hezekiah jones

Paul Crouch: Jesus! Benny Hinn!

hezekiah jones

Oh for Christ's sakes I was looking at the bottom of the first page, thinking it was the bottom of the fourth page.

Mad Kally

Oh stop it, haha.. don't make me laugh when I'm trying to be so serious..

Dr Rick

Speaking of delusions...

-DM-

I don't know much about Theo, but Metacrock is one of the most arrogant and pompous individuals that I have yet come across. That he comes here with his insults and then scurries off to his cave when the going gets tough -- leaving a trail of doo-doo behind him -- should not (IMO) be tolerated.

--Don--

Bookman

Here goes. After giving it some thought, I'm comfortably concluding that theism, by itself, is not a delusional belief. I'll respond to the points that you've made as precisely as I'm able.

That's fine. I've been thinking of the problem at that level anyway. Most of the theists that I know (or at least the ones who's beliefs I understand well) are very liberal Christians at best (with a smattering of Buddhists, Pagans, and fluffy New Agers thrown in for good measure). It's probably telling that I think of fundamentalists as the exception and not the rule when I consider believers, so I'm with you so far.

Fair enough.

I think you've unintentionally extended the meaning of what I wrote. I didn't mean to suggest that theists were incapable of applying and understanding logic (after all, they invented it, no?) just that for some reason they don't apply logic to the god question. I'll speak to the reason why I think this is later.

We're on the same page here.

It sounds like here you are asking where the god concept came from originally. That's irrelevant. I know where the god concept of most individuals comes from: they learn it from their parents. This is key to my question about self-deception.

I don't accept that as delusional either. Standards of evil and good are not merely socially learned, they're socially (and subjectively) defined. How can you consider that to be a delusion?

</strong>
I wouldn't put it this way, but this is getting close to my POV.

It's an understatement to say that I believe you've overcomplicated this.

The idea of god for an individual living in the here and now doesn't come from a perception experienced in a dream state. It comes from someone (generally a parent) teaching it to them. Children learn from an early age to trust their parents teachings based on observation and experience; the very method you and I would want them to use to determine the objective truths. Parents represent a reasonable authority to which to appeal, so the initial acceptance of the god hypothesis, particularly since there is no evidence available to the child that contravenes the theory, is rational and in no way delusional.

The relevant question (and the one that you ask later) is the one I posted earlier -- how come some of us can shake the belief and others can't?

I don't understand why you've gone so far to postulate the source for the god knowledge. We know where it comes from.

I think you're selling indoctrination short by calling it "mere indoctrination". The indoctrination of children is obviously powerful. By teaching the god hypothesis at such an early age the idea that "I am a believer" becomes a part of that person's identity. Most people don't acheive the self-actualization required to reprogram the identity and that is the fundamental reason that inculcation is so powerful. Most people will never be capable of overcoming it.

I would say that human nature is to blame. I don't see any reason to believe that the inability to modify one's identity with respect to belief is fundamentally different than one's inability to modify one's identity with respect to, say, gender roles. I'm not convinced that the "STR", as you put it, represents a completely different class of belief.

I don't know. Consider my point above about my personal experience with believers and take this as you will: I don't think that theists are of one mind on this; I don't believe that even a simple majority of those that would call themselves believers believe as strongly as you suggest. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way for us to evaluate either claim.

Just as you've betrayed you bias here, I've betrayed mine. I'm focusing on the beliefs because I don't think there's anything wrong with the minds in question.

I don't know. I can't see into their minds to know what they truly believe, but I do accept that many exist that feel that way. I'm surprised that you do - it would seem to undermine the conjecture you've made.

&lt;snip&gt;

What do you think of my conjecture about self-identity as relates to these points?

Bookman

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bookman ]</p>

Amos

If heaven is a state of mind hell must also be a state of mind and this is maybe what you see in theism. It this is true it would be the most vocal part of theism and since there is nothing new under the sun: "there will be no relief by day or by night" and "the smoke of their torment shall rise forever and ever."

More than once I have actually seen healthy young men (and one female) that were is some problem with the law (female had family problems) get zapped by an evangelist and went besurk to end up in mental institutions some time later.

Soon (I hope) a good lawsuit will settle such cases and if next we place this on a slippery slope all fundamentailst religions in N. America will be driven underground.

Amos

Seeker196

"I know where the god concept of most individuals comes from: they learn it from their parents. This is key to my question about self-deception."

So you don't believe in a neurological explanation for mystical experience? That there is a 'God-part' of the brain, that when stimulated, produces mystical experiences?

EDIT: I don't think anyone is suggesting 'locking up the theists'. The majority of the population has some form or another of non-psychotic personality disorder, depression, etc. There is definetly a scale of severity...

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Seeker196 ]</p>

Bookman

No, I'm not saying anything about that. I'm talking about specific beliefs that could potentially be classified as delusional i.e. an invisible fairy whisked this all into existence in six days, angels are watching over me, et cetera.

These counter-factual beliefs don't emerge from the god-part of the brain spontaneously; they are learned.

Bookman

Koyaanisqatsi

Before getting to Bookman's post, we've all been throwing the word "delusional" around, so I thought a quick trip to Webster's might help keep this discussion anchored to some degree.

Delusional: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self.

Once again, we're back to the word "psychotic," but at least we have a focal point.

Ok.

Boy, good luck!

I don't agree that it's irrelevant, but don't really want to get fully into my extension of Freudian Projection on this just yet. That's a speculative philosophical ride that only the strong at heart and seriously deranged can stomach.

Back to self-deception.

Well, I don't know if it necessarily qualifies as "psychotic," but the notion of an otherwise "good" person believing sincerely that they are in the service of "good" and all the while performing and supporting "evil" (to use simple terms for analogy's sake) is definitely "something." Self-deception seems a part of it; perhaps a descriptive element, but let me see what you're getting at.

I meant in the "meta" sense (not in the Meta sense ). We know christianity to be nothing more than an elaborate concoction of control cult lies used to indoctrinate otherwise innocent, intelligent people into the fold largely through fear, wish-fulfillment and inculcation (there's that word of mine).

In other words, we know it's (ultimately) a sham, but the members, the priests, the pastors, they don't know it's a sham and vehemently protest such a "blasphemy," and literally will go to their graves defending STR with just about every fiber of their being. Even your "garden variety" moderates and liberals and fluffy new agers still obstinately (and irrationally) declare an allegiance to the notion that a "god creature" exists in some form some where.

So you have a situation where everyone involved has the best "intentions" and the highest integrity (in the ideal) and yet they are still involved in proffering, promulgating and proselytizing (the trinity) what is ultimately and fundamentally, a lie from top to bottom.

It's truly a remarkable system, when you think about it and it is a supplanted reality just as surely as if you had taken the operating system out of a computer and replaced it with another.

So, does the supplanting of this reality qualify as "psychotic" or merely academic and does the ability to have our realities thus supplanted in turn qualify as a form of psychosis or delusion or simply operant conditioning?

Anyway, didn't mean to drift yet again. I think you see my point; there is something more here than meets the eye, but back to your comfortable conclusion, yes?

You mistook my overcomplication. Don't worry, you're not the first. Let me overcomplicate the initial overcomplication...

I was wondering if the physiological "mechanisms" that allow for our dream state are being consciously "triggered" (for lack of better terms) in some manner by STR to account for the fact that the theist and atheist both accept bizarre, disparate "realities" in dreams, yet wake up to the default, "object permanence" of waking reality with no problems, only to then diverge wildly when it comes to the fundamental understanding of that "default" waking reality.

I'm not just talking about slight perceptional differences (i.e., color blindness); I'm talking about a fundamentally different "operating" system being booted up consciously upon awakening.

In other words, everyone dreams wildly fantastic realities that, to our perceptions seem completely "real" while dreaming, only to then wake up to a more or less "default" reality (WRAP) that we respond to without going immediately insane. Thus, we all have the inherent ability ("mechanism?") to readily discern one set of perceived realities (fantastical/dream realities) from the "default" reality almost automatically.

We could have just been flying through the clouds of a tenth dimensional world naked, wake up, and shit, shower and shave without too much worry that we have lost touch with "reality," even though we evidently had for an indeterminate amount of time while sleeping.

So there is (apparently) clearly an innate ability to recognize the parameters of "default" reality as opposed to the parameters of, say, something fantastical and impossible to have actually occurred, such as the stories in the NT (especially Revelation).

Now, for the theist to recognize that default reality and then discard (or suppress) every sense at their disposal that tells them what and where they are in favor of STR tells me that, perhaps, there is some form of triggering of the dream reality "mechanisms" involved (emphasis on "perhaps") and thus we would be talking about a fundamental (d)effect?

Again, it's completely speculative, but I think there may be something salient in there somewhere, which is why I threw it up to see what comes down.

True. The bits and pieces are no different than mathematics or language or anything else that is learned. I didn't mean that the god concept was innate as much as I meant that, like Freudian Projection, what is "out there" tells us what is "in here," he typed, while pointing to his head.

The concept of a god or gods or other creator deities, I think, are clues to tell us all something about ourselves that we project outward in the way a mathematician uses a chalkboard.

For example, energy can only be diverted, not destroyed. This is (apparently) an inherent, innate quality of our "default" reality. This gets projected outward and becomes the idea of "life after death." See where I'm going with this? Myths, art, social constructs, all of that is nothing more than the collective subconscious trying to tell the collective conscious what our existence is really all about.

Thus, the god concept is actually our subconscious trying to tell us that we created ourselves; i.e., our consciousness designed the matter it inhabits. I know, I know, talk about new age, but I'm just trying to explain where I was going with this notion.

Some people are excellent writers and "listen" to that subconscious voice and we get Thomas Paine. Other people are terrible writers who didn't really "listen" to what the "truth" is and we get the Passion Narratives.

It's a thought.

True, especially since the child is also concurrently engaged in "dream reality" as well as "default reality" daydreaming and all of the fantastical imaginative functions of their minds/brains, so at such an impressionable, formative "what's this all about" point in their "reality" orientation, shall we say, the deliberate blurring of the lines between the "default reality" and the "dream reality" allows for the idea of a magical bunny rabbit bringing eggs and a jolly fat man bringing presents and a mystical god creature blinking everything into existence. I see what you mean.

I may be rambling incoherently to everyone else, but yes, I see where you're going with this. I still think it's deeper than this, but I'll hold off until done reading yours.

I hope I've clarified.

And the line between the "real" and the "fantastical" gets deliberately blurred so that the child's innate "reality mechanisms" do not necessarily function properly. Yes. This is intriguing and helps clarify what I initially questioned regarding a fundamental (d)effect of STR.

Yes, but why? If it is just "self-actualization" and not something more fundamentally hard-wired (such as the hypothesis that I've asserted regarding "trigger mechanisms" for discerning dream parameters as opposed to reality parameters) then, in essence you're arguing that all of us just got lucky, or perhaps weren't indoctrinated very well; that it was a failure of the indoctrinators. I went through the same doors and sand the same songs and bowed my head saying the same prayers, yet here I am as opposed to friends that are still "there." Why?

"Self-actualization" is a tricky term, so I'll let you run with this more. I think you're definitely on to something, but if it does simply come down to indoctrination, then there's still the question of what makes one person immune while another drinks the kool aid and in that difference, does psychosis/delusion lie?

Perhaps we should look more toward the people that drink the kool aid, before we get too bogged down in explaining or analyzing the so-called "garden variety" types? After all, if we want to really understand how Cancer operates, perhaps examining freckles (benign melanoma) isn't the best place to start?

Is that "hard wired?"

I don't know if I can agree with that analogy. I know where you're going with it, but I'm not sure if they're on the same par, but I'll grant it for now for the sake of your argument.

I think it does to the extent that no one "presupposes" gender roles in the manner cult members claim they "presuppose" theist reality. We're talking about a fundamental override of the natural senses with STR; a deliberate and constant override that I just don't see is evident in any other class of belief.

As I mentioned before, people like my Aunt and Uncle don't merely believe that such creatures can or could exist; they are unequivocally convinced that "christ reality" is the only reality without question or comment. Jesus exists and so does the Devil and without a daily vigilance, the devil will "get them" (according to my Aunt, "he" already did once before), so that their only consideration (or I should say, primary consideration) is "Reality exists through Jesus."

It isn't a tree; it's a Jesustree. It isn't a rock; it's a Jesusrock. See what I mean?

Obviously that's another exploded example to try and make the point clear, but I think it's applicable to many if not most of the "tier 2" and above cult members (segregating out the "tier 1" as your "garden variety" fence sitters) in our society.

It isn't just a passing fancy for these people or simply some place to go and meet their community and have a cup of bad coffee; it is reality and we are the ones deluding ourselves.

Fence sitters are largely irrelevant here, since ultimately they are little more than agnostics, so perhaps we should jettison them from our focus?

Agreed. We may be in way over our heads, but at least it's more intellectually stimulating than yet another rehash of "Atheist's have no basis for morality!" crap .

As I said, I don't know either, but perhaps discarding the fence sitters you're talking about as "benign melanoma" and focusing more on "tier 2" and above theists as "malignant cancer" might at least allow us to go to the other end of the spectrum to then (hopefully) find the exploded middle.

That are we should all just drop 'cid and watch the clouds go by .

I agree. I don't think it's a congenital defect, but I am intrigued with the "trigger mechanisms" hypothesis; the notion that a fundamental physiological function of the brain is being manipulated or "fooled" into functioning in a manner that it shouldn't be used for. Sort of like birth control pills that "fool" the female body into thinking it's pregnant.

Again, it's all conjecture and wild speculation, but at least it beats Pascal's Wager.

How so? Again, I'm not arguing that there is a part of the brain that generates this stuff; I am conjecturing, however, that there is a part of the brain that serves other fundamental functions of "reality parameters" that is being either unwittingly or deliberately manipulated into "booting up" a reality parameter that is at odds with the reality parameters the body should be reacting to.

I don't think I'm as "comfortable" with your conclusion as you may be, but then again, we're all, in essence, flying blind and typing out our asses on this one. C'est la vie!

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>