably materialist/scientist or even methodological naturalist because I freely admit those types will demand evidence for any claim made, especially those of a spiritual or magical nature.

 

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

Basically we are two different groups with two very different ways of seeing the world who were BOTH harmed by Christianity but that is where our similarity ends so to assume that spiritual people "aren't done deconverting yet" or that atheists were "just too hurt by Xtianity to see the spiritual side of life" employs a category error in assuming we are "all the same type of person with the same end goals" and we just simply are not.

 

Discuss?

 

Well to discuss that you'd actually need a claim of me claiming you haven't deconverted yet, a claim I've never made so pointless discussing it?

 

However I agree we see the world differently possibly due to makeup. I am and have been a very logical analytical type of person all my life (Which makes the length of time I spent in Christianity strange... until you consider my personal circumstances)

 

So regardless of whether I am atheist or theist if you come to me and say spells work and the universe itself is conscious I'm going to say evidence please. That IS NOT me saying to you that you are stupid/not deconverted/bat shit crazy.

 

Any category error I might be guilty of is the assumption that some epistemological methods are better than others at getting to what is true, or close as possible. For example if your method is believing everything you hear then you (I think you'll agree) will end up very confused, and very wrong on a lot of stuff. I mean you'd end up both theist and atheist which would cause cognitive dissonance and that's just the start! You'd also believe that the earth is a sphere and flat, that round squares exist etc. So we need reliable methods to determine what comports to reality as much as possible so that we don't get the idea of flying off a building!

 

Does that make sense?

[TruthSeeker0]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

 We evolve with how much we need to believe and how much we can believe.

I agree with this point, and I think this is largely what's at the root of it, not so much that there are two different archetypes.  I think that is too simplistic, and that the process of leaving Christianity is much more complex. For example I consider myself a spiritual person, an artist, and an atheist all in one, but it could be that we're just using different connotations/understandings of the word here.

 

I didn't consider that the point of being atheist was leaving all spirituality, in fact I think if you confine spirituality to such a narrow perspective, that isn't a good thing at all. For example, I think even some of the hardcore atheists on here would call themselves spiritual in some sense of the word, in the sense that spirituality can be associated with deep feelings. So, I think we unnecessarily set people in camps that appear to be poles apart, when that isn't necessarily the case at all, and that there are degrees on this scale, according to how much we can believe, and how much need we have to believe. And this more than anything else is probably where differences in the way the brain works comes into play, ie do we believe or not.

[VerbosityCat]

On 10/24/2018 at 8:45 PM, florduh said:

I beg to differ. I think that with some investigation on this very site you will find that almost everybody who leaves Christianity initially looks into other religions or spiritual practices. After trying those roads and finding them as fruitless as Christianity they eventually realize they don't believe in any gods, Christian, Pagan or anything else. Christianity didn't work so does this work? Does this make sense? There just MUST be something real that Christianity and other religions are based on. No? Well, moving on then.... becomes an atheist who demands evidence from now on.

 

But sometimes an unfamiliar or exotic brand of belief catches one's attention, at least for awhile. Sometimes that interest lasts. Sometimes it doesn't. I know people who have become disillusioned first with Christianity and then Buddhism and various strains of Paganism. We evolve with how much we need to believe and how much we can believe.

 

With all due respect I think you're misunderstanding me. Yes, you may have tried other things, many atheists may have and come out at the end with atheism and materialism but that is because they are the type of person whose brain his hardwired toward empiricism in a way where they simply do not fundamentally see the world in a mythopoetic way so you look for ways of proving things that simply don't exist whereas the "artist" sees the world in a more imaginal way and so for them there is a spiritual path that is necessary for their functioning in the world. We really are two different types of people. Again, I'm not saying atheists are in any way being "dishonest" intellectually or otherwise. I'm saying your brain is wired differently than mine. Fundamentally. 

[VerbosityCat]

23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I'm not sure the term atheist is the correct to use in this sense because I see no reason why a person cannot be both atheist and spiritual. Remember atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. You are a theist, and a spiritual one, but you could also have no belief in the Norse gods and still retain all of your spirituality.

 

The correct term as you used is probably materialist/scientist or even methodological naturalist because I freely admit those types will demand evidence for any claim made, especially those of a spiritual or magical nature.

 

 

Well to discuss that you'd actually need a claim of me claiming you haven't deconverted yet, a claim I've never made so pointless discussing it?

 

However I agree we see the world differently possibly due to makeup. I am and have been a very logical analytical type of person all my life (Which makes the length of time I spent in Christianity strange... until you consider my personal circumstances)

 

So regardless of whether I am atheist or theist if you come to me and say spells work and the universe itself is conscious I'm going to say evidence please. That IS NOT me saying to you that you are stupid/not deconverted/bat shit crazy.

 

Any category error I might be guilty of is the assumption that some epistemological methods are better than others at getting to what is true, or close as possible. For example if your method is believing everything you hear then you (I think you'll agree) will end up very confused, and very wrong on a lot of stuff. I mean you'd end up both theist and atheist which would cause cognitive dissonance and that's just the start! You'd also believe that the earth is a sphere and flat, that round squares exist etc. So we need reliable methods to determine what comports to reality as much as possible so that we don't get the idea of flying off a building!

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

Yes you're completely right about the materialist thing instead of atheist. I thought I was clear in the "type of atheist" I was talking about, but perhaps not. 

 

I never said YOU personally made any such claim but many hardline materialist atheists HAVE and DO often make such claims. And I don't mean on this site alone, I mean IN GENERAL there is a sort of smug attitude among hardline materialists in general toward anybody who hasn't reached the same conclusions they have.

 

I get what you're saying but I still think you make category errors in assuming the mythopoetic/imaginal/spiritual must conform to the rules of the material world. It simply doesn't. I also find that materialists often want to ascribe types of beliefs most intelligent spiritual people simply don't have. Like this idea that "magic doesn't work if it doesn't regrow fingers" meme that got going in another thread. SUBTLE energies means just that. 

 

But again, I don't want to "argue" over who has the "right way of seeing the world" because I just think that's stupid. BOTH the scientist archetype and the artist archetype are necessary in our world. You may not like how the artist brain works or might not think it's "right" but a lot of creative beautiful shit that you enjoy in the world came about from people who think in the mythopoetic way that I do. By the same token I'm not going to denigrate materialists because people like you bring us medicine and technology and other super useful shit that make the world objectively better.

[VerbosityCat]

22 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I agree with this point, and I think this is largely what's at the root of it, not so much that there are two different archetypes.  I think that is too simplistic, and that the process of leaving Christianity is much more complex. For example I consider myself a spiritual person, an artist, and an atheist all in one, but it could be that we're just using different connotations/understandings of the word here.

 

I didn't consider that the point of being atheist was leaving all spirituality, in fact I think if you confine spirituality to such a narrow perspective, that isn't a good thing at all. For example, I think even some of the hardcore atheists on here would call themselves spiritual in some sense of the word, in the sense that spirituality can be associated with deep feelings. So, I think we unnecessarily set people in camps that appear to be poles apart, when that isn't necessarily the case at all, and that there are degrees on this scale, according to how much we can believe, and how much need we have to believe. And this more than anything else is probably where differences in the way the brain works comes into play, ie do we believe or not.

 

I meant SPECIFICALLY the hardline materialist type of atheist. I thought I was clear in that. Perhaps not. I do NOT mean atheists cannot be spiritual. That's obviously totally goofy and I don't think that way. Well maybe it wasn't obvious since now two people thought I meant that and maybe I communicated in a way that was unclear. It's just really cumbersome to constantly have to type out "materialist atheist"

[VerbosityCat]

Also @TruthSeeker there is a scale here. Like it isn't black and white. Hardline materialist atheist is ONE extreme and TOTAL WOO AND BELIEVING IN ALL THE THINGS (which I don't do either), is the other extreme. Then there are people at all points along that spectrum. But there is a spectrum and modes of thinking/being in the world and there is a point where most people are really more "one or the other" thing. Though there are obviously people along all points. I was merely trying to explain my perspective of the disconnect between those on the one extreme and those on the other end of the spectrum.

[florduh]

11 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

I'm saying your brain is wired differently than mine. Fundamentally.

 

Yet despite the supposed difference in fundamental wiring we both became Christians. Odd, yes?

[VerbosityCat]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

 

Yet despite the supposed difference in fundamental wiring we both became Christians. Odd, yes?

 

 

Not really. I was born into that slavery. I was scared of it because it was all I knew and all the adults around me seemed to believe it and think it was just fine and dandy, but I never TRULY swallowed that kool aid, despite the fear it caused me. I was on my way out of it as soon as I could drive. And as soon as I was a legal adult I was out of that church and soon after out of Christianity altogether. This isn't like something I came to as an adult after my logical reasoning had started working.

 

I think it would be quite a stretch to say I "became a christian" in any sort of real way. I was 8. I wanted my parents to be happy with me. I didn't want to burn forever. again... i was 8! At that same point in my life I also thought monsters might be in my closet.

[Joshpantera]

It may seem that way looking around at the moment. But Florduh's right about how it usually works. People will go from christian, to deism (quite often), to exploring the pantheisms or paganism, maybe Hinduism or Buddhism, and then finally settle into atheism. That's a common evolution. 

 

Granted, it may be common because of underlying factors like some being prone to spiritual thinking and others not so much. We know this as well because several members have admitted that they were never really spiritual while they were christians, they were just part of a group. And so leaving christianity they still aren't especially spiritual any more now than they were back then. I believe both LF and Geezer have professed this very thing here in the spirituality section more than once, to name a few examples. That would be more or less what you're theorizing about. Maybe some people not being naturally inclined to spiritual thinking could go from christianity through deism and other beliefs and finally land non-spiritual atheist. 

 

As for spiritual atheists, we have a thread about that too. The Pantheism's and other varieties of naturalist thinking are considered spiritual atheism. As are some forms of Buddhism. 

[VerbosityCat]

13 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

It may seem that way looking around at the moment. But Florduh's right about how it usually works. People will go from christian, to deism (quite often), to exploring the pantheisms or paganism, maybe Hinduism or Buddhism, and then finally settle into atheism. That's a common evolution. 

 

Granted, it may be common because of underlying factors like some being prone to spiritual thinking and others not so much. We know this as well because several members have admitted that they were never really spiritual while they were christians, they were just part of a group. And so leaving christianity they still aren't especially spiritual any more now than they were back then. I believe both LF and Geezer have professed this very thing here in the spirituality section more than once, to name a few examples. That would be more or less what you're theorizing about. Maybe some people not being naturally inclined to spiritual thinking could go from christianity through deism and other beliefs and finally land non-spiritual atheist. 

 

As for spiritual atheists, we have a thread about that too. The Pantheism's and other varieties of naturalist thinking are considered spiritual atheism. As are some forms of Buddhism. 

 

 

Yes, that's what I'm basically trying to get at. That's a common evolution for someone for whom a materialist way of viewing the world is the "most natural thing". Each person has a "most natural thing" which has to do with how their brain is wired. Their general personality. Their needs. Their values and priorities in life. A whole host of shit will define that. And people seek and seek until they get to "the end of the rainbow" so to speak. For the hardline materialists the end of the rainbow is materialism and NO woo. And they assume because they've walked this path and tried these different things and ended up here that this is the "normal endpoint for all people who are honest and really truly deconverted" and that's just not so. That's true for THEM... "the scientist archetype". It's not true for people who fundamentally see the world in a mythopoetic way and whose spirit will not be satisfied without that imaginal way of viewing and interacting with the world.

 

For me, I never really "clicked" with Christianity. I hated it. It felt foreign and just totally unappealing and horrifying even as a young child. I tried pretty much every brand of everything (including materialistic atheism) I mean I explored every fucking philosophy. I got tired and was going to just "make up my own thing" because I really believed that what I was just "didn't exist" in the real world. Then I found the old gods and I was home and that was that.

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

And they assume because they've walked this path and tried these different things and ended up here that this is the "normal endpoint for all people who are honest and really truly deconverted" and that's just not so. That's true for THEM... "the scientist archetype". It's not true for people who fundamentally see the world in a mythopoetic way and whose spirit will not be satisfied without that imaginal way of viewing and interacting with the world.

 

This is a good point to make. @ThereAndBackAgain and myself are two members who have been outspoken about things like full deconversion and becoming immune to returning to christianity. We've both leaned strongly on atheism as well, but at the same time I've been utilizing spiritual minded agnostic atheism as part of that, and TABA has been curious of it and what they may entail. I've taken heat from some folks for posting in the spirituality section as well as simply using the term, "spiritual." My friend Mark used to give me grief like that because he couldn't wrap his mind around why any one would think in spiritual terms about a universe which is so indifferent to life. We had lengthy discussions about it where he basically saw it as something short of full deconversion. One last crutch to get over. 

 

My thinking has been somewhat limited to spiritual minded agnostic atheism, just because that's my own perspective. But lately, having taken up looking at other peoples perspective a lot more than I have previously (such as MR's modern oriented Chaos Magick and Sigil usage, and your theistic view points), I have to say that it's opening my own perspective a lot more. You guys are getting through to me that my previous opinions about deconversion and immunity may have been too narrow. Because I don't see either of you as likely to ever return to christianity on account of this various, "woo woo." You're both quite strong in your deconversions and I think you deserve respect where respect is due. The idea that if someone is tied up in spiritual belief they are less deconverted or must get over that hurtle doesn't have very much appeal in the face of all of this. 

 

I have no problem standing corrected where I once took too narrow a perspective. 

[florduh]

11 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

This isn't like something I came to as an adult after my logical reasoning had started working.

But I did.

[VerbosityCat]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

But I did.

 

That's interesting. It's simply another way, though in which we are "not the same". Here is the thing... if Christianity had made you TRULY happy you would still be a Christian. You would have no reason to leave. Obviously it did not. Now, Christianity may have met a lot of emotional needs for you, but obviously it didn't allow for genuine happiness because you valued other things above the emotional high you may have once gotten in Christianity. It didn't allow you to be intellectually free. So you found your way out to something that made you happy. I presume you are not miserable in your current worldview. If you find that you are, you will either remain a slave to it or you will find a way to be some other thing or think some other way (as evidenced by all the spiritual atheists). Everyone has that way of being that is most natural and normal to them that makes them the most happy and fulfills the most number of needs for them. Materialist thinking may be that thing for you. It is not that thing for me. I am not in a cage because I think as I do. But I would be in a cage if I was pushed into thinking as you do. You would be in a cage if I could make you think as I do. It's okay to acknowledge we are really both free and following a path that makes us each happy. We are not the same.

 

I truly believe that many people on this site would benefit from reading "How I Found Freedom In an Unfree World" By Harry Browne. He was a libertarian but the book is NOT about being a libertarian. But it is about teaching you how to be free and how to allow others that same freedom. It is about getting out of mental boxes and being true to who you actually are and not who you are pressured to be by whatever outside forces.

 

 

[VerbosityCat]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is a good point to make. @ThereAndBackAgain and myself are two members who have been outspoken about things like full deconversion and becoming immune to returning to christianity. We've both leaned strongly on atheism as well, but at the same time I've been utilizing spiritual minded agnostic atheism as part of that, and TABA has been curious of it and what they may entail. I've taken heat from some folks for posting in the spirituality section as well as simply using the term, "spiritual." My friend Mark used to give me grief like that because he couldn't wrap his mind around why any one would think in spiritual terms about a universe which is so indifferent to life. We had lengthy discussions about it where he basically saw it as something short of full deconversion. One last crutch to get over. 

 

My thinking has been somewhat limited to spiritual minded agnostic atheism, just because that's my own perspective. But lately, having taken up looking at other peoples perspective a lot more than I have previously (such as MR's modern oriented Chaos Magick and Sigil usage, and your theistic view points), I have to say that it's opening my own perspective a lot more. You guys are getting through to me that my previous opinions about deconversion and immunity may have been too narrow. Because I don't see either of you as likely to ever return to christianity on account of this various, "woo woo." You're both quite strong in your deconversions and I think you deserve respect where respect is due. The idea that if someone is tied up in spiritual belief they are less deconverted or must get over that hurtle doesn't have very much appeal in the face of all of this. 

 

I have no problem standing corrected where I once took too narrow a perspective. 

 

I can tell you without a doubt I am 100% immune to returning to christianity. And here is the thing you should understand (and from reading your post, I really think you do)... if someone NEEDS a more spiritual way of viewing the world and you are trying to "protect them from themselves" by making them be "full atheists" then you are DENYING them something they need to be happy  in life. So when life gets hard for them, they WILL be susceptible ironically to returning to Christianity. When shit gets hard for me... I don't turn to Christianity. I turn to the old gods. I figure out how my ancestors might have handled this. I call upon their strength and determination in order to strengthen my own. Heathenry is NOT about being a slave. It's about becoming strong and becoming the most potent version of who you are. It is not weakness. It is not slavery. It is not "mind control" (though some heathens ironically seem to want to dogmatize and codify this shit. Some personality types just CANNOT let others be free.) Christianity is so fucking foreign to that that there simply is no chance I would just wake up one day have a struggle and go back to bible god. I have an ENTIRE system I've built up around myself that RECOGNIZES my own nature and what I NEED to exist and function in this world and that has allowed me to supply that for myself WITHOUT a slave system like Christianity.

 

So I appreciate you being forthright about this. It's something I've long suspected that there is this "fear" of people falling back into Christianity. But the truth of the matter is, those of us who simply ARE NOT ATHEISTS cannot function as such and it is HORRIBLY cruel to try to push people into a fully materialistic worldview if that is harmful to THEM as it is to push them into Christianity. Both are REALLY negative ways of seeing the world IMO. And pessimism is not an inherent virtue. Nor does a cynical way of viewing the world automatically mean you are a "smarter person". There are a LOT of dumb people who think they are smart by virtue of "being atheists" but they don't have a sophisticated philosophy, they're just parroting things smarter people than them have said. Like Christopher Hitchens? He was brilliant. The average atheist, though, is just as much a mind-controlled programmed slave as any Christian. As evidenced by the sheer dogmatism and inability to think any thoughts they were not programmed to think.

 

I can no more be an atheist than a crow can be a dolphin and when atheists PUSH AND PUSH for this all it does is alienate spiritual people. I am not being harmed by my belief system. In fact one of the boundaries I've set is to constantly re-evaluate and if some way of thinking is harming me, making me unhappy, or making me less free, I re-evaluate it. I have a SYSTEM IN PLACE to deal with this.

 

It's pretty insulting to treat grown adults like children who can't be trusted "not to fall back into Christianity". As well meaning as it is, it's misguided because if you deny spiritual people the right and space to be and develop a spirituality that works for them, you actually are not protecting them from returning to Christianity, you are practically guaranteeing it, by setting up a black and white situation in which it's christianity vs atheism. Where do you think the spiritual person will go from there?

 

And thank you, you have NO idea how much it means to me to have someone like you acknowledge that I AM free of that shit. And no, I am not in another cage. I take it as a point of pride that I fought my way to the old gods. This is not something enslaving me. It's my fucking family. It's my ancestors. It's the people before me who didn't have to deal with the shitshow of the modern world as it stands. Something I feel really and truly connected to.

 

And I know I just mentioned this to another person, but SERIOUSLY, if there is one book anybody reads in their lifetime I really think it should be "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". That is also a book I use any time I find myself trapped in ANY boxes. And frankly if we gave every deconverting Christian a copy of this book, nobody would have to worry about them getting "sucked back in" because if you learn HOW mental processes work and HOW to determine who YOU are and what makes YOU free and happy, then no one can take that away from you but you.

 

I'm much less free arguing with people on this board than I am with the old gods.  I can tell you that right now.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

Here is the thing... if Christianity had made you TRULY happy you would still be a Christian. You would have no reason to leave.

 

Now I think you have touched on an actual difference in how our brains work.

 

I did not become a Christian to make me happy, I was emotionally convinced it was true. I am not driven by what makes me happy but what is real and true. I was quite happy as a Christian, though. My deeper and deeper study to become a better Christian exposed the cracks in the foundation and eventually it fell as I was studying at Moody. It fell and hit me like a ton of bricks. I never looked back nor did I blame anyone other than myself for making a huge decision based solely on emotion.

[midniterider]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

My thinking has been somewhat limited to spiritual minded agnostic atheism, just because that's my own perspective. But lately, having taken up looking at other peoples perspective a lot more than I have previously (such as MR's modern oriented Chaos Magick and Sigil usage, and your theistic view points), I have to say that it's opening my own perspective a lot more. You guys are getting through to me that my previous opinions about deconversion and immunity may have been too narrow. Because I don't see either of you as likely to ever return to christianity on account of this various, "woo woo." You're both quite strong in your deconversions and I think you deserve respect where respect is due. The idea that if someone is tied up in spiritual belief they are less deconverted or must get over that hurtle doesn't have very much appeal in the face of all of this. 

 

 

 

I think if you aren't going through your day mentally kowtowing to, or worrying about your relationship with Jebus, then I think you're deconverted enough.

 

[VerbosityCat]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

 

Now I think you have touched on an actual difference in how our brains work.

 

I did not become a Christian to make me happy, I was emotionally convinced it was true. I am not driven by what makes me happy but what is real and true. I was quite happy as a Christian, though. My deeper and deeper study to become a better Christian exposed the cracks in the foundation and eventually it fell as I was studying at Moody. It fell and hit me like a ton of bricks. I never looked back nor did I blame anyone other than myself for making a huge decision based solely on emotion.

 

Ugh, I really am supposed to be taking a break LOL I just forgot something I wanted to tell a friend in PM, a book recommendation (Midniterider check your messages), but I want to take a moment to address this. We are speaking past each other. YOU are the type of person obviously who cannot be functionally happy and whole if you don't believe something is factually true. This is about the various value systems different people have. My highest value is freedom. Yours  may be truth. The reason mine is freedom is because I think it's more functionally useful to be free than it is to be "right" because being "right" is even much more tenuous a proposition than being free is.

 

Also it's impossible for me to fight to be free and fight to be "right" at the same time. The latter ensconces me in pointless debates (like I've allowed myself to get sucked into on this site) and by definition reduces my freedom. (which is why I'm taking a week off and "resetting") I can't be free to the extent that I HAVE to be "right" because I cannot change how other people think/see the world. And they can't change how I think/see the world. It's that saying, a mind convinced against its will remains unconvinced still. So it really is POINTLESS to have these endless debates between the spiritual people and the nonspiritual people. Because neither side is changing their mind. One side can attempt to bully the other, but that is only a method of silencing, that's not a way of changing someone's internal wiring.

 

I am what I am. You are what you are. I accept you as you are. I can't force you to accept me, but it doesn't matter because I'd rather be free (including free of the constant need to seek approval from those who disagree with me), than to be "right"

 

And another part of this is... if the materialist is right... great... so they're right but what do you actually GET out of that. You surely don't get to say "haha I was right!" So I guess I understand why materialists so often feel compelled to argue in the here and now. Because if you can't convince people who disagree with you that you're right here, well, there is no other place you will get to "win". But ultimately it doesn't MATTER if I'm "right" or not. What matters is that I have a system that is functionally useful to me, that makes me happy, that helps me to develop into my highest self.

 

Let me ask you this... would it be more useful for me to know the "truth" as you see it and be depressed and nihilistic and not accomplish anything in my life and live a quiet, fearful, sad little existence thinking "oh what's the point of anything?" Or would it be better for me to have the system of seeing the world I have which leads to me becoming a stronger more independent person and actually accomplishing my life goals? Which vision of a life has more value? See I just don't think "being right" has that much value if it's not functional for the person who is "right". 

 

 

There is just too much information and too much we can't know. Certainly we all live with a certain level of uncertainty and there are definitely things like Christianity we both reject out of hand, but I don't believe you are the type of person who could be happy as a spiritual person because of your value system. It's your recognition of your own value system that allows you to be happy. Like if you were MISERABLE right now with how you think about life... you'd find another way. And if you wouldn't, maybe that would be worth re-evaluating. Like why is "truth" (something which you actually can't really KNOW in any 100% objective sense about how everything works) more valuable than your own happiness? What value is a life lived for 'the truth' if every day of it is spent in utter misery and depression?

 

Obviously this way of thinking does NOT result in your utter misery and depression, but if it did, you would find another way. That's my point. I'm not sure we're going to be able to communicate on this issue because you think you are operating from some totally objective place. You can't see your own biases and refuse to see them. To you you have THE TRUTH. And that's fine. You're welcome to it, but if you were MISERABLE, it wouldn't hold this high a value for you.

[florduh]

6 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

To you you have THE TRUTH.

 

No, I seek the truth. Open to any new evidence. Change my mind, it can and has been changed before. Go for it!

[VerbosityCat]

5 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

No, I seek the truth. Open to any new evidence. Change my mind, it can and has been changed before. Go for it!

 

I don't need to change your mind. I don't care what you believe. Be free. Be you. But allow me that same opportunity.

[VerbosityCat]

5 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

No, I seek the truth. Open to any new evidence. Change my mind, it can and has been changed before. Go for it!

 

Also, I edited my last post so the version you read may not have been the final version that is now up.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

I don't need to change your mind. I don't care what you believe. Be free. Be you. But allow me that same opportunity.

 

Would evidence, or lack of evidence, change your mind? In religion and politics evidence seem to not matter so I'm just curious.

 

I don't care what people believe. Believe in the tooth fairy or faith healing or astrology. Hell, I am friends with a Scientologist and some Catholics! We only have a problem when you actually deny your kids medical care in favor of prayer, spells or homeopathy. I still can't help being curious how people come to believe things long debunked.

[midniterider]

11 hours ago, florduh said:

 

Would evidence, or lack of evidence, change your mind? In religion and politics evidence seem to not matter so I'm just curious.

 

I don't care what people believe. Believe in the tooth fairy or faith healing or astrology. Hell, I am friends with a Scientologist and some Catholics! We only have a problem when you actually deny your kids medical care in favor of prayer, spells or homeopathy. I still can't help being curious how people come to believe things long debunked.

 

The onus is on the person claiming something has been debunked to show evidence of the debunking.

 

................

 

http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/daniel-drasin-zen-and-the-art-of-debunkery/

V. HANDY TIPS AND TRICKS

• Use debunkery itself as a-priori disproof. Gesture as if brushing away a housefly and simply assert, “Oh, that’s been widely debunked.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

4 hours ago, midniterider said:

The onus is on the person claiming something has been debunked to show evidence of the debunking.

 

Creationists refuse to accept information that debunks their belief. There is no amount of debunking that would change their mind.