Theist's the Hard Truth

[Jollybear]

If one needs a religion to tell them that hurting others is wrong, perhaps one should look at their psychological profile rather than what religion (or lack thereof) that they follow.

If one needs a non religious person to tell them something is wrong, perhaps too one should look at their psychological profile rather than what that person is saying or not that they follow.

 

[atanu]

Sure but why assume a God or gods to be behind your experience unless you were already trained to think in terms of a God concept?

Why not aliens or elf machines from an alternate dimension?

Good question.

What is God? At the most basic level, I understand God as controller of ego self. There was a time when I believed that the body was the conscious self. If you see someone dying with your own eyes you may be freed of that delusion.

Rational thinking, scripture and experience have taught me that the self is not the body or the thoughts but the self is the seer of waking, dreaming, and sleeping states. This self is God, as per Vedanta. I have no doubt of its existence.

What is cultural baggage? It is sum total of one’s learning. Learning may propel ego growth — hunger for more and more. But after a critical point — perhaps after a shock — the thinking process realises that the waking, dreaming, and sleeping states are all dream states devoid of any reality.

Although there are cultural variations, yet essentially this process of introversion is true universally.

 

[Audie]

Yet people who actively describe themselves as 'freethinkers' always seem to think the same things

That is what people like you always think.

 

[Vinayaka]

IMHO, I believe the subconscious mind is able to provide an experience to support our belief in a God.

But it can also happen. although much rarer, (and more common when young, as the subconscious is softer) that an experience is so far outside your subconscious mind that it disturbs you in some way. (puzzles, saddens, elates, etc.)

 

[Audie]

IQ correlates with someone's educational level. Meaning obviously; someone can improve their IQ score through learning/practice. If you use your mind more then you will be more intelligent. No wonder some countries around the world have such abysmal average IQs.

"Correlates", you know, includes that smarter
people tend to be more educated than dumb ones.
They learn faster understand more and remember better.

IQ can only be improved to a limited extent by education.
There is a window of opportunity in brain development,
lose it, its gone.

When you were two years old, you could have learned
quickly learned any language. You want to start in on
Japanese now?

One of my friends grew up in a third world catholic
country. Of course she thought noahs ark, adam
and eve, all that was true. BUT, on arriving in the
USA, and getting into some quality education, she
began to understand what a shabby fraud had been
perpetrated on her.

She has often spoken of what a marvellous experience
it has been for her, breaking out of all the superstitions
of her culture, and the garbage the church imposed.
Understanding so trumps indoctrination!

So of course more highly educated people are also
more indoctrinated people.

Of course, you did simply make that up but what a funny
bit of mental gymnastics it took you to arrive at that!

Educated people are very difficult to indoctrinate,
or to keep them fooled.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet people who actively describe themselves as 'freethinkers' always seem to think the same things

In some aspects this is true simply, because, of course, all atheist do not believe in God(s) in one way or another, but no most definitely all atheists do not think alike They range from Zen atheists to hard materialist rational atheists. Actually, claiming to be a 'freethinker' is more from the egocentric perspective of the believer in whatever. It is common for fallible humans from virtually every different possible belief to claim they are 'freethinkers.' Sort of an oxymoronic claim.

 

[Augustus]

In some aspects this is true simply, because, of course, all atheist do not believe in God(s) in one way or another, but no most definitely all atheists do not think alike They range from Zen atheists to hard materialist rational atheists. Actually, claiming to be a 'freethinker' is more from the egocentric perspective of the believer in whatever. It is common for fallible humans from virtually every different possible belief to claim they are 'freethinkers.'

That's why I specifically said people who identify as freethinkers, who are also the kind of people who join atheist societies These tend to be "Rationalist" atheists and are remarkably conformist so lacking in critical, independent thought (at least on certain issues) that the vast majority of them manage to make exactly the same mistakes.

I agree that calling yourself a freethinker is egocentric though. If you feel the need to highlight your independence of thought it is a bit like those who feel the need to highlight their intelligence (usually via a completely unnecessary broadcasting of IQ score) or those who talk about how tough they are. People who genuinely have these characteristics rarely feel the need to boast about them lest other people don't realise it.

Sort of an oxymoronic claim.

A pet peeve of mine

An oxymoron is really a rhetorical technique where someone deliberately juxtaposes contradictory terms to make a point. It shouldn't be used as a synonym for 'a contradiction in terms'.

 

[Sanzbir]

A good idea for everyone to question the reasoning behind their thinking.

I'm just giving people an opportunity to question the source of their thinking and argue otherwise.

Thing is this has nothing to do with theism then, just "the beliefs one was raised in". The thread is mislabeled, and the OP misattributes.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's why I specifically said people who identify as freethinkers, who are also the kind of people who join atheist societies These tend to be "Rationalist" atheists and are remarkably conformist so lacking in critical, independent thought (at least on certain issues) that the vast majority of them manage to make exactly the same mistakes.

Still say NO to this unfortunate stereotyping. There is far far more conformity without any rational thought among the fundamental Christians and Muslims, than atheists. There is a very strong desire for a cultural sense of community and belonging among the traditional Theist beliefs than any other. Despite this I would reject any such stereotyping in any belief system. It is more a personal perspective on how one justifies one's beliefs.

 

[atanu]

IMHO, I believe the subconscious mind is able to provide an experience to support our belief in a God.
.

Will you ever change yo our focus from ‘experience’ to ‘the experiencer’?

 

[Augustus]

Still say NO to this unfortunate stereotyping. There is far far more conformity without any rational thought among the fundamental Christians and Muslims, than atheists. There is a very strong desire for a cultural sense of community and belonging among the traditional Theist beliefs than any other. Despite this I would reject any such stereotyping in any belief system. It is more a personal perspective on how one justifies one's beliefs.

You keep changing the terms of reference to all atheists rather than the specific subset of atheists I mentioned. You may not find them eminently predictable, but I do (perhaps because I used to be just that type of atheists in my younger and more foolish days ).

So it's not stereotyping, it's generalising based on experience. And a generalisation is just that, a description of a general truth which does not necessarily apply to any specific individual.

 

[shunyadragon]

You keep changing the terms of reference to all atheists rather than the specific subset of atheists I mentioned. You may not find them eminently predictable, but I do (perhaps because I used to be just that type of atheists in my younger and more foolish days ).

Your original post was not clear on being selective of certain atheists.

So it's not stereotyping, it's generalising based on experience. And a generalisation is just that, a description of a general truth which does not necessarily apply to any specific individual.

I consider how your original post was worded as stereotyping, and I consider you back peddling a bit, but awkwardly. Generalization based on experience is stereotyping.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Do you think being baptized is what gets people into heaven?

If someone believes in Jesus Christ and is baptized, whether in this life or the next, yes. If they believe Him they love Him, and if they Love Him they trust Him and should keep His commandments. Repentance is trust and relying on Him. Baptism is trust, relying and following Him. The Holy Ghost is those three and pressing forward with Him.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Don't you see that as disrespectful of the dead? Perhaps inserting your own selfish wants upon them? They were sued by the Jews, after all, following post-WWII proxy-baptisms of Jewish Holocaust victims and ordered to cease doing it to deceased Jewish people.

The dead can still do what they want. I'm glad we don't do it for Jews or celebrities.

 

[Nakosis]

Will you ever change yo our focus from ‘experience’ to ‘the experiencer’?

Sure, many times I've been able to observe myself act. Sports, lecturing, My conscious awareness is just along for the ride. If I know the material by heart or sometimes in sports I can sit back and let my subconscious take over control. The subconscious mind is a lot more powerful than the conscious mind. It's quicker, has better recall.

The duality or non duality IMO is just the interrelationship between the conscious and subconscious mind. The conscious, self aware mind I see as the observer. Non duality IMO is the idea that the conscious mind is a non material observer. It is the actual self.

Myself I see the conscious and subconscious mind as two parts of a whole. They both work together to create the self. Even though we are not consciously aware of this other part it is still necessary for the self, the whole being, to exist. However some feel the conscious mind rules the head/body when in actuality, IMO, it is only a very small part of the self.

 

[74x12]

Of course, you did simply make that up but what a funny
bit of mental gymnastics it took you to arrive at that!

Educated people are very difficult to indoctrinate,
or to keep them fooled.

Truly educated people, yes. But there is nothing more hopeless than someone who thinks they're wise when they aren't. So, it's really easy to indoctrinate people who think they're highly educated but aren't.

 

[74x12]

I believe good and evil are relative terms. What some judge as evil, others might judge as good.

The point here is that you could know the difference between God and "space aliens" by learning about God and learning the difference between good and evil.

 

[atanu]

Sure, many times I've been able to observe myself act. Sports, lecturing, My conscious awareness is just along for the ride. If I know the material by heart or sometimes in sports I can sit back and let my subconscious take over control. The subconscious mind is a lot more powerful than the conscious mind. It's quicker, has better recall.

The duality or non duality IMO is just the interrelationship between the conscious and subconscious mind. The conscious, self aware mind I see as the observer. Non duality IMO is the idea that the conscious mind is a non material observer. It is the actual self.

Myself I see the conscious and subconscious mind as two parts of a whole. They both work together to create the self. Even though we are not consciously aware of this other part it is still necessary for the self, the whole being, to exist. However some feel the conscious mind rules the head/body when in actuality, IMO, it is only a very small part of the self.

What if what you imagine to be ‘conscious mind’ is an image of the ‘real conscious mind’? Imagine a man not able to see own eyes except in a mirror.

 

[Audie]

Truly educated people, yes. But there is nothing more hopeless than someone who thinks they're wise when they aren't. So, it's really easy to indoctrinate people who think they're highly educated but aren't.

Lets go back to what you made up a bit earlier before introducing more.

So of course more highly educated people are also
more indoctrinated people.

You do seem now to be changing it a bit,
to "truly" educated, whatever that is to you,
and then off you go to make up something else.
"nothing more hapless".

But still, this is progress. You've agreed that
it is hard to indoctrinate educated people.
The uneducated, self-deceived you describe may be
primed for others to deceive them too.

 

[Audie]

The point here is that you could know the difference between God and "space aliens" by learning about God and learning the difference between good and evil.

Learn about god.

Which one(s)? List of gods and goddesses - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good and evil is a good topic. Do you know
the difference?

Is it good, or evil to drown everyone and everything
but a few that are on a boat?

How about sending an angel with a sword to
kill babies?