The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Psychology like philosophy is more theory as we evolve like the weather, get over ourselves!

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Psychology like philosophy is more theory as we evolve like the weather, get over ourselves!

not hardly ... but I am not going to waste my time on it with you.

as again you're just speaking out of ignorance and using other peoples words and thoughts to express because you do not want to come up any on your own..

in networking that is called a repeater.

Again get over ourselves plus most we use to pa$s time, where would you be without a word let alone "the f-ing word!"

Evolution

As long as !'m \s defining all words in general (_digital infinity (for we all)) don't forget, yous can't deny—words: evolve; so, you're atheist! Unless you believe that all fairy tales exist‽.


Me edits long time...

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Last edited by jamison20000e; Today at 02:41 PM. Reason: evolving

@ BX-userx - I may possibly find the time and the inclination to be more thorough and attempt to answer your last epic post point-by-point but then it would likely be an exercise in futility because you still don't see two important issues -

!) Faith != Confidence - There are levels of confidence based on whether the experience of an event is Primary or Secondary, how many iterations (is it repeatable? and with the same results or at what odds of likelihood?) At some point in my life someone told me "Cats always land on their feet". It was simple to test this alleged observation and comprehend that the vast majority of the time, they will indeed do exactly that. Assuming that statement was true just because a trusted friend said so is a much lower level of confidence than testing. That same assumption if the words came from a ,total stranger, even lower. I don't entertain confidence levels below 50/50 and prefer 99,000,000/1.

2) Leaps in Judgment with little or no evidence != Truth - You did indeed jump to an unwarranted conclusion that just because the concept articulated in Lenny Bruce's words (and many others as well of course) that refuses to act on a thing because we wish it so when clearly the world is not that way is a statement about recognizing reality instead of suffering under an illusion. Nowhere did he or anyone else ever say one had to like it or approve of it, let alone subscribe to it as right and proper. There can be no debate now since that is exactly what you did. You made an assumption based on zero evidence, and very probably just upon your own prejudice about the man rather than his observation.

Addition you still insist that I idolize and love Lenny Bruce and completely ignore that despite his many failings, he also did have an incisive mind, that occasionally had moments of great clarity he could articulate in a succinct manner. An example of someone else I have quoted, I have read Mein Kampf and am forced to recognize that Adolf Hitler understood how to grab power and keep it, yet I thoroughly despise the man and wish he'd never been born. I feel very much less negative about Lenny Bruce but to conclude that I idolize or love the man is absurd and most importantly to this thread, entirely an unwarranted conclusion. I said nothing about my judgment about the manner in which he lived his life, only about pne of his thoughtful concepts, I think quoteworthy.

Furthermore why is it that you must assume that I am in such denial? If I idolized Lenny or even Adolf why would I not say so? If I had Faith would not my life be easier since The Faithful are still in the majority? and isn't it deigned to give solace and comfort to those obsessed with the fear of dying that somehow, some identifiable part of us will live on forever and we will be reunited with our loved ones? Who wouldn't want that? It would be wonderful.... if it wasn't likely "a dirty lie".

Now please note that you do not know if that realization makes me a little sad, suicidal, or absolutely gleeful since I did not address that in any way, only the likelihood of it's veracity. If you come to any conclusion in that regard, you do it with a ridiculous paucity of evidence - ie" you jump to an unwarranted conclusion based on prejudice and assumption, not high degree confidence.

"Gentlebeings,™" why do both of you continue, so very vociferously, "to argue your point?"

It isn't "a fairy tale," because, if in fact there is "some absolute truth in this matter," none of us knows it. There is no "bully pulpit" that any of us can stand upon, in order to indisputably excoriate "their" opinion while likewise-indisputably exonerating "ours."

Why do "they" cling to their opinions and their practices? Well, if need be, "because they may!"

Because they don't have to subject themselves to anyone else's judgment. Because they don't have to explain. Because, they don't have to justify. ("Least of all, to you.")

"Science" is both a generally-useful and a generally-wonderful(!) form of human thought and expression, except for one very small thing:

"In its quest to articulate 'all there is,' through its very-specialized and very-purposeful processes ..." "... it presumes itself to be successful." "... it presumes that 'the set of what it will consider' must (of course) be equivalent to 'the universal set.'"

But ... "what if™" there actually is ... and with no scientific explanation (and, no imperative to seek any affirmation from 'science') ... "some world beyond(!) 'science' 'our ken'?"

Quite frankly, I'd suggest that you take a little wisdom here from a bumper-sticker: "COEXIST".

"Science" is a very-powerful mode of human thought precisely because "it has boundaries." However, it may well be said that these "boundaries" also give it a certain "blindness."

Therefore: let us instead choose not to "derisively slam-shut the door" upon "any thing that 'science' does not 'know.'"

Let us, instead, "choose to think beyond 'the (albeit very-useful) science box.'" Just in case ... just maybe ... ... ... "there might 'be something to it.'" Something ... something ... something ... that "science cannot(!) see."

(Even though: "science cannot see that 'it cannot see everything,' and therefore loudly insists that 'it does.'")

- - -
Were all of those fellow human beings, throughout all this time, "utterly misguided," until we reached "the Age of Enlightenment?" I'm not willing to concede any such thing. I don't necessarily "see what they saw," but I'm also not willing to conclude that "therefore, they saw nothing."

... And one more thing:

"Must we agree?" "Must I defeat disprove you?" No.

Our respective opinions can pass as ships in the night.

But ... may I suggest ... so can "the opinions with which you disagree!"

Over many thousands of human years, some bodies of thought have been developed which align with our present views of "science," while many others have not.

I guess that my basic position is that "'science' is not in any sort of privileged-position by which it may properly judge (and condemn) all the rest." Even though it too-frequently seems (to me ...) to be eager to do so.

Let's always soberly re-remind ourselves, even as we continue to discourse, of the parable of "The Blind Men and the Elephant."

... and, be respectful of the other ships that pass us in the night.

You're wrong, if a kid hits* or lies* to another kid you tell them stop*.

There's a sucker born every second, there is no after life end sentence truthfully

If your proof is that it's unprovable, you're an idiot. Not to excluded any of us on different things sometimes.

sundialsvcs, I should think that by now that hopefully being of a logical and scientific mind (the sort like astronomers in Russia and USA that acted as if a Cold War had no bearing on them, that there were no borders separating "men of good will" interested in similar, peaceful endeavors and who behaved as gentlemen while the leaders engaged in an Arms Race that will continue to haunt the entire Human Race for generations...) that I am such a man and would dearly love to see an end to the absurd battle between Religion and Science, or more accurately, between it's proponents. Here's the rub - Science does not pretend to be Religion (whatever else, it is open to question and doubt) but Religion does often pretend to be Science, when it is demonstrably not.

What's more I can find no records in human history where an attempt was ever made to wipe out an entire family, town, country, civilization, philosophy, sexual preference... you name it, the list is endless, in the name or quest of Science. The vast majority of the world's religions require that everyone agree with dogma at the point of a sword/gun/flaming stake/thermonuclear device. So I will oppose such irrational trends until the day I die and expose as many proponents as possible for the small-mindedness, arrogance, and sanctimonious self-righteousness nearly all exhibit. The day the lamb can lie with the lion does not yet, and may never, exist, and a propos to recent quotes, is "a dirty lie", however delightful that may seem to be if it could be true.

Peter Pan must be exposed for the fairy tale that it is, if Homo Sapiens is ever to "grow up". It would be wonderful if two people could lie back and look at the starry sky and one say "Hmmm I wonder if it could have started like this...." and the other respond, "Interesting. Maybe so, but I have wondered if maybe it was like this...." and both smile at the wonders of The Unknown with neither shouting "Heathen!/Infidel!" and stabbing the other in the face. Unfortunately the latter more commonly occurs among "The Faithful".

Off\on topic: Pascal's wager states, kill a virgin every blood moon! Well yous at least send some to die in wars... good job in rod you bust.

Originally Posted by enorbet What's more I can find no records in human history where an attempt was ever made to wipe out an entire family, town, country, civilization, philosophy, sexual preference... you name it, the list is endless, in the name or quest of Science.

What about Scientific racism? Sure, you can call it pseudoscience, but isn't that just the No true Scotsman fallacy?

Originally Posted by enorbet @ BX-userx - I may possibly find the time and the inclination to be more thorough and attempt to answer your last epic post point-by-point but then it would likely be an exercise in futility because you still don't see two important issues -

and it's get too lengthy a post as well ..... so this is all that is important to you? figures.

Originally Posted by enorbet !) Faith != Confidence - There are levels of confidence based on whether the experience of an event is Primary or Secondary, how many iterations (is it repeatable? and with the same results or at what odds of likelihood?) At some point in my life someone told me "Cats always land on their feet". It was simple to test this alleged observation and comprehend that the vast majority of the time, they will indeed do exactly that. Assuming that statement was true just because a trusted friend said so is a much lower level of confidence than testing. That same assumption if the words came from a ,total stranger, even lower. I don't entertain confidence levels below 50/50 and prefer 99,000,000/1.

have you even put to the test the commandment of Jesus? Each and everyone of them time and time again until you understood why they are as they are, or just assumed whatever one told you about him is a lie?

therefore you decide to not put that to the test like you did with a cat in order to find out a truth.

you seem to not want to put much to the test to find out if it is a truth or not. maybe that is way you cannot understand what I did with Lenny Bruce's statement. I put it to the test, and found fault in it. whereas you seem to to want me to just accept it as a truth. from someone that says they do not assume something is a truth from a complete stranger to the point of no trust between you and that stranger. what a life you must live in not trusting of your fellow man by what they statement of yours says.

it has to be a preferred 99,000,000 to 1 chance that what it is you're going to accept as a truth is true else you'll see it as a lie. No matter what.

so it puzzles me as to why you see what Lenny Bruce said that you quoted as a truth? do you even know him, have you lived with him gotten to know him or just accepted everything that came out of his mouth as a intelligent insightful truth so you just accept it because others put him in the hall of fame of great thinkers of their time?

it looks to me that you are in contradiction of yourself. Fighting against your innate abilities that as a result of it are skewing your thoughts.


Faith is something you have and everyone has the ability to exercise. that person that puts his faith in a friend when he gives him 20 bucks to go to the store and get something for him. He has to put his faith in him. that He will indeed return with the goods and not skip out on him keeping his 20 bucks.

He then can only hope he returns with it and his change. He cannot prove that he will return because that is a future event that he cannot predict.

therefore how can one have confidence in something they cannot prove?

the confidence as you stated comes from experience by putting trust in others and seeing if that trust was mislaid or not.

Like the child who has their basic trust broken at an early age they will never trust anyone fully. always their will be that doubt within their minds about the "other person" real or not.

If they find someone they can trust, then they build upon that trust. if that trust is broken by either one of them then all forms of communication can be cut off between the two. Trust is a very important thing.


Nevertheless you and everyone has the ability to exercise their faith to build trust which in turn builds confidence about the thing or person they put their faith in.

You seem to have an educated background in some area of humans. So I am going to make the assumption that you do not read a bible how it is suppose to be read if you read one at all.

If ones read it like they are suppose to in order to get out of it what it is that they are suppose to and then lived by it. This killing, rape, stealing, bearing false witness against others (lying about something they did or did not do), pride, envy, greed, would be a lot lower within this world. That is only a small example of what evils would not be so prevalent within this world.

Because this is all learned behavior to remove these things from ones self. Man is born selfish he wants instant gratification due to the environment he or she first grew up in. The womb. Where everything is taken care of instantly.

let me stop there before I go on a lengthy write again. only to say their is more to it then what meets the eye.

then you too have to take into account of all of the posers that call themselves Christians, and you have to take into account most of them where raised that way. SO most of them do not know any better but that too is their fault because they too have a bible to guild them in stead of some person telling them what to read leading them away of what they should be reading instead.

Those people get thrown into what is true so the truth gets obscured, like i said their is more to it then what meets the eye.

one does not even know how to walk on the very first day they enter this world to live outside the comforts of the woman womb. It take time not this instant gratification of "accept Jesus and be saved" so now one who believes that put him or herself in a state of false state of confidants that they are now saved and going to heaven as a direct result of what they just said.

this is people lying to themselves, then to others. do not follow them.


Just because someone tells another to say this or sign this paper stating you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior is doing what? playing off of someones psyche feeding into their false need of instant gratification. one learns what (well most do) the reality - principle, this is ego structure of man needs to be build properly else it is faulty and can be shattered rather easily or manipulated easily into believing anything. even something that is suppose to be true that lies are now added to it so that person telling this other can gain some kind of selfish personal gratification out of it as well.

Because that one does not hold the truth within his or hers belief system. Instead they accepted a lie a truth, either unknowingly or knowingly. regardless when one uses lies as truths within their belief system they become faulty in their thinking and actions. the more lie or even the strength of the lie itself.

not that a lie has any strength at all in itself, it is the persons that is holding onto this lie weakness that is preventing them from letting go of it. so it guilds them in their thinking and actions. in the psychosis it is planted so deeply within ones psyche they they have burred the memory of it so they do not even know what it is that is really driving them to do what it is they are doing.


they only know dep down they do not want to do it. so they start to leave little clues to who they are in hopes that someone will figure it out and stop them from doing what it is that this lie is actually making them do. they are no longer in control of themselves as a result of it. that is the effect of a lie that has formed a psychosis within a person. They become like two separate people but are not suffering from multiple personality disorder, or as the book calls it, Dissociative identity disorder. which too has a lie within the belief system that is causing this effect to the individual.

Originally Posted by enorbet 2) Leaps in Judgment with little or no evidence != Truth -

one needs evidence to prove something a truth. so I have no idea where you got that equation.

Originally Posted by enorbet You did indeed jump to an unwarranted conclusion that just because the concept articulated in Lenny Bruce's words

a quote or a conclusion to an idea actually that was actually half baked then "spit out" for others to hear.

Originally Posted by enorbet (and many others as well of course) that refuses to act on a thing because we wish it

that is an assumption on your part of what "we" as a whole wish for. QUOTE=enorbet;5692714]



so when clearly the world is not that way[/quote] what way are you referring to? Clarification is needed there.

Originally Posted by enorbet is a statement about recognizing reality instead of suffering under an illusion.

His quote is how he sees the world around him. it is a fact of truth to him.

His quote you used for whatever your reasons.

by Lenny Bruce “There is only what is and that's it. What should be is a dirty lie.”

you cannot even see the break in reality in that thought?

there is only what is. what could that mean? what is is. therefore whatever is is and there is no other way that it can be. Therefore it is a lie to say otherwise.

is being the operative word there.

and that is it. is the end of that statement. as a final stamp to put it in stone.

that is the thought of a person that gave up on life. he or she sees reality as being something that cannot be changed. therefore what is is and anything else is a dirty lie.

not taking into account the truth that yes reality can be changed. even the simplest of realities. An apple is circular that is the reality of an apple. that reality can be changed just by hitting it with a hammer. it now is no longer circular but flattened.

you for some reason cannot see into that mans mind yet you quote him and brag to me about how great of a person he was to me. then deny you have any kind of admiration for him.


that quote shows a mind that does not believe in change. because his second sentence states its to reaffirm his first thought put into his belief system as at truth. because he tossed out a truth and added a lie to replace it.

therefore by his belief that nothing can change because there is only what is and that is it and nothing more.

[so] What should be is a dirty lie.

do you not have any understanding of what that means? the way things should be is a lie. that is what it is saying. He cannot see change as a possibility. therefore he gave up even trying and took to drugs to get what he wanted, Change.

Instead of trying to personally chance himself to be a better person he took to drugs to get the changes they give him instead. Drugs do what? they alter ones perspective on reality. so they are in fact living within an illusion due to it. It is Drugs as I have stated are used for a means of exceptionalism for the reality around them. it is change they seek but because one cannot always change the reality around them then they resort to what?

delusional thinking. Which the word delusion is only means a lie accepted as a truth. Not always as an absolute truth but a truth nonetheless. One that can be discarded when found to be otherwise. That is why when one is said to be delusional that does not necessarily mean they are suffering from a psychosis.

a movie is a delusional concept put on film for others to watch so they can try and reduce stress by whatever means be it a love story or a horror story it is so that individual can remove themselves from the reality they actually live in. it is a lie that they are allowing to entertain them.

Lenny Bruce decided to use Heroin as his lie to entertain himself so he could remove himself from the harshness of the world around him that he could not change. so he used drugs instead of moving or changing himself. his own personal self. as one cannot control others. they can only manipulate them into doing their will.


whereas the lie forces one to do the will of the lie that they have accepted as a truth within their belief system. to the extreme it is the psychosis that is driving the person do go against his or her own will and causes them to behave in an illogical manner.


that whole statement from Lenny Bruce was from a man that gave up on life, gave up believing that things can change because he too could not find the strength to change himself even. Instead he lied to himself and accepted it as a truth, took to drugs to get the changes in life that they bring instead.

so naturally one of that type of mind would concluded that what "There is only what is and that's it. What should be is a dirty lie." to paraphrase it. there is only what is and nothing more, anything else other then what already is is a dirty lie.

he did not add change to the equation in the thought, it is a break in reality due to it. everyone has the ability to change, because everything is learned behavior.

That was a difficult sentence to understand. I had to chew on that idea that came out of your head for a while.

Originally Posted by enorbet Nowhere did he or anyone else ever say one had to like it or approve of it,

that is a mute point. when one hears something they either accept it as a truth, or a lie, or holds it in that maybe part of there belief system waiting for an answer to that question, or discounts it.


that is called freewill that allows one to do this. I to have free will to give my option on anything anyone says to me or others. as so do you and you are doing so right now and with what others say about God. and what I have said. I never not one time told you or anyone in here "had to like it or approve of it"

but here you are disapproving of what I have said to me. what is wrong with you? has you mind been skewed by some means that you are not aware of to make you think and say such things?

Originally Posted by enorbet let alone subscribe to it as right and proper. There can be no debate now since that is exactly what you did.

I have no understanding what you're trying to tell me there. should I be sorry that you cannot argue with me? is that all you are after is an argument to try and satisfy some part of your psyche (ego) because of something it is missing? is starving for so it acts out in ways some see as normal and others see as not. but nonetheless the psyche drives the mind to seek truth so that it can obtain it because that is all that is suppose to be within it so that it can be completely satisfied and normal.

so when one cannot find what they need sometimes they just take what they can get to get them by on. Lenny choose Heroin.

Originally Posted by enorbet You made an assumption based on zero evidence,

that is what an assumption is HELLO!!!! it is also called an educated guess. wake up! again you show signs of miss firing thoughts. why?

Originally Posted by enorbet and very probably just upon your own prejudice about the man rather than his observation.

that is an assumption without evidence from you. again you are truing yourself into a hypocrite as a result of it. accusing me of prejudice towards him?

I rightfully judged him. He was a drug addict, it has been documented. The drug of choice was Heroin. there is not prejudice within that.


I seen his observation on life in that quote you posted and have explained his break in reality in that statement he took as a truth then shared it with others. There is no prejudice is that.


Lenny Bruce being an Heroin addict that is documented. if you are referring to his mental make up his psychological state of being that too has an education behind it. It is not an assumption it is an educated assessment of his mental state.

I analyzed his not observation but his conclusion to his observation. He had a misfire in his thought process. a break in reality. that reality being that yes people can change, as a result of it things do change what should be.

That conclusion of his being this "What should be is a dirty lie." is a lie in itself that he accepted as a truth.

I am sooo sorry that you cannot see the truth in what I said about what he believed. That is not my fault. It is yours. so why are you falsely accusing me of something I have not done?

Originally Posted by enorbet Addition you still insist that I idolize and love Lenny Bruce and completely ignore that despite his many failings, he also did have an incisive mind,

I only state what I am seeing coming out of you over Lenny Bruce, you first deny your feelings for him, then in the same breath put you him up on a pedestal.

Originally Posted by enorbet he also did have an incisive mind,

incisive mind:(of a person or mental process) intelligently analytical and clear-thinking.

you really believe that? sure everyone can have moments of clarity about something. That does not mean that they are truth and should be put up on a pedestal as one of the great thinkers of their times. If Lenny Bruce is a standard of higher thinking in the times he was living in then what does that say about the rest of the people that had the ability to think during the time he lived on this planet?

someone who has breaks in reality is not a clear thinker. there entire logical process if faulty. He was driven by drugs. Heroin became the first and foremost important thing in his life and it killed him. That is not a incisive mind that does that.

Originally Posted by enorbet that occasionally had moments of great clarity he could articulate in a succinct manner.

oh he could articulate himself how nice is that? and still he gave up on life. looks to me that all of his articulating did him no good in the end. Yet you brag about this ability he had. why? It did him no good.

therefore then the ability to articulate oneself is not really all that important after all. Lenny Bruce is dead proof of that.

Originally Posted by enorbet An example of someone else I have quoted, I have read Mein Kampf and am forced to recognize that Adolf Hitler understood how to grab power and keep it, yet I thoroughly despise the man and wish he'd never been born.

so what? why are you trying to justify yourself to me about the things you read?

I have read many a book myself so what does that have to do with God's existence? Other then He too can read.

Originally Posted by enorbet I feel very much less negative about Lenny Bruce but to conclude that I idolize or love the man is absurd and most importantly to this thread, entirely an unwarranted conclusion.

you are the one that brought that up not me. you are the only one to blame for that one. so Why are you trying to project that guilt onto me?

Originally Posted by enorbet I said nothing about my judgment about the manner in which he lived his life, only about pne of his thoughtful concepts, I think quoteworthy.

you gave your option of Lenny Bruce when your quote him. now you state that you think it is quoteworthy. Something worthy of repeating.

whereas I see right through it and into the mind of the man that came up with that conclusion about life and seen he was wrong.

and you seem to think that is wrong of me to see how screwed up his mind had become. then try to show you that what he believed is not worth repeating.

and here you are trying to pass blame onto me as if I did something wrong. Why?

Originally Posted by enorbet Furthermore why is it that you must assume that I am in such denial?

why are you assuming that I am assuming?

Originally Posted by enorbet If I idolized Lenny or even Adolf why would I not say so?

Not necessary. you seem to think I have no understanding of people. stop projecting your self image onto me.

Originally Posted by enorbet If I had Faith would not my life be easier since The Faithful are still in the majority?

nor do you have any real understanding of people again this is proof of it. you instead have an association problem and a misconception of the truth on how fath in Jesus Christ really works.

Originally Posted by enorbet and isn't it deigned to give solace and comfort to those obsessed with the fear of dying that somehow, some identifiable part of us will live on forever and we will be reunited with our loved ones?

that is a misbelief. where did you get that from? I think that is you believing what someone else said about what Christian believes. You are so in the dark about what is really going on in this world.

Originally Posted by enorbet Who wouldn't want that? It would be wonderful.... if it wasn't likely "a dirty lie".

right there you put uncertainty to what Lenny told himself then accepted as a hard core truth.

why is that?

Originally Posted by enorbet You did indeed jump Now please note that you do not know if that realization makes me a little sad, suicidal, or absolutely gleeful since I did not address that in any way, only the likelihood of it's veracity.

you defiantly sowed me something about you in that last statement that is for sure

Originally Posted by enorbet If you come to any conclusion in that regard, you do it with a ridiculous paucity of evidence - ie" you jump to an unwarranted conclusion based on prejudice and assumption, not high degree confidence.

some people just love to lie to themselves to justify their thought within their own heads then they share them lies with others in hopes they are like them and will not question what they have decided is a truth when in fact it is a lie. or quote others they think are being truthful about life when in fact they too are just lying to themselves then sharing them lies to others.

oh what a cycle mans puts himself in when he accepts the something as a truth when it is not.

Lazy brains find no real truth instead they just keep accepting whatever it is that sounds good to them or they twist what is said to suit their own thoughts on things that they really have no understating of.

I put to thought what someone else said and all you can do is yell at me for it. Sling false accusations about me to try and prove your "case" against me.

Tell me that what I did makes me prejudice towards Lenny Bruce when in fact I used facts and an education to assess his mental state in his line of thought.

to say what you are now saying about me out of guilty feelings or feelings of embarrassment by what you did that you will surely deny that but it puts you so far off base about me that is what is ridiculous.


the mind of man is something I was wrong about you even coming close to understanding . You instead seem to have very little understanding of.man. perhaps even yourself.