by Terry 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
How can you believe this stuff? It is fantastical nonsense!
IF I believed in what you wrote, yes I would question myself WHY I woudl believe such fantastic nonsense.
Since I don't believe, it's a moot point.
I do have to ask you Terry, what proof would suffice to you that God exists?
That's some baaad religion you're referring to!
I'd say that science has some limitations and room for false conclusions occasionally too...but yes, if I want to know stuff that makes sense about the world around me, science works better.
Myths, allegory, faith or spirituality serves a completely different purpose. It's an emotional and psychological need, and has nothing to do with "reality" in the scientific, physics sense.
Unfortunately, humans are constructed so that they can imagine something and it can seem very real to them, real enough to have significant meaning.
A good example of that is you can get aroused and very very happy just thinking about having sex with a picture of an attractive naked woman. Add some physical stimulus, self applied or by someone else, and bingo, you just had a real physical response that can be measured and observed by science!
Kind of cool, I think. I'm sure faith or spirituality is part of those brain bits that also furnish us with creativity, intuition, imagination, and emotional response.
That's on the other side of the brain that deals with logic, and maybe it's because we'd have brain damage if they got too close to each other. LOL
No, it's because interestingly enough, humans can live fairly comfortably with those apparently conflicting but actually complementary abilities.
As for the leading question, I think it is similar to asking, "Would you rather be stupid and believe in religion which does not promote free thought, or would you rather be smart and choose science which does?"
No rational person is going to choose number one in the biased way that it is worded. Obviously, at least one religion promote free thinking and the power of thought.
Tammy
I went to a Unitarian Universalist Church once to check it out because I'd heard it was something "I might like."
When the service was over I mixed with the crowd and spoke to a number of people there.
My impression, my personal opinion, is that I could not see the point in the "ritual" of church when it clearly wasn't. All the things I dislike utterly about religion begin with the empty ritual of standing and singing, sitting in pews, hearing a sermon, etc.
The non-religious "sermon" was something I could have heard on N.P.R.
My overall impression was that people who had been severly maltreated by regular religion went off and imitated everything but the content of that from which they were excluded. Kind of like a Fat, Ugly Kids Club for kids made fun of by in regular clubs.
I'm not being pejorative, I assure you. I just didn't see the point. I was invited to a Lesbian rally and marathon for A.I.D.S. research and that was it. Nice people, friendly, non-judgemental and sincere.
But, I've had enough of ritual to last me a lifetime.
Of course, that isn't your point!
You are saying Unitarian Universalists are a Religion and it doesn't fit your definition in your screed, Terry.
To that I respond by saying, I don't believe for one minute that Unitarian Universalists are really a "religion". But, I get your point.
Thanks for the counter-offer of fact. I appreciate the clarification.
Mindmelda said:
Myths, allegory, faith or spirituality serves a completely different purpose. It's an emotional and psychological need, and has nothing to do with "reality" in the scientific, physics sense.
Unfortunately, humans are constructed so that they can imagine something and it can seem very real to them, real enough to have significant meaning.
A good example of that is you can get aroused and very very happy just thinking about having sex with a picture of an attractive naked woman. Add some physical stimulus, self applied or by someone else, and bingo, you just had a real physical response that can be measured and observed by science!
Kind of cool, I think. I'm sure faith or spirituality is part of those brain bits that also furnish us with creativity, intuition, imagination, and emotional response.
Funny you should say that. I started a topic awhile back about GODsturbation that went like this:
(When we speak we use language. If we talk ABOUT language we use meta-language. The word META, below, is used in that manner.)
I think that once the category called "GOD" is opened in your head (usually at an early and impressionable age) you can't ever close the file. The connectivity has deep roots.
It is unassailable.
Why?
Because only rational thoughts are accessible by rational arguments.
Superstition is a map of a meta-world that connects to a landscape built in our head out of our deepest desires, fears and imagination. It can be thrilling, profound and awe-inspiring. But, it can't be rational.
Here is what may sound like a non-sequitar. Ready?
What happens during masturbation?
You think thoughts in your head that connect to ideas which deeply motivate your feelings of heightened pleasure, right?
Right.
The "object" of desire isn't really present at all except as a mock-up and an ideal which serves an immediate purpose (arousal to satisfaction).
All that is really required is the friction!
Respectfully, this is God for all practical purposes. At least, the methodology is the same.
You think the God thought and do the deed and the wonderful feeling wells up and satisfaction is achieved JUST AS THOUGH an actual contact with another person had taken place.
We overlay our GOD concept with many experiences and learned ideas. But, beneath it all is that meta-contact with a meta-personage: GOD.
No matter what we organize as fact in our frontal lobes, the limbic area is saturated with the God-category which brings satisfaction, pleasure, awe, security, emotional grandeur and the panacea of the moment.
All we need do is find the proper setting for whacking off and "God" will do the rest.
I said I meant all this respectfully and I do.
I use to be in the art business. I talked to artists and represented them.
There are certain artists whose work is preoccupied with erasing all traces of brushstrokes so that a super-realistic
result can be achieved. It fools the eye into being photographic in appearance.
The technique removes the hand of man from the result.
Like removing the link you click on to launch a file.
I think any of us can--through religious atmosphere (setting, church, conversation, prayer) click on a link in our mind and trigger the launching of the God program.
But--here's the rub (yes, a masturbation metaphor:)....
When we are DEVOUT we manage to erase the brushstrokes that got us the photographic meta-reality.
We manage to FOOL ourselves about our agency in creating the pleasure.
For what it is worth........I thought I'd share that with you.
Each of us is of a certain intelligence, rationality, education level---what have you. Some people need more and some need less RATIONAL connection to our God-program to make it work. Faith is that clickable link.
Church is sort of like pornography in pushing us over the hump (yes, another metaphor:) to launch the necessary triggers in our limbic and get us where we want to go emotionally (spiritually).
Never UNDERESTIMATE the crazy-power of that non-rational connection in your mind!!
Remember you can see things or you can "see" things.
You can hear things or you can "hear" things.
You can think things or you can meta-think things.
Two different worlds exist:
The REAL world and the meta-REAL world.
Religion gives us a map of the meta-REAL. It gives us a changed vocabulary that no longer describes the REAL world.
Once you lose your ability to accurately describe what is REAL the only experience POSSIBLE for your mind is the META-real: supernatural: i.e. Spiritual world of Faith and God and the Born-Again emotional orgasm.
That's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
I didn't read all that because I don't have to. The brilliant mind knows when it's made a good sampling. :)
The fact of the matter is that "Science" and the "Scientific Method" are are accessible to religious and non-religious people alike. These are tools which both groups use to push their own agenda.
We also don't have "Scientists" today, any more than we have "Christians". Those who identify themselves as "Scientists", are technicians specializing in a certain domain (or two), who like to "think more of [themselves] than is necessary to think." The self-identification as "Scientist" is as bad as the self-identified "Christian".
A person can apply the scientific method and not self-identify with either, or with both.
We also don't have "Scientists" today, any more than we have "Christians". Those who identify themselves as "Scientists", are technicians specializing in a certain domain (or two), who like to "think more of [themselves] than is necessary to think." The self-identification as "Scientist" is as bad as the self-identified "Christian".
So, who, in your opinion is a REAL scientist? If not today--when?
I have never heard the "God delusion" described with that analogy before Terry, but it really fits well with what the latest brain research has shown about brain patterning and how beliefs are formed. Plus it gets added points for being very funny!
Gubberningbody: Your statements about scientists not being "real" and "thinking too much of themselves" is really just an ad hominen attack to try and discredit them as a group, and not a logical argument at all.
The definition of a real scientist is this: Someone who does research using the scientific method. There are many researchers today, using the scientific method, which is conducting research experiments, gathering factual information that can be measured, repeated, or falsified and drawing logical conclusions from that information. And yes, much of it is very technical. So what? I'll tell you what. That makes them "real" scientists.
And unless you are a psychic mind reader, you really have no idea what that entire group of scientists thinks of themselves, do you?
Now as for your definition of a "real" Christian, I'll leave that for you to figure out, but you won't be able to use the scientific method because science is not as yet able to determine what someone who supposedly lived 2000 years ago, really thought and felt and taught, since he left no written record of his thoughts, feelings and teachings for posterity. All you'll have to go on is third party testimonials (heresay) and we all know how reliable that is!
I do have to ask you Terry, what proof would suffice to you that God exists?
Any real God would be so damned obvious it would be impossible to ask that question!
Any real God would be so damned obvious it would be impossible to ask that question!
You didn't answer my question :)
I'd settle for a loud voice out of heaven saying, "Hey earthlings, psst, up here, it's god and I'm pissed off", then hurl a few lightening bolts down at very specific people I don't like, (pedophiles would be good). Bonus points to God, if there is no clouds or thunderstorm actually going on at the time anyway.
