Religion and Psychology

Atheism that resides only in the Intellect will ultimately fail because it can sink no deep roots into the wellsprings of Human Psychology. Yes, there has been an informal Philosophical Assumption, since the days of Voltaire and Locke, that humans can be trained by education to be entirely intellectual – to live only in the Head, and then only upon the surface. But looking around, we can conclude that they must have been mistaken, as it just never caught on.

But does Religion have a better chance? Well, look at the Psychological Archetypes. Much in our Psychologies – the Archetypes and Dream Motifs – follow along with a Pre-Christian Pagan library of Characters and Symbols, but to a Civilized end no less. Greece, Rome, and Babylon, after all, were Civilizations. It was just one of those many things that made me suspect Paul of being the Antichrist, that he was able to direct Christianity outside the boundaries of Psychological Significance. If it were True then why would it not have any Psychological Parallels. Truth cannot stand in stark isolation to everything else, but Falsehood can.

This is one Area where Marian Catholicism was able to undo much of the Pauline Damage. The Blessed Virgin is able to slip in seamlessly into much of our Mythologies and Psychologies. Afterall, is there really a difference between Mary the Virgin and Diana the Virgin? The One is B.C. and the other is A.D. But both are Moral Civilizers.

Atheism that resides only in the Intellect will ultimately fail because it can sink no deep roots into the wellsprings of Human Psychology.

What is "deeper", according to you?

Yes, there has been an informal Philosophical Assumption, since the days of Voltaire and Locke, that humans can be trained by education to be entirely intellectual – to live only in the Head, and then only upon the surface.

I disagree. Why do you think that?

It was just one of those many things that made me suspect Paul of being the Antichrist, that he was able to direct Christianity outside the boundaries of Psychological Significance.

What are the boundaries of psychological significance?

The Blessed Virgin is able to slip in seamlessly into much of our Mythologies and Psychologies. Afterall, is there really a difference between Mary the Virgin and Diana the Virgin? The One is B.C. and the other is A.D. But both are Moral Civilizers.

Mickey Mouse is a good wholesome role model too.

Carl Jung was famous for his 'research' regarding Psychological Archetypes. But the research was plagued by the problem of establishing controls. In an educated Society it was virtually impossible to find subjects that had not be exposed to Objective Instances of Cultural Psychological Archetypes. The Archetypes would filter into the Arts and become part of people's daily lives. So when a person would have an "Archetypical" Dream or Vision, it could be virtually impossible to assign the cause exclusively to the Subconscious, Superconsious, or Collective Mind.

Jung got around the problem by falsifying his data. With some of his Test Subjects, here deleted all references to their educations and cultural experiences and presented them as though they were intellectual vacuums straight off of isolated farms from houses without bookshelves.

It makes him a liar, but we should understand -- it is a rough world for those Acedemics. You know what they say -- "Publish or perish".

However, I still think there was some inherent Truth in what Jung was saying, even if he had some problems "proving" it. Yes, I always had something of a Culturally Cosmopolitan Education, but my Dream Symbols and Characters never seemed to have much respect for whatever my present intellectual fixation was at the time. While Studying Buddhism, I dreamt in Greek Mythological Terms, and then while studying Yoga, I had dreams of Christian and Marian significance.

when I saw this thread, I thought there has to be a mistake.
Leo the lunatic, trying to talk about Psychology.
but then I thought, it is something you should know a lot about, being delusional that is.
Atheism that resides only in the Intellect will ultimately fail because it can sink no deep roots into the wellsprings of Human Psychology. But looking around, we can conclude that they must have been mistaken, as it just never caught on
utter rubbish, you could not hold a candle to an athiest, they have more humanity in there little finger, then you've had in you whole life. athiesm starts with reason, as you see the light, and you see how nasty religion is and our cruel and calous god is.
atheism resides in the heart.
and oh yes, it has caught on, people are much wiser now, and get wiser everyday.
it's only a matter of time, before man no longer follows like a sheep, a non existent entity.

LEo......"is there really a difference between Mary the virgin and Diana the Virgin"

oh, yeah!......'virgin' in its orginal meaning means a woman of independent means. no married, and sexually independent. NOT its judic-christian interpretation of 'celibate' as was their character of the Virgin Mary.
Diana comes from pagan lore where the original meaning of virgin comes from

what the patriarchs did was split woman, and keep the docile, husband serving good-mother, Eve, Mary, etc, and demonize the wilder aspect of woman, encapsulated in the Hebrews demonzed mythic character, Lilith

James R, asks "what is deeper..."?

can i ask you James, how do YOU define deep?

when I saw this thread, I thought there has to be a mistake.
Leo the lunatic, trying to talk about Psychology.

He's a patient @ $150.00ph. You would expect he's getting better!. :D

Godless.

Religion and Psychology

Atheism that resides only in the Intellect will ultimately fail because it can sink no deep roots into the wellsprings of Human Psychology.

Anthing that exists only in the intellect will ultimately fail. That's why
it's important to turn the 'potential' into 'kenetic' throughout one's life.
Practicing the concept of 'don't accept claims without supporting evidence'
will only make you better at it and a clearer thinker.

Anthing that exists only in the intellect will ultimately fail. That's why
it's important to turn the 'potential' into 'kenetic' throughout one's life.
Practicing the concept of 'don't accept claims without supporting evidence'
will only make you better at it and a clearer thinker.

Crunchy, you would have people ignore their own minds because they can't verify the Truth of their own Visions. That is Alienation from Self.

What a boring old man you will become.

What a boring old man you will become.that as maybe, but he wont be a lunatic.
rather a little boring, than a lot psycho.

that as maybe, but he wont be a lunatic.
rather a little boring, than a lot psycho.


Why?

You're an Atheist. So nothing matters, right? Well, being a lunatic is at least interesting. As a materialist, would you not concede that being interesting is better then not being interesting?

Look at what happened to the Existentialist Movement. They so isolated themselves from Spirituality that the meaninglessness of Life became overwhelming. Practically en mass they all committed suicide. That won't happen to me, because I have plenty of interesting stuff happening.

You're an Atheist. So nothing matters, right?

An atheist is subjective towards whether something matters.

Look at what happened to the Existentialist Movement. They so isolated themselves from Spirituality that the meaninglessness of Life became overwhelming. Practically en mass they all committed suicide. That won't happen to me, because I have plenty of interesting stuff happening.

It won't happen to you, because you delude yourself, keeping yourself ignorant out of fear of oblivion, and your religion is the symptom. And you faithfully hold to the dogma that suicide is wrong, again showing your irrational fear of not being.

Crunchy, you would have people ignore their own minds because they can't verify the Truth of their own Visions. That is Alienation from Self.

What a boring old man you will become.

Leo,

What the mind produces sometimes (especially in dreams) can be fabulous
fantastic worlds. Such profound experiences in the mind make for great
stories to tell other people. They are simply cool and to some degree an
expession of creativity... but it is fiction nonetheless.

I semi-recently had a dream where I was a dragon on roller blades and was
skating along a coastal highway. There were really complex image formations
in the pre-dusk sky, spectacular sounds, a few light fluffy clouds between
the ground and the sky (some touching the ground)... it was really cool and
completely fiction. In other dreams I have experienced different realities,
different physical laws, profound sights / sounds / sensations... many things
that even our best special effects movie makers have not even scratched the
surface of. I don't deny I have had the experiences, and with a lifetime of
them they no doubt have an influence on who I am... but as strong as that
influence is on my behaviors and competencies, I know that the experiences
are simply generated by my own mind and to accept them as 'truth' would be
nothing more than a self-chosen cognitive handicap.

Why?

You're an Atheist. So nothing matters, right?

'Athiests' care about things just as any other human does. Interpretation
of value, resourcefulness, substitution, and maximization all feed into what
'matters' to humans.

Leo,

You're an Atheist. So nothing matters, right?

I have no belief in your myths but it doesn’t follow that nothing matters. In my case I consider life the most precious commodity imaginable since it is very short and priceless and is all I have. Unlike the religionist such as yourself who considers life a transitory period and relatively unimportant compared to the eternity in your mythical afterlife.

You're an Atheist. So nothing matters, right?

See!! this defines your ignorance. To an atheist everything matters!!. Because he/she knows that they have one life to live, one that lives for her-himself, and that prayers, wishing, does not solve problems. It is to the theist, that seemingly nothing matters since you belief dictates another form of existence after death?. What a rediculous notion, you look forward to die, so you can be in heaven. If you kill someone, you are not held responsible, god-made you do it, satan influenced you, you don't take responsibilities for your own actions. An atheist knows that it's his actions that he/she has to account for.

Godless.

and you did extremely well, Godless.
but I fear it's wasted, on a moron.

and you did extremely well, Godless.
but I fear it's wasted, on a moron.

Man you guys are Brutal. I know that some people have been influenced
negatively by some of Leo's personal remarks over various threads; however,
I would challanenge anyone to step up and Lead a little with the golden rule.
Reinforce the desired behavior rather than condemn the undesired.

Godless,

OOOOOOOPS I hit the send button twice. Damn I quess I wanted to drive the point.

Y'know ya can delete your own posts if you want - unless u really did mean 2 drive the point of course.

Man you guys are Brutal.

G!! your new. It's been kind of calm around here lately. Sci-forums is open to all creeds however there was an overwelming population of atheists here a bit back, and then it was really hell for those poor believer folkes. Believe me it's been real calm. ;)

We've had many messiah types around here. Loon, Tony1, Wandarer (though this guy was an atheist) he preached his Nietzsche philosophy in an authoritive manner. And then there's Leo another one heading on the path to be remembered around here as some nut who thinks is better than everyone else, because of his weird dreams with angels. :eek:

Godless.

I would challenge anyone to step up and Lead a little with the golden rule.

We would all do well to remember those words and accept the challenge, atheists included, Godless. :m:

We would all do well to remember those words and accept the challenge, atheists included, Godless.

So what the hell does that mean? THE GOLDEN RULE?

Thre's no such thing, it's not writen, the bible. LOL, :p No golden rule there.
The Qua'ran, no golden rule there either.
The Torah?. more nonsense.

Basically I don't understand what you mean by that, since I'm not the only atheist on this thread.

What is the GOLDEN RULE to you?.

Godless.

The Christian golden rule - do to others what you think would be good for them whether they want you to or not.

The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do to you) and the Wiccan Rede (If no harm is done, do as you will).
I prefer the latter.


"Every atheist I have known has always fallen back upon the one concept echoed worldwide, and taught by religious and secular leaders throughout all time: the so-called "Golden Rule." Jesus was repeating an old Jewish proverb when he said "Do unto others as they do unto you," and Confucius was recording an old Chinese saying when he wrote "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you."
All atheist systems of morality seem to derive in various ways from this core principle, and so it would be appropriate to say that atheists stand for the Golden Rule in its fullest meaning and significance. I believe that any rule or belief which violates this principle is discarded by most atheists as immoral..."

Richard Carrier, 1999

and so crunchy and step:
I cant see were, anybody has broke the golden rule (do unto others as they do unto you).

Unfortunately, it is merely a goodwill gesture, and is not a practical belief to enforce. Because, for example, a violent warrior is going to have a very different idea of what normal conduct is. One who fights for survival is both willing to attack others, and defend himself, and upholding the ethic of reciprocity appears to tell him that it is ok for him to attack others, just because it's something he expects to happen to him too. Survivalists and those who expect others to treat them badly, who are happy in a tooth-for-tooth world are given the all-clear to go forth and act as they wish. The ethic of reciprocity is too idealistic, and can only ever maintain the status quo rather than create an atmosphere of goodwill. Most support it because they are unable to think of a better way, and it has a feel-good factor because the statement is "seen as good".

The Christian golden rule - do to others what you think would be good for them whether they want you to or not.

Yes, but the moral guidance is that you would have to truly want the same thing for yourself.

You know you can use the Golden Rule in a reverse way. You can see how other people treat you, and infer from there behavior toward you how they wish to be treated themselves. For instance, people from the East Coast are abrupt and rude to others, but do not feel insulted in the least when others are abrupt and rude to them -- abruptness and rudeness are simply part of their accepted Community Golden Rule.

But the Golden Rule can then get a person into trouble. A New Yorker in California will be abrupt and rude because quite honestly that is what he would expect for himself. But on the West Coast everyone cries and is horribly offended. This is where the Golden Rule must be tempered with the Old Roman Adage -- "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", that is, 'do unto others as they would have you do unto them, and expect the same treatment in reciprocation'.

The Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do to you) and the Wiccan Rede (If no harm is done, do as you will).
I prefer the latter.


"Every atheist I have known has always fallen back upon the one concept echoed worldwide, and taught by religious and secular leaders throughout all time: the so-called "Golden Rule." Jesus was repeating an old Jewish proverb when he said "Do unto others as they do unto you," and Confucius was recording an old Chinese saying when he wrote "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you."
All atheist systems of morality seem to derive in various ways from this core principle, and so it would be appropriate to say that atheists stand for the Golden Rule in its fullest meaning and significance. I believe that any rule or belief which violates this principle is discarded by most atheists as immoral..."

Richard Carrier, 1999

and so crunchy and step:
I cant see were, anybody has broke the golden rule (do unto others as they do unto you).

Unfortunately, it is merely a goodwill gesture, and is not a practical belief to enforce. Because, for example, a violent warrior is going to have a very different idea of what normal conduct is. One who fights for survival is both willing to attack others, and defend himself, and upholding the ethic of reciprocity appears to tell him that it is ok for him to attack others, just because it's something he expects to happen to him too. Survivalists and those who expect others to treat them badly, who are happy in a tooth-for-tooth world are given the all-clear to go forth and act as they wish. The ethic of reciprocity is too idealistic, and can only ever maintain the status quo rather than create an atmosphere of goodwill. Most support it because they are unable to think of a better way, and it has a feel-good factor because the statement is "seen as good".

Nice post Farenheit. I'll take the blame for not being specific here. I did
not realize there were so many interpretations of the 'Golden Rule'. I am
defining it as:

"Do unto others as you would have done to you."

Regardless of how the concept came to be (various religions, philosophies,
etc.), it is at the very least a nice target to shoot for as it produces positive
behavior.

Leo has a good point about 'When in Rome...'. That's actually adaptation
hes describing there. In the east-coast / west-coast example Leo has made
some correct observations that east-coast directness used to be interpreted
as hostility to west-coasters (I am not sure if this is still the case).

Cris: The Christian golden rule - do to others what you think would be good for them whether they want you to or not.
*************
M*W: Another version of the Christian golden rule - Do unto others before they do unto you.

Cris: The Christian golden rule - do to others what you think would be good for them whether they want you to or not.
*************
M*W: Another version of the Christian golden rule - Do unto others before they do unto you.

Damn MW, you are like comedy central nowadays :p

Crunchy Cat: Damn MW, you are like comedy central nowadays :p
*************
M*W: Thanks, Crunch, there's no one else I like to poke fun at
than xians!