New Christian Visitor

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I think this is the MAIN place where I have an issue with how I saw, experienced Christianity. I remember vividly, like a divine intervention, the moment where I had a flash of detachment and asked, but, how do I know my experience is valid and the Muslim and Hindu not when my interpretation is basically based on faith(trust) and obedience?

 

        If subjectivity is, like one of your replies, inherent in human knowledge, then our ONLY way to truth is the opposite of faith, which is skepticism. 

     If again, God is not bound by human rules, then we have no way of understanding him, so skepticism towards any God propositions seems the logical step.

      If your thoughts are just as valid as mine, then you have juat destroyed your entire argument - then an atheist is just as right as you are, so again skepticism towards the idea of Absolute truth.

    I am  (somewhat?) begining to practice daoism, but it is a form based on a basic skepticism - I realise the inherent limit of my thoughts and experience and am willing to enter conversation. 

    I believe this is the attitude of healthy knowledge making ( I want to avoid the term "science" here as it might be too broad and too narrow in the same time) - an investigative skepticism. At least this is what I am trying to enact in my life at the moment.

 

 

Perhaps you would like to explain all of this, in greater depth, to Edgarcito, Myrkhoos?

 

He seems to take the opposite view.

 

For him, because everything is subjective, the ONLY way to truth is through faith.

 

And faith only in one specific god.

 

Care to do that?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you would like to explain all of this, in greater depth, to Edgarcito, Myrkhoos?

 

He seems to take the opposite view.

 

For him, because everything is subjective, the ONLY way to truth is through faith.

 

And faith only in one specific god.

 

Care to do that?

 

It might be easier to just go beat his head against a wall.  

[Myrkhoos]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you would like to explain all of this, in greater depth, to Edgarcito, Myrkhoos?

 

He seems to take the opposite view.

 

For him, because everything is subjective, the ONLY way to truth is through faith.

 

And faith only in one specific god.

 

Care to do that?

I would like to, but I am not sure what more I can really say. I mean it's not really THAT complicated. Or that deep. There are philosophical topics worth books, but this is just...basic stuff. Do you think it is? I am truly asking because I fail to see how this issue confuses people. 

     I mean , I had this exchange with that believing friend where I said - can we accept that certain words have certain definitions that, while sometimes more open, cannot mean something else entirely. This friend said - no, you just cannot see beyond the "surface". If something as basic as ..you know, we just cannot invent new meanings for words out of the blue if we are to have a dialogue cannot be accepted, what can one really do?

     And sadly, this is my overall, not absolute but overall, not pointing fingers,  impression of believers - in defense of their belief, everything is logical and profound, everything against it is absurd and superficial. This is where they start and will not budge. This is their axiomatic stance. Sometimes I truly think they need, as I needed probably, this " personal experience/epiphany" if we are on this subject anyway to see how that is just a mind trap. 

   How deep can you explain that if you have two apples and Mary gives another one, you have three apples? I'm not being sarcastic, but I really think this is not about rational explanation past a point, but subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics at play.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

I would like to, but I am not sure what more I can really say. I mean it's not really THAT complicated. Or that deep. There are philosophical topics worth books, but this is just...basic stuff. Do you think it is? I am truly asking because I fail to see how this issue confuses people. 

 

No Myrkhoos, I don't think that it's too deep or too complicated for believers to see that complete subjectivity should lead to complete scepticism.  If nothing can be truly known for what it is, then nothing should really be trusted - resulting in a default position of across-the-board scepticism.

 

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

     I mean , I had this exchange with that believing friend where I said - can we accept that certain words have certain definitions that, while sometimes more open, cannot mean something else entirely. This friend said - no, you just cannot see beyond the "surface". If something as basic as ..you know, we just cannot invent new meanings for words out of the blue if we are to have a dialogue cannot be accepted, what can one really do?

 

Yes, we've seen similar things written in this forum.  Because everything is subjective there are infinite possibilities that we can never know about or understand, let alone agree upon.  Destroying agreement over the meaning of words or the definition of things is one way a believer can keep their options open.

 

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

     And sadly, this is my overall, not absolute but overall, not pointing fingers,  impression of believers - in defense of their belief, everything is logical and profound, everything against it is absurd and superficial. This is where they start and will not budge.

 

Yes, we've seen this too in Ex-C.

 

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

 

This is their axiomatic stance. Sometimes I truly think they need, as I needed probably, this " personal experience/epiphany" if we are on this subject anyway to see how that is just a mind trap. 

   How deep can you explain that if you have two apples and Mary gives another one, you have three apples? I'm not being sarcastic, but I really think this is not about rational explanation past a point, but subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics at play.

 

Ah yes, but reason, logic and rationality are the great enemies of faith.  If a believer chooses not to use them, then they WILL NOT do it!  Myrkhoos, I call these subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics what they really are.

 

Emotions. 

 

People ask Jesus into their lives for emotional reasons and not because they have followed a logical process of rational thought.  People believe things by faith and without evidence, because of their emotions.  People want the comfort and security of a loving god for emotional reasons.  Religion is a fundamental part of the human psyche, the world over and throughout history, not because it is true but because it fulfils the basic emotional needs that all people have.

 

Emotions explain why people will reject the many contradictions in the bible.

Emotions explain why people will cherry pick what they want from the bible.

Emotions explain why people will deny evidence that conflicts with what is in the bible.

Emotions explain why people will avoid applying logic to what's written in the bible.

Emotions explain why people will avoid answering questions about the bible.

 

There are no logical or rational reasons for these behaviours.  Therefore, the culprit for Christian disingenuousness, obfuscation, dodging and denial must originate in their emotions.

 

Or their subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics, if you like.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

[Edgarcito]

I don't know that there's anything wrong with skepticism.  Seems a logical end to subjectivity, affirmation or skepticism.  For me, I've been affirmed so many times it's not a point for me anymore.  With science, there's also affirmation and skepticism....and faith in the scientific process.  So we look at multiple standards, religions and science, and maybe one or the combination of several satisfy our subjective feel for truth.   Nott sure, as Myrkhoos says, it's that earthshattering. 

 

I know my subjective feel for truth is never the same feeling, scientific affirmation vs. religious affirmation.....the latter wins hands down personally.  So again, it's not even a choice for me.  Thx.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

 

I'm not being sarcastic, but I really think this is not about rational explanation past a point, but subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics at play.

 

 

  

[older]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

People ask Jesus into their lives for emotional reasons and not because they have followed a logical process of rational thought.  People believe things by faith and without evidence, because of their emotions.

Stephen Hawking once said heaven is a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

[Myrkhoos]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know that there's anything wrong with skepticism.  Seems a logical end to subjectivity, affirmation or skepticism.  For me, I've been affirmed so many times it's not a point for me anymore.  With science, there's also affirmation and skepticism....and faith in the scientific process.  So we look at multiple standards, religions and science, and maybe one or the combination of several satisfy our subjective feel for truth.   Nott sure, as Myrkhoos says, it's that earthshattering. 

 

I know my subjective feel for truth is never the same feeling, scientific affirmation vs. religious affirmation.....the latter wins hands down personally.  So again, it's not even a choice for me.  Thx.

Your post is like a q.e.d for everything I said. It is basically a word jumble with the endpoint  - my religion is true. 

     Every sentence with most of the words is taking things out of context + making ad-hoc connections + mixing in emotions. 

     I do not know if you can understand this, but, on this topic, you are un-dialogue-able. It is literally trying to speak with a psychotic patient. I am really saying "literally" here, not because I think you suffer from mental ilness, or that religion is a mental ilness, but because the way to speak on this matters is similar to a psychotic patient. Who are, by the way, trapped in their own subjectivity as well.

      I don't think you're crazy, I sometimes think religious people are forced to adopt psychotic "reasoning" in order to keep their belief system intact. 

     

[Myrkhoos]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No Myrkhoos, I don't think that it's too deep or too complicated for believers to see that complete subjectivity should lead to complete scepticism.  If nothing can be truly known for what it is, then nothing should really be trusted - resulting in a default position of across-the-board scepticism.

 

 

Yes, we've seen similar things written in this forum.  Because everything is subjective there are infinite possibilities that we can never know about or understand, let alone agree upon.  Destroying agreement over the meaning of words or the definition of things is one way a believer can keep their options open.

 

 

Yes, we've seen this too in Ex-C.

 

 

Ah yes, but reason, logic and rationality are the great enemies of faith.  If a believer chooses not to use them, then they WILL NOT do it!  Myrkhoos, I call these subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics what they really are.

 

Emotions. 

 

People ask Jesus into their lives for emotional reasons and not because they have followed a logical process of rational thought.  People believe things by faith and without evidence, because of their emotions.  People want the comfort and security of a loving god for emotional reasons.  Religion is a fundamental part of the human psyche, the world over and throughout history, not because it is true but because it fulfils the basic emotional needs that all people have.

 

Emotions explain why people will reject the many contradictions in the bible.

Emotions explain why people will cherry pick what they want from the bible.

Emotions explain why people will deny evidence that conflicts with what is in the bible.

Emotions explain why people will avoid applying logic to what's written in the bible.

Emotions explain why people will avoid answering questions about the bible.

 

There are no logical or rational reasons for these behaviours.  Therefore, the culprit for Christian disingenuousness, obfuscation, dodging and denial must originate in their emotions.

 

Or their subconscious/unconscious psychological dynamics, if you like.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

Ah yes, I was using unconscious/subconscious dynamics because I do think we as humans can be VERY unaware about our true motives. And these can be quite the complex pattern in their way. Just be clear, I myself am included. Just another reason to skeptical of my belief system/experiences.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

31 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

 

      I don't think you're crazy, I sometimes think religious people are forced to adopt psychotic "reasoning" in order to keep their belief system intact. 

     

Delusion may the word to describe what you are saying.

[Myrkhoos]

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

Your post is like a q.e.d for everything I said. It is basically a word jumble with the endpoint  - my religion is true. 

     Every sentence with most of the words is taking things out of context + making ad-hoc connections + mixing in emotions. 

     I do not know if you can understand this, but, on this topic, you are un-dialogua-able. It is literally trying to speak with a psychotic patient. I am really saying "literally" here, not because I think you suffer from mental ilness, or that religion is a mental ilness, but because the way to speak on this matters is similar to a psychotic patient. Who are, by the way, trapped in their own subjectivity as well.

      I don't think you're crazy, I sometimes think religious people are forced to adopt psychotic "reasoning" in order to keep their belief system intact. 

     

By the way, I m not even saying religion in general or Christianity in particular is psychotic, just that I observe this mental pattern in some believers. But this applies to all sorts of beliefs with strong afffect attached, like politics, or even sports/arts to a degree

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know that there's anything wrong with skepticism.  Seems a logical end to subjectivity, affirmation or skepticism.  For me, I've been affirmed so many times it's not a point for me anymore.  With science, there's also affirmation and skepticism....and faith in the scientific process.  So we look at multiple standards, religions and science, and maybe one or the combination of several satisfy our subjective feel for truth.   Nott sure, as Myrkhoos says, it's that earthshattering. 

 

I know my subjective feel for truth is never the same feeling, scientific affirmation vs. religious affirmation.....the latter wins hands down personally.  So again, it's not even a choice for me.  Thx.

 

Fair enough, Ed.

 

If scepticism is the logical end of subjectivity, you should therefore be equally sceptical towards ALL religions. 

 

Yes?

 

If not, why not?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

9 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Your post is like a q.e.d for everything I said. It is basically a word jumble with the endpoint  - my religion is true. 

     Every sentence with most of the words is taking things out of context + making ad-hoc connections + mixing in emotions. 

     I do not know if you can understand this, but, on this topic, you are un-dialogue-able. It is literally trying to speak with a psychotic patient. I am really saying "literally" here, not because I think you suffer from mental ilness, or that religion is a mental ilness, but because the way to speak on this matters is similar to a psychotic patient. Who are, by the way, trapped in their own subjectivity as well.

      I don't think you're crazy, I sometimes think religious people are forced to adopt psychotic "reasoning" in order to keep their belief system intact. 

     

Where or what level of subjectivity do you wish to place yourself to maximize an unbiased, dialog able view. And once you discern that, does that place have meaning, and is it THAT meaning that surpasses all others, the very soul of your subjective experience, the Oneness between the subject and the Artist.  Or do you just never experience that feeling...and if not, then what defines your view from there.

 

I hear you finding fault with accepting an explanation though "self-induced psychosis" vs. ignoring my subjective experience.

 

Maybe we should discuss what are the origins of life and what specifically are emotions, or personalities, before we reduce the discussion to unrelenting psychosis.

 

Speaking of "undialogable"....

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

9 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Ah yes, I was using unconscious/subconscious dynamics because I do think we as humans can be VERY unaware about our true motives. And these can be quite the complex pattern in their way. Just be clear, I myself am included. Just another reason to skeptical of my belief system/experiences.

Who says the motivations are invalid?

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

By the way, I m not even saying religion in general or Christianity in particular is psychotic, just that I observe this mental pattern in some believers. But this applies to all sorts of beliefs with strong afffect attached, like politics, or even sports/arts to a degree

I understand.  Not a biggie.  I don't discount your thoughts, I just don't know where you would start to satisfy your inquiries..  

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Fair enough, Ed.

 

If scepticism is the logical end of subjectivity, you should therefore be equally sceptical towards ALL religions. 

 

Yes?

 

If not, why not?

 

 

I think so Walter...to be honest.  

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think so Walter...to be honest.  

 

So, if you agree that it's logical for you to be sceptical towards all religions Edgarcito, why are you a Christian?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Who says the motivations are invalid?

Motivations can be valid or invalid???

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Motivations can be valid or invalid???

He seemed to be saying that our reasons for our behaviors, our subconscious motives, were as invalid as religion when assessing that which is affirming rather than skeptical.  Was just asking how come.

[walterpthefirst]

I wondered whether you would comment on the validity / invalidity of motivations, Edgarcito.

 

As far as I can see nobody has actually said that motivations are invalid. For myself, I certainly don't think that our motivations are invalid because they come from our emotions.  If we are emotionally motivated to try and understand life, the universe and everything, then that's great.

 

I know that you are passionately motivated to understand these things.  Which is great too!  But the problem comes when we allow our emotionally-driven motivations to control or direct our attempts to understand reality.  If we prefer one answer over another for emotional reasons and not for logical or factual reasons then we are biasing our research.

 

That is why I asked you why you prefer Christianity over other religions when, if you agree that total subjectivity requires you to treat ALL religions with equal scepticism.

 

Do you prefer Christianity over other religions for emotional reasons?

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I wondered whether you would comment on the validity / invalidity of motivations, Edgarcito.

 

As far as I can see nobody has actually said that motivations are invalid. For myself, I certainly don't think that our motivations are invalid because they come from our emotions.  If we are emotionally motivated to try and understand life, the universe and everything, then that's great.

 

I know that you are passionately motivated to understand these things.  Which is great too!  But the problem comes when we allow our emotionally-driven motivations to control or direct our attempts to understand reality.  If we prefer one answer over another for emotional reasons and not for logical or factual reasons then we are biasing our research.

 

That is why I asked you why you prefer Christianity over other religions when, if you agree that total subjectivity requires you to treat ALL religions with equal scepticism.

 

Do you prefer Christianity over other religions for emotional reasons?

 

Walter.

 

 

I know little of other religions Walter.  And yes, I'm driven emotionally to Christianity.

 

So here's the question please sir.  Do you think reality is purely reductionistic?  That given the ability, we could predict behavior?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"Subjectivity" is often just an excuse for people to keep believing shit they know ain't true.  This kind of cowardice isn't just exclusive to religion, either, though it often presents most starkly in that area.  But take any social, political, or economic issue and the excuse of "subjectivity" keeps people from accepting the plain, often obvious, truth.  Gun control, for example, or abortion, gender/racial/sexual equality, global warming--there are objective truths in every one of these issues.  But as long as people want to hide behind "subjectivity", these truths can be conveniently ignored in favor of preferred beliefs, no matter how irrational, hypocritical, or contradictory.  

 

We see clearly, in the past few threads in this forum a disturbing example of "subjectivity" over-ruling objective fact.  We have presented objective evidence of the suffering of children in this world, several times with photographic visuals.  The obvious and objective implication of the evidence is that there is not a loving god in control of this world.  Maybe a loving god exists; but, if so, he is not in control.  Maybe a god is in control; but, if so, he is not loving.  Yet, in the face of the evidence, two different christians, on multiple occasions each, have denied the plain truth and hid behind their emotional attachment to the idea that jesus really dies live the little children.  Citing "subjectivity" in such situations is just admitting that thinking is hard and you'd rather believe.  It's childish, naive, and cowardly.

[walterpthefirst]

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I know little of other religions Walter.  And yes, I'm driven emotionally to Christianity.

 

Thank you for this honest answer, Edgarcito.  I respect you for it.

 

27 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So here's the question please sir.  Do you think reality is purely reductionistic?  That given the ability, we could predict behavior?

 

Ah, a very good question.

 

But one which I'm not qualified to answer.  However, let's back up a moment and come back to predictions in due time, ok?

 

So far today it's been agreed that if reality were totally subjective then total scepticism should be our default position.  That we shouldn't prefer one religious path over another - because it's a level playing field.  And we arrived at this position via logic, right? 

 

But where you and I diverge isn't over the passion that drives us to seek answers.  Where we differ is the techniques and methods we choose to use in seeking answers.  You prefer prayer, the bible and the finding of connections that you believe point us to deeper truths.  I prefer logic, reason and science. 

 

At no point in this thread have I yet said that one is better than the other.  To each, their own.  Please note that I'm not committing myself yet to one or the other.  But as far as I can see problems in the search for answers begin when people switch tracks or try to ride on two different tracks simultaneously.

 

These two tracks always diverge from each other and never run parallel and never merge and run in synch.

 

There are reasons for this which you and the Prof and DB and I have touched upon over the years.  We could revisit them in this thread if you'd like.  But before we go there and before we get on to anything else, I've just made a great big statement of policy.  You may not agree with it.  So, perhaps I'd better ask you what you think.

 

Do you think that our two different chosen tracks, religion and science, always diverge, never run parallel and never run in synch?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for this honest answer, Edgarcito.  I respect you for it.

 

 

Ah, a very good question.

 

But one which I'm not qualified to answer.  However, let's back up a moment and come back to predictions in due time, ok?

 

So far today it's been agreed that if reality were totally subjective then total scepticism should be our default position.  That we shouldn't prefer one religious path over another - because it's a level playing field.  And we arrived at this position via logic, right? 

 

But where you and I diverge isn't over the passion that drives us to seek answers.  Where we differ is the techniques and methods we choose to use in seeking answers.  You prefer prayer, the bible and the finding of connections that you believe point us to deeper truths.  I prefer logic, reason and science. 

 

At no point in this thread have I yet said that one is better than the other.  To each, their own.  Please note that I'm not committing myself yet to one or the other.  But as far as I can see problems in the search for answers begin when people switch tracks or try to ride on two different tracks simultaneously.

 

These two tracks always diverge from each other and never run parallel and never merge and run in synch.

 

There are reasons for this which you and the Prof and DB and I have touched upon over the years.  We could revisit them in this thread if you'd like.  But before we go there and before we get on to anything else, I've just made a great big statement of policy.  You may not agree with it.  So, perhaps I'd better ask you what you think.

 

Do you think that our two different chosen tracks, religion and science, always diverge, never run parallel and never run in synch?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

I understand, but when you say these tracks never x, y, z, then there must be a reduction for reality, otherwise you are saying something outside of our efforts, is acting.  To answer, I’ve always professed similarities rather than never.

[Myrkhoos]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Where or what level of subjectivity do you wish to place yourself to maximize an unbiased, dialog able view. And once you discern that, does that place have meaning, and is it THAT meaning that surpasses all others, the very soul of your subjective experience, the Oneness between the subject and the Artist.  Or do you just never experience that feeling...and if not, then what defines your view from there.

 

I hear you finding fault with accepting an explanation though "self-induced psychosis" vs. ignoring my subjective experience.

 

Maybe we should discuss what are the origins of life and what specifically are emotions, or personalities, before we reduce the discussion to unrelenting psychosis.

 

Speaking of "undialogable"....

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, what? And that's my final reaction here :)).