To theists: How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?

Adstar

10-31-07, 03:23 AM

Hmmm lets see, created heaven and earth in seven days, virgin birth of it's son, lets men kill his son to redeem men's soul of sin, son walks on water, bread falls from the sky and feeds thousands, parts the red sea, Yea! that's pretty much wishful thinking to believe all that bull shit!!

Why would believing in any of that be as a result of wishful thinking??

Do you think i wished that a God existed that created the world in 7 days? I could not give a brass razzo how long God took to create the world.

Do you think i wished for a faith that has its Messiah born of a Virgin?? I could not care how the Messiah Came into the world. Maybe if He came down in a blazing ball of white light with a spectacular sound show,, yeah maybe that would be wishful thinking.

No volcanoes are quite real, however a lake of fire to punish those whom refuse to believe the buybull's god is wishful thinking, it's called a con job! Do as I say or else!

So you are saying that i wish others to spend eternity in the lake of fire. No way do i wish for anyone to spend eternity in the lake of fire. I wish that everyone could be saved from the lake of fire and that no one would spend eternity there.

Yea beheaded by other bastards who think their version of god is superior to your own, this not wishful thinking it's called human nature, my god is superior to your god, cause we kill more of your people, we are superior, it's a superiority complex always with you religious folks! Can't you co-exist with thousands of religions? Without trying to force each other's version of god complex?

I can co-exist with people of other religions in peace. My faith tells me to love even my ememies and not to take part in violence and killing towards others. So the problem does not originate from My faith but from their faith's that allow violent action and persecution to be used as a tool for world domination.

Isn't your god the masochist, that is actually into pain and watching the human race suffer? Did he not create evil in the first place?

God had a choice when man came to the knowledge of Good and Evil. He could have said, I will not allow evil in my creation therefore i will exterminate humanity destroy this tainted creation and start anew with a new creation.

Or He could have done what He did, tolerated evil for a time while He worked to set in place the mechanisim to salvage mankind from the disaster they found themselves ensnared in.

It is only by the mercy and longsuffering of God that you exist and have the opportunity to be restored to what He willed us to be in the first place.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar

10-31-07, 03:40 AM

If this was addressed at me -

I did not say that. It is really mean of you to impute such things on me.

Well let’s quote what you said shall we.

I was born into a Christian society and for a long time, I thought I believed in God. But eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy.

Here you state that you Christian faith was just wishful thinking a fantasy. You rejected your Christian faith because you decided that the Christian faith is a result of wishful thinking, a fantasy.

Therefore by your judgement all people who hold the Christian faith are deceiving themselves with wishful thinking/ a fantasy.

That is your wishful thinking, not mine.

Did i ever say it was your wishful thinking??????? No... So why even make this comment as if i did???

My wish is that God will help and that there is a heaven and that I will qualify for it. But it's just that - a wish, and I might spend my whole life not knowing whether it can come true or not.
If it doesn't come true, this will mean I have wasted my life, wishing for something that didn't happen.

Well for me qualifying it's easy. I believe the Messiah Jesus so i qualify. End of story. No need to spend my life wondering.

And as for wasting ones life? Tell me when you where a Christian did you go to school? Did you have friends? Did you have fun? Did you love others and where you loved?

How much different is your atheist life compared to your life as a Christian?

This whole line of thinking is deluded. Christians live their lives just as fully as anyone else. But with a sense of peace and calm reassurance that many others never know.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Grantywanty

10-31-07, 03:59 AM

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?
How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

These are good questions, but everyone should spend some time with them. What are your answers to those questions?
For example around
The Self's Continuity Through Time - a belief anti-theists tend not to be botherd by.
The Existence of a Self
Free Will

In any case...
How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
I've spent a lot of time doing what could be called introspection or meditation. In addition a tremendous amount of exploring my own psychology, the psychology of other, the relationship between thoughts and emotions and related areas. This was 'hands on' and intellectual exploration, much of it with other professionals. In this process I noticed more and more often that I could feel/notice when I made jumps because of how I wanted something to be - inside myself, in others, in 'reality' - and when I was not making this kind of jump.

Most of my beliefs are made based on a combination of intuition, rational thought, experience and an exchange between these. Rationalists tend to think you can somehow avoid intuition, but this is not the case. If I notice over time that there are places where my belief is held up by the leaps I mentioned above, then that is an area I explore in myself. I trust my ability here.

How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

God has been too smart. And then there is also the feeling that goes with the communication.

greenberg

10-31-07, 04:07 AM

Adstar, you still haven't answered my questions from the OP.

Well let’s quote what you said shall we.

I was born into a Christian society and for a long time, I thought I believed in God. But eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy.

Here you state that you Christian faith was just wishful thinking a fantasy. You rejected your Christian faith because you decided that the Christian faith is a result of wishful thinking, a fantasy.

That's how you read??

I say

eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy

and to you, this means that

I stated that my Christian faith was just wishful thinking a fantasy and that I rejected my Christian faith because I decided that the Christian faith is a result of wishful thinking, a fantasy

If this is how you are going to misinterpret me, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Therefore by your judgement all people who hold the Christian faith are deceiving themselves with wishful thinking/ a fantasy.

That is YOUR conclusion.

That is your wishful thinking, not mine.

Did i ever say it was your wishful thinking??????? No... So why even make this comment as if i did???

You gave an example of what wishful thinking would be for you. I don't have the same ideas of wishful thinking as you.

Well for me qualifying it's easy. I believe the Messiah Jesus so i qualify. End of story. No need to spend my life wondering.

Good for you. What about me? How do I arrive at the surety you have?

And as for wasting ones life? Tell me when you where a Christian did you go to school? Did you have friends? Did you have fun? Did you love others and where you loved?

How much different is your atheist life compared to your life as a Christian?

If I end up going to hell, then this will be a sure sign that I have wasted my life.

This whole line of thinking is deluded. Christians live their lives just as fully as anyone else. But with a sense of peace and calm reassurance that many others never know.

How did they arrive at that point? How do they know they aren't just indulging in wishful thinking? How do they distinguish between reality and imagination? What are their criteria for making this distinction?

Please, answer the questions from the OP.

Godless

10-31-07, 04:07 AM

Why would believing in any of that be as a result of wishful thinking?

Is it not part of your religion? If you believe such nonsense then is it just wishful thinking to believe that buybull is based on reality and truth. Wishful thinking is to believe all that I listed part of an objective reality!

Do you think i wished that a God existed that created the world in 7 days? I could not give a brass razzo how long God took to create the world.

Is this not what your taught in your religion? That god created heaven and earth in 7 days, to believe in such nonsense wouldn't that be "wishful thinking?" When the scientific facts have shown this not to be the case?

Do you think i wished for a faith that has its Messiah born of a Virgin?? I could not care how the Messiah Came into the world. Maybe if He came down in a blazing ball of white light with a spectacular sound show,, yeah maybe that would be wishful thinking.

Is it not your wishful thinking that a messiah existed at all? You obviously have no evidence if these stories written in your buybull , which you have faith and buried your head in the sand to query any assumption of which you where taught to be fact. Your devoid yourself of reason in favor of faith, blind faith on the assumptions and superstitions of others! That is wishful thinking to believe that yours is the true faith amongst thousands..

So you are saying that i wish others to spend eternity in the lake of fire. No way do i wish for anyone to spend eternity in the lake of fire. I wish that everyone could be saved from the lake of fire and that no one would spend eternity there.

Re-read again what I said, I didn't claim "U" said you wanted us to spend eternity in a lake of fire, however that is what your "religion" teaches, it's a con job, believe as I do or else! How certain are you in the face of thousands of religions all claiming to be the way to salvation that your in the proper one? Is it not wishful thinking that you've picked the right one, amongst thousands?

I can co-exist with people of other religions in peace.

Cool, now go teach that to the other thousands of religions sects murdering themselves over some god concept!

My faith tells me to love even my ememies and not to take part in violence and killing towards others.

Nice! now teach that to the multitude of murders done in the name of religion, many of which claim to be Christian!

So the problem does not originate from My faith but from their faith's that allow violent action and persecution to be used as a tool for world domination.

Hate to tell you this, but all religions seek to have world domination! Read the Qua'ran, buybull or even the book of mormon.. to name a few..

God had a choice when man came to the knowledge of Good and Evil.

This is a contradiction to your god's omniscient nature. He had no choice! He already had foreknowledge of the outcome!

He could have said, I will not allow evil in my creation therefore i will exterminate humanity destroy this tainted creation and start anew with a new creation.

So flooding the world was a fluke?

He could have done what He did, tolerated evil for a time while He worked to set in place the mechanisim to salvage mankind from the disaster they found themselves ensnared in.

This contradicts your god's nature of omnipotence, he didn't have to tolerate evil whatsoever or even work out any mechanism, he should have just snapped his fingers and wala it would have just happened! No more evil!

It is only by the mercy and longsuffering of God that you exist and have the opportunity to be restored to what He willed us to be in the first place.

It's only by reason and secular morality that I'm able to have an opinion on the matter without being persecuted and condemned to death for denying your god, and it's thousands of religions baggage that drag the world in stagnation and suffering of wars by forcing these superstitions on one another! Thank goodness I live in a country which still allows this freedom, though with you religious folks on the helm these may become a thing of the past, and yet again one will be persecuted for being atheist, non theist or opinionated.

greenberg

10-31-07, 04:09 AM

Grantywanty, you have not answered my questions. You have only brought up some circumstantial observations.

Grantywanty

10-31-07, 04:15 AM

Grantywanty, you have not answered my questions. You have only brought up some circumstantial observations.

Show me how it's done. Use as a model a belief in something not tangible that might be said to satisfy wishful thinking on your part and I will do my best to follow your model.

Grantywanty

10-31-07, 04:18 AM

Oh, yes. Make it an actual belief that your hold.

greenberg

10-31-07, 04:33 AM

Show me how it's done. Use as a model a belief in something not tangible that might be said to satisfy wishful thinking on your part and I will do my best to follow your model.

I don't understand this, or why these requirements (like "something not tangible").

The questions in the OP are clear.

An example - If a person thinks they have heard God speaking to them, or that something was a sign from God - how can they know for sure it really was from God, and not simply their own imagination, their own desire to hear and see God?

I have the desire to believe in God. I see and hear all sorts of things that I suspect could be from God. But I'm not sure. Perhaps it is just my wishful thinking, my fantasy and that those things are actually not from God.

How can I know for sure that the voice I sometimes hear in my head is in fact God's?
How can I know for sure that the things I see and think they are from God, in fact are from God?

Grantywanty

10-31-07, 04:53 AM

I don't understand this, or why these requirements (like "something not tangible"). I think it was pretty clear. I wanted you, a non+thiest to show the ways in which you answer these questions about a specific belief. I did this for two reasons. 1) it will make it clear what you will consider an answer to your questions. 2) I think it is a very complicated process. If you are willing to really go into it and not just take potshots from the sidelines, well, OK. I think also we will find that any belief is open to criticism because it has intuitive jumps in it.

I asked for a belief that might be criticized as wishful thinking so that your explanation for why this is a rational belief on your part would also show how to prevent this kind of criticism. I could have worded it as a belief in something that pleases you, but the idea would be the same.

I asked for not tangible since I don't have many experiences of touching God. I am a pantheist so I suppose I could argue that I do, but in actual fact it is through other senses that I experience God. Rationalists have many beliefs in non-tangile things. So the restriction is hardly unfair.

The questions in the OP are clear.
Then you should be able to answer them in relation to one of your beliefs.

An example - If a person thinks they have heard God speaking to them, or that something was a sign from God - how can they know for sure it really was from God, and not simply their own imagination, their own desire to hear and see God?

I have the desire to believe in God. I see and hear all sorts of things that I suspect could be from God. But I'm not sure. Perhaps it is just my wishful thinking, my fantasy and that those things are actually not from God.

How can I know for sure that the voice I sometimes hear in my head is in fact God's?
How can I know for sure that the things I see and think they are from God, in fact are from God?

That is an example of someone else's belief.

How can you be sure? Well, in my experience belief does not generally come all at once. It builds up. I may realize suddenly something that I have half consciously noticed, or suppressed for a long time, but if I look at myself as a whole, it takes time for a belief to form and it is not solid and consistant at all moments.

How can we know that the person we love and live with actually loves us and will not at the drop of a hat shit all over us?

How do you know it will be you who will wake up in the morning, but not what is essentially a clone having or a copied bit of software made by the hardware of your brain?

Certain kinds of experiences have qualities that we recognize or feel and we base our beliefs on them. WE may bolster our belief with rational or empirical checking. We may go back again and again to other kinds of experience that might confirm or deny the belief.

And certainly some people have poor intuitions. And certainly many people belief in things because they want to. Politicians and religious leaders and advertisers all use this hole in us to get what they want:a war, followers, more sales. But just because some people have poor intuitions, or have a poor handle on how their own needs affect their beliefs does not mean that other people actually base their beliefs on experience and good intuition.

I loved Donnie DArko by the way.

greenberg

10-31-07, 03:15 PM

I think it was pretty clear. I wanted you, a non+thiest to show the ways in which you answer these questions about a specific belief. I did this for two reasons. 1) it will make it clear what you will consider an answer to your questions. 2) I think it is a very complicated process.

Allright.

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?

I am taking this distinction for granted. Which is good enough for a part of everyday life; but is disasterously insufficient when it comes to seeking to figure out the purpose of my life, for example.
So I want to find something better, more reliable.

If you are willing to really go into it and not just take potshots from the sidelines, well, OK.

One of the main reasons that I'm wondering about these things is this:
Many theists level charges and accusations against non-theists, such as, "you are being dishonest", "you are lying to yourselves", "the Truth is obvious, but you just refuse to accept it".
And since they do this so readily, I am presuming that the whole thing is really easy for them. So I'd like to know how they resolved the problem of distinguishing between reality and imagination.

I think also we will find that any belief is open to criticism because it has intuitive jumps in it.

But if there is only One True God, only One True Faith, then they are blameless, impossible to criticize, don't you think?

I asked for a belief that might be criticized as wishful thinking so that your explanation for why this is a rational belief on your part would also show how to prevent this kind of criticism. I could have worded it as a belief in something that pleases you, but the idea would be the same.
...
Then you should be able to answer them in relation to one of your beliefs.

Like I said above, I realize I take things for granted. I'm sure this will earn me the scorn of many and even worse.
But for the life of me, there isn't a thing I would be sure of, there isn't a stance I couldn't find persuasive arguments both for and against.

An example - If a person thinks they have heard God speaking to them, or that something was a sign from God - how can they know for sure it really was from God, and not simply their own imagination, their own desire to hear and see God?

I have the desire to believe in God. I see and hear all sorts of things that I suspect could be from God. But I'm not sure. Perhaps it is just my wishful thinking, my fantasy and that those things are actually not from God.

How can I know for sure that the voice I sometimes hear in my head is in fact God's?
How can I know for sure that the things I see and think they are from God, in fact are from God?

That is an example of someone else's belief.

I don't understand - how is this an example of someone else's belief?

How can you be sure? Well, in my experience belief does not generally come all at once. It builds up. I may realize suddenly something that I have half consciously noticed, or suppressed for a long time, but if I look at myself as a whole, it takes time for a belief to form and it is not solid and consistant at all moments.

Sure, I agree. But what you're saying above is also consistent with the phenomenon of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If the reality vs. imagination distinction is valid, then in the case of belief in God, it should be possible to distinguish between the belief that has been arrived at by direct knowledge of God, and the belief that is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the latter being true, the other one false.

How can we know that the person we love and live with actually loves us and will not at the drop of a hat shit all over us?

How do you know it will be you who will wake up in the morning, but not what is essentially a clone having or a copied bit of software made by the hardware of your brain?

I don't know that.

I loved Donnie DArko by the way.

Nice. :)

VitalOne

10-31-07, 06:17 PM

What do you mean? The distinction is reality is how things really are and wishful thinking is how you would want it to be....pretty simple distinction

lightgigantic

10-31-07, 06:36 PM

Frud11

10-31-07, 07:03 PM

My take on where the notion of an external, unknowable 'intelligence' came from is our notions of the infinite.
When we first started to think about what numbers are, and how counting is conceptually a process that can continue forever, we came up with the notion that there will always be some number(s) beyond any counting (available to finite minds), that we cannot ever 'know'. Since we cannot know this, there must also be other things we cannot know, and the only explanation is that the 'unknowable' keeps it from us (maybe we'll die if we 'see' it).

That said, there is a lot of evidence that humans are capable of 'realisation': of an inner truth, which is, since humans are part of the whole show, external also (in the world), because of the inner reality. There is an inner light, celestial sounds, nectar (the well of life), and at least one other 'fundamental' energy that can be found inside us.
This is all laid out in the many Hindu, Jain, Zoroastrian, and other scriptural records. These guys figured something out about our inner nature a long time ago. Jesus talked about light, and I believe mentions other Indo-Aryan notions of 'knowledge' -of the self which is God...
The Christian faith has many parallels with earlier religions (not just Judaism -which itself appears to borrow from the beliefs mentioned above).

VitalOne

10-31-07, 08:54 PM

Adstar

10-31-07, 09:55 PM

Adstar, you still haven't answered my questions from the OP.

That's how you read??

I say

eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy

and to you, this means that

I stated that my Christian faith was just wishful thinking a fantasy and that I rejected my Christian faith because I decided that the Christian faith is a result of wishful thinking, a fantasy

If this is how you are going to misinterpret me, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

Wait a minute. Your saying that your unsure? If your unsure then how can you make a definite decision to reject the Christian faith?

Accepting is a positive. Rejecting is a negative. But being unsure is a neutral.

So your actions in Rejecting the Christian faith is not an outcome of being unsure. It is a decision that must be made with conviction that Christianity is wrong, a fantasy, a delusion. Your actions in Rejecting the Christian faith shows that you are not unsure, because if you where really unsure you would not make any firm decisions on such a central issue of existance untill you where sure.

Good for you. What about me? How do I arrive at the surety you have?

I read the Bible and accepted the Words of Jesus.

If I end up going to hell, then this will be a sure sign that I have wasted my life.

Yep.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Adstar

10-31-07, 10:03 PM

Is it not part of your religion? If you believe such nonsense then is it just wishful thinking to believe that buybull is based on reality and truth. Wishful thinking is to believe all that I listed part of an objective reality!

Now i understand. You do not understand what the term "wishful thinking" means.

Wishful thinking is hoping that something is true because you desire it to be true.

Faith is thinking something is true because you trust in the source of the knowledge.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Oh and The Name of the Book is the Bible.

Frud11

10-31-07, 10:05 PM

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?
How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?
If you 'talk' to or 'commune' with an inner sense of peace and all that, you can call it 'Fred' if you want to.
"God" is a term that already means a lot of things to a lot of people. But try to get them to define what that meaning is...
There are language and semantic problems (even between people who speak the same language). If you think about God, that isn't the same as 'being' with God -or being (part of) God. If you call it "Fred", then Fred is a subjective experience. Fred is hard to describe (but plenty have tried to do this) perhaps because Fred only 'appears' in a fundamental, non-intellectual or non-philosophical way to anyone. In other words, our minds can't conceive of Fred, but that doesn't mean Fred is "wishful thinking", or imagination (ask anyone who 'believes' in Fred)...

Grantywanty

11-01-07, 02:38 AM

Allright.

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?

I am taking this distinction for granted. Which is good enough for a part of everyday life; but is disasterously insufficient when it comes to seeking to figure out the purpose of my life, for example.
So I want to find something better, more reliable.

OK. I wasn't quite sure if it was a genuine interest in determining something or a way of getting answers to take shots at. I think to get a very good, solid answer to this - and even this might not be satisfying - would take the kind of work I don't think of as internet forum work, like thesis level carefulness and re-editing. The issue is relevent to everyone who believes in anything, but tends to get focused on theists or anyone who has a 'superstitious' belief.

One of the main reasons that I'm wondering about these things is this:
Many theists level charges and accusations against non-theists, such as, "you are being dishonest", "you are lying to yourselves", "the Truth is obvious, but you just refuse to accept it".
And since they do this so readily, I am presuming that the whole thing is really easy for them. So I'd like to know how they resolved the problem of distinguishing between reality and imagination.

I wouldn't and don't say those things. I think there are even monotheists who would avoid that kind of stuff. I do not think it easy, at all, for most of us. I think we have all undergone a lot of bad training. We are trained to believe things because of authority, tradition, family, because it says so in a book - the Bible, the Origin of the Species, whatever book. Of course some people actually chew their way through available research or deep religious experiences - meditation, whatever - and arrive at a more complete, solid belief, but I think these people are rare both on the rationalist side and the theist side. To undo training takes effort and courage. I think on the side of what are called supernatural phenomena we have been heavily trained not to notice, not to trust, not to think we could be special enough to experience them, that it is irrational or sinful to make claims, even in the privacy of our own heads, that we have heard or seen something out of what we are trained to see as the norm. We have a slightly different experience and the so called rational part of the mind rushes in and tries to explain it away. It was really _________. Messages of guilt and shame are also called up. Who do you think you are? Why would you experience this? Or if you are coming from a more fundmentalist background you might start thinking you are possessed, that it is Satan, because really you should get your religious ideas through the priest or reverend.

I am oversimplifying, but my main point is that as a person in this day and age we have been trained heavily both by rationalists and by religious people that we are silly, evil, crazy etc. if we take certain perceptions seriously.

For more than a thousand years the religious people have included torture, excommunication and death in the ways they have trained us not to have certain experiences. In the last few hundred years there has been a counter-trend that while physically vastly more restrained - except in communist coutries - has very effectively psychologically used shame and anger against people who have experiences outside the norm.

And the effects of this training are so fast - I cannot emphasize this enough - that anomalous experiences are dismissed by our well trained minds often before our conscious minds notice them. We may not even focus on how the mind explains away something. It happens so fast.

So I do not think it is easy or obvious given the state we are in. I am not a monotheist and I have a lot of problems with their churches and traditions and ideas about who we are and what we should be, etc. So you will obviously get very different responses from them.

But if there is only One True God, only One True Faith, then they are blameless, impossible to criticize, don't you think?

Well, I don't buy the premise so the conclusion just ain't the way I see things.

Like I said above, I realize I take things for granted. I'm sure this will earn me the scorn of many and even worse.
But for the life of me, there isn't a thing I would be sure of, there isn't a stance I couldn't find persuasive arguments both for and against.
I could have said that at certain times in my life and I feel that way at various times. You know, often when people ask me what I believe or if I believe in a certain thing, I tend to push them on this idea of belief. I think a lot of people confuse their official position with what they believe. If they really feel and experience their own beliefs I think they will notice they shift over time, there are periods of doubt and so on. I think I have come to some core beliefs, ones that slowly built up over time, but it is not this monolithic structure: I BELIEVE. If you have a kind of fascist self-control, which a lot of training can give you, and you don't notice and don't want to notice how complex your reactions, feelings, opinions, can be, well then I guess it is easier to lie and make absolute proclamations about one's own belief.

I don't understand - how is this an example of someone else's belief?

Well, you said 'a person' so I thought it was hypothetical. Maybe I was wrong. Let me know.

Sure, I agree. But what you're saying above is also consistent with the phenomenon of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If the reality vs. imagination distinction is valid, then in the case of belief in God, it should be possible to distinguish between the belief that has been arrived at by direct knowledge of God, and the belief that is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the latter being true, the other one false.

I'm afraid you're not going to like the answer: you have to trust you gut. I can guess an objection. You see people who trust their guts or claim to or seem to and they seem to believe in a God you don't like. Or you think they believe, actually for other reasons. Or they believe Jews are Satanic. Or gays should be killed. Or the Moon is made of cheese. And you don't want to be like them. So you have a judgement about this trusting your gut. It seems to lead to all sorts of bad things and how can one know if in your case it will or has led to a bad thing. Here's the thing. You already trust your gut, but about less (at least seemingly) charged or controversial things.

You read a paragraph in a book. You understand what you read. So you go on to the next paragraph. But wait a minute. Your brother read this same book and you remember that what he said happened and what it was about now seem clearly loopy. He misinterpreted things. He missed the whole scene with the duck. When you started asking him about it he got mad. He said he KNEW there was no duck in the book. He was sure. So how can you be sure you read the last paragraph correctly. Maybe you deluded yourself like he did. Skipped some key words. Etc.

But the fact is some people are better readers. And the fact is your gut feeling that you read that paragraph well is generally right.

I hope this metaphor is clear. Just because some people have poor intuitions and self-insight does not mean that you do. If the voice you mentioned tells you to get an Uzi and kill people with hats, my intuition tells me that you will not do this. It will scare you. We build up trust in our intuitions over time, but to actually get out of the corner we have been painted into, we must start allowing the time we open to certain perceptions to become longer. If you get scared that you have gone to far, are starting to delude yourself, well spend time with that feeling. You might find that you can connect that fear to things that happened to you in the past. You can begin to connect the feelings not to the perceptions but to what I have been calling training, something that can include things so subtle as your father tightening his jaw when certain questions are asked.

It CAN be a self-fulfilling prophecy in some cases. But if we all stopped acknowledging the skills we have because of what is possible no one would have any talents. And an enormous % of what we do and what we are good at includes leaps based on intuition and self-trust.

I don't know that.

Yeah, I can sympathize. And I bet people who worry about such things are vastly more likely to enjoy Donnie Darko. And my intuition tells me that your intuition will get what I mean by this.

You know there are voices in the head that are bad too. Unfortunately religions (even secular ones) have called this voice the voice of reason or conscience.

That voice often says - or even worse quickly implies - things about who we are, as individuals - that are crippling. Then freeze us, shock us, wind us down in sequences of 'if that is true, then that might be true, and if that might be true.......' and on an on. Bits of truth tossed in to make sure the knife goes deep.

And I think part of the reason we listen to that voice is because we are so afraid of what we might do, think, notice, and especially feel if we trusted ourselves. And this is because of the past and what happened before that we think must happen again.

Pehaps this will seem rather oblique or unclear, but I am trying to answer your questions as directly as I can.

Just because other people's clarity and certainty has been so aweful does not mean that yours will be when you slowly and carefully allow yourself to be more and more certain and clear.

Grantywanty

11-01-07, 02:50 AM

Accepting is a positive. Rejecting is a negative. But being unsure is a neutral.

that is absurd. Accepting is bad if you accept something bad. Rejecting is good if you reject something aweful.

It is manipulative to tell someone that accepting is good in a general way.

Grantywanty

11-01-07, 02:55 AM

What do you mean? The distinction is reality is how things really are and wishful thinking is how you would want it to be....pretty simple distinction

Even the title of the thread should make it clear that he is asked something different. How can one distinguish between the two? How can one be clear or really know that one is right?

greenberg

11-01-07, 03:19 AM

If your unsure then how can you make a definite decision to reject the Christian faith?

I didn't make that decision. You assume that I did, and you take your assumption to be the truth about me.

I never rejected the Christian faith. I have become distant, yes. But I could take up praying and going to church anytime; occasionally, I still do.

And you still haven't answered the questions from the OP.

greenberg

11-01-07, 05:24 AM

OK. I wasn't quite sure if it was a genuine interest in determining something or a way of getting answers to take shots at. I think to get a very good, solid answer to this - and even this might not be satisfying - would take the kind of work I don't think of as internet forum work, like thesis level carefulness and re-editing.

Agreed. I'm taking a break from that real work, having run at an impasse.

Other than that, it seems many theists IRL and here online do not realize the sort of credence people like myself are willing to give them - they take it for granted. This says a lot about the worth of (their) theism.

To undo training takes effort and courage.

Of course. But sometimes I fear that there is nothing but conditioning, nothing but training. That conditioning is all there is to "us".

I think on the side of what are called supernatural phenomena we have been heavily trained not to notice, not to trust, not to think we could be special enough to experience them, that it is irrational or sinful to make claims, even in the privacy of our own heads, that we have heard or seen something out of what we are trained to see as the norm.

Consider that people worldwide believe in Jesus and that he will save them. But if anyone were to say they saw Jesus, those same people would probably call him a heretic and put him in a mental institution ...

Like I said above, I realize I take things for granted. I'm sure this will earn me the scorn of many and even worse.
But for the life of me, there isn't a thing I would be sure of, there isn't a stance I couldn't find persuasive arguments both for and against.

I could have said that at certain times in my life and I feel that way at various times. You know, often when people ask me what I believe or if I believe in a certain thing, I tend to push them on this idea of belief.

Discussing philosophical and spiritual issues is often a futile, alienating and embittering endeavor, esp. in real life. That's why I don't like to do it all that much, considering the negative consequences (even lawsuits).

I think a lot of people confuse their official position with what they believe.

I think so too. There is the "presentable official position" and then there's the true chaotic state of a mind. But some people don't seem to suffer from this dichotomy. This is one more reason that motivated me to start a thread like this.

I don't understand - how is this an example of someone else's belief?

Well, you said 'a person' so I thought it was hypothetical. Maybe I was wrong. Let me know.

I started out generally, and then gave a person example in 1st person.
If the reality vs. imagination distinction is real, then I suppose it should make no difference whether a phenomenon is stated in 1st person or generally.
In the teachings given by theists, there often is no difference supposed when saying "If a person ..." and "If I ..." It seems they expect that their teaching applies objectively.

But since you are a pantheist, this thread might not be suitably formulated for you. Before I posted this thread, I didn't think of the possibility of a pantheist responding, so I formulated things more in line with monotheistic views.

I'm afraid you're not going to like the answer: you have to trust you gut. I can guess an objection. You see people who trust their guts or claim to or seem to and they seem to believe in a God you don't like. Or you think they believe, actually for other reasons. Or they believe Jews are Satanic. Or gays should be killed. Or the Moon is made of cheese. And you don't want to be like them. So you have a judgement about this trusting your gut. It seems to lead to all sorts of bad things and how can one know if in your case it will or has led to a bad thing. Here's the thing. You already trust your gut, but about less (at least seemingly) charged or controversial things.

There's a popular mantra: Don't believe everything you think. :)

But my gut feeling doesn't help me when it comes to issues about God; my gut feeling remains undecided on the matter. :(

My gut feeling is really mostly only about things like what food I'd like to eat, what breathing feels good, whether I should adjust the position of my body ...

When it comes to abstract concepts, my gut feeling tends to say "grey" and "muck". And it's really alienating, I feel so foreign and misplaced in comparison to other people who seem to be so swift and clear in dealing with concepts.
Really, my primary reaction (but which I usually don't show) to a question like "Does God exist?" is a blank, dumb stare.

Yeah, I can sympathize. And I bet people who worry about such things are vastly more likely to enjoy Donnie Darko. And my intuition tells me that your intuition will get what I mean by this.
...
Pehaps this will seem rather oblique or unclear, but I am trying to answer your questions as directly as I can.

Thank you.

greenberg

11-01-07, 05:52 AM

Therefore you could say that the first issue for discerning notions of god is to have a good grounding in theory - namely what words like "god" actually mean and what is the job description of authentic practitioners - then one has a proper footing for applying one's discrimination

Sure, this makes sense.

But there are numerous theisms in this world, each of them purporting to be the only right one.
So what is a person to do? Whose theory to learn? There surely is not enough time in one lifetime for a proper study of all of them.
Nor does it seem feasible to take these things lightly, as if it were a hobby.

Grantywanty

11-01-07, 06:46 AM

[QUOTE]Agreed. I'm taking a break from that real work, having run at an impasse. It was a disclaimer on my part.

Other than that, it seems many theists IRL and here online do not realize the sort of credence people like myself are willing to give them - they take it for granted. This says a lot about the worth of (their) theism.

Perhaps the former, not necessarily the latter. There are some advocates of pretty much every possible belief who are intolerable and confused. Though I suppose if you take their interpersonal skills and their assumptions as being a part of their belief system then perhaps it does. It just might not be the same in other members of the same congregation.

Of course. But sometimes I fear that there is nothing but conditioning, nothing but training. That conditioning is all there is to "us".

My experience is there is so much it certainly seems endless at times. (I believe in reincarnation, so for me the condition process has been going on for a long time) And then another part of me wants to say that while I do experience things that do not seem conditioned, I still encounter too much conditioning in myself.

Consider that people worldwide believe in Jesus and that he will save them. But if anyone were to say they saw Jesus, those same people would probably call him a heretic and put him in a mental institution ...

Absolutely.

Discussing philosophical and spiritual issues is often a futile, alienating and embittering endeavor, esp. in real life. That's why I don't like to do it all that much, considering the negative consequences (even lawsuits).
I can only promise that I personally will not sue you or try to get you committed. Perhaps I am naive about lawsuits. I am an unlikely target of one.
I am not sure how far you can get discussing. If you are not attracted to any of the religions or spiritualities there is not much you can do. But there are so many and so many small ones. If you meet someone who you respect or you hear of a practice that you are curious about you could begin to move into experience. Slowly and with bouts of skepticism or not really feeling anything or whatever came up.

I think so too. There is the "presentable official position" and then there's the true chaotic state of a mind. But some people don't seem to suffer from this dichotomy. This is one more reason that motivated me to start a thread like this.

Oh, they suffer from it. Unfortunately their ecology of maintenance also causes others to suffer from it. I think behind a lot of conversion arguments or arguemnts between athiests and believers is using the other person to be a part of themselves they are no longer in contact with. If they can mock, out argue be morally better than the other person then they have that part of themselves under control. Crusades and witch hunts are extreme versions of this. They are hiding from their own doubts. From themselves first if they can. (for example: the flat assumption by athiests that their positions are not there because of their emotional needs and temperments ((and even skills)) I find amazing)

I started out generally, and then gave a person example in 1st person.
If the reality vs. imagination distinction is real, then I suppose it should make no difference whether a phenomenon is stated in 1st person or generally.
In the teachings given by theists, there often is no difference supposed when saying "If a person ..." and "If I ..." It seems they expect that their teaching applies objectively.

In the abstract perhaps. But in a conversation it makes a world of difference. I think there is something just bang wrong about the idea that this can be done like a chess game with words. It is a conversation between two people (or more) and the experiences, intentions, openness, awareness, introspective ability, desire and so on all play very deep parts in what happens. And even then a conversation can only do a little. Especially one in this disembodied format.

But since you are a pantheist, this thread might not be suitably formulated for you. Before I posted this thread, I didn't think of the possibility of a pantheist responding, so I formulated things more in line with monotheistic views.

It still seemed applicable. I mean beliefs, wishful thinking, imagination, reality. I wonder about those things in relation to myself and did before you raised the issue here.

You could also call me a pagan.

There's a popular mantra: Don't believe everything you think. :)

Thank God I don't believe some of the things I think.

But my gut feeling doesn't help me when it comes to issues about God; my gut feeling remains undecided on the matter. :(

OK It seemed like you had a concern about what your gut feeling might develop into. Maybe I read it wrong. Exploration involving your physical self is going to be involved in this process if you are going to move off your version of an agnostic position. I am not saying you should. It sounds like you have a desire to do that, though.

My gut feeling is really mostly only about things like what food I'd like to eat, what breathing feels good, whether I should adjust the position of my body ... I doubt that. I would guess you have a lot of gut reactions to a lot of people, actions, events and so on. And by the way, I am not saying gut reactions are always right, far from it. But you can develop a healthier or friendlier relationship between gut reactions and all that wordy shit in the mind. You can gain knowledge about when you are reacting because of past experiences and training and when you are reacting to the present. I know this does not offer proof of this, me saying it, but I am trying to get across that I have had many of the thoughts you say here and I found a way to move to feeling comfortable with less agnostic positions, primarily through experiencing 'religions' directly, rejecting a lot of what they were doing or saying, but through religious practices (in the broadest sense) coupled with psychological exploration (alone, with others) coming to understand more what I was doing emotionally mentally at a given moment.

When it comes to abstract concepts, my gut feeling tends to say "grey" and "muck". And it's really alienating, I feel so foreign and misplaced in comparison to other people who seem to be so swift and clear in dealing with concepts.
Really, my primary reaction (but which I usually don't show) to a question like "Does God exist?" is a blank, dumb stare.
I think there are a lot of agnostics, taking that term broadly. What you are taking a break from sounded like academic work, there must be people with mixed beliefs in that world.

"Does God exist?" is really not a worthy question to mull over. It is like you are outside wondering for decades if the lake water in front of you is cold or hot. Of course the weakness of that analogy is how easy it is to test the water temp, but the standing on the shore wondering mentally is still as useless.

You are a particular person. With particular interests, tendencies, desires, pet peeves, dislikes. If you are someone who right now would never bow down to a God - perhaps you are angry about the way the world is - well, Muslim practices are not a good choice right now. If you like nature or singing, well there are religions and practices that make each or both of these central. You get what I mean. We don't learn so much being outside.
And I am not making a case for going to the phone book and picking out a religion. You could take up meditating or shamanistic practicies on your own. Whatever. But your particular interests and feelings and desires are central to this. And if you don't have these right now, well, maybe it's time for you to just have a good time and get out of your head for a while in less all encompassing ways. Maybe you are avoiding dealing with a lack of sex because it is easier to feel hopeless about finding out if there is a God or not then confronting what actually scares you more: women (or men) don't find you sexually attractive. (or whatever. this was not meant as a jab. I am being serious. I think a lot of philosophy is avoidance)

Thank you.
Your welcome.

And by the way. I am aware I post this to you that many of the things I am saying to you I need to hear myself. Sometimes I can get caught in a phase where I have no overview. One thing comes up. Then another. Many problems. I can see it as a part of some developing process. That I have changed or why I am doing the things I am doing. So in working out my answers to your questions here I ending up saying things I hadn't quite consciously thought and were good for me to hear myself. And I could feel that or experience it that way as I wrote the responses.

Adstar

11-01-07, 08:04 AM

that is absurd. Accepting is bad if you accept something bad. Rejecting is good if you reject something aweful.

It is manipulative to tell someone that accepting is good in a general way.

Did i use the terms Good and Bad in the summation???????????????????????

No i used the words Positive and Negative.

Next time read what i say before trying to shove words into my mouth that i never said..

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Grantywanty

11-01-07, 08:24 AM

Did i use the terms Good and Bad in the summation???????????????????????

No i used the words Positive and Negative.

Next time read what i say before trying to shove words into my mouth that i never said..

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

OK. I reread your post, which has a number of oddly written parts, and I can see that you might not have meant what I said. Positive and negative often have the connotations of good and bad. I can't say I am sure, even now, after a second read, but I can see that you might not have meant positive and negative in value terms.

And just so we are clear.
YOu did not mean that accepting, in general, is a positive (as in a good) thing to do AND
rejecting, in general, is a negative (as in bad) thing to do.

Is that correct?

You do acknowledge that rejecting can be a positive or moral or good thing to do and that accepting can be the opposite. In fact they are neutral terms.

greenberg

11-01-07, 11:45 AM

Perhaps the former, not necessarily the latter. There are some advocates of pretty much every possible belief who are intolerable and confused. Though I suppose if you take their interpersonal skills and their assumptions as being a part of their belief system then perhaps it does. It just might not be the same in other members of the same congregation.

Of course. But as far as Christianity is concerned, it has consistently been my experience that their interpersonal skills and their assumptions are apparently a part of their belief system.

My experience is there is so much it certainly seems endless at times. (I believe in reincarnation, so for me the condition process has been going on for a long time) And then another part of me wants to say that while I do experience things that do not seem conditioned, I still encounter too much conditioning in myself.

All I can say is that the Buddha better be right. Or I don't know what I'll do.

I am not sure how far you can get discussing.

It can help, tremendously. Sometimes, the input of another person is just what one needs to figure out one's situation.

Oh, they suffer from it. Unfortunately their ecology of maintenance also causes others to suffer from it. I think behind a lot of conversion arguments or arguemnts between athiests and believers is using the other person to be a part of themselves they are no longer in contact with. If they can mock, out argue be morally better than the other person then they have that part of themselves under control. Crusades and witch hunts are extreme versions of this. They are hiding from their own doubts. From themselves first if they can.

That's interesting. I've never thought of it that way.

In the abstract perhaps. But in a conversation it makes a world of difference. I think there is something just bang wrong about the idea that this can be done like a chess game with words. It is a conversation between two people (or more) and the experiences, intentions, openness, awareness, introspective ability, desire and so on all play very deep parts in what happens.

I agree. But such a stance pretty much undermines the validity of proselytizing. - But I don't know, perhaps the theists are right, perhaps I am evil and in denial and believing in God is actually really simple. I can't shake that thought.

... if you are going to move off your version of an agnostic position. I am not saying you should. It sounds like you have a desire to do that, though.

Like I said elsewhere, (strong) agnosticism is a nightmare to live in.
So, of course, I wish to move off of it.

My gut feeling is really mostly only about things like what food I'd like to eat, what breathing feels good, whether I should adjust the position of my body ...

I doubt that. I would guess you have a lot of gut reactions to a lot of people, actions, events and so on.

I need to make myself more clear - The gut reactions that I trust are mostly only the ones regarding the body. Other gut reactions I don't trust, but am capable of doubting them on and on.
It's only with things like the breath, heartbeat and so on that agnosticism's grip loosens up a bit.

You could take up meditating or shamanistic practicies on your own.

I've been doing some Buddhist meditation and studying, for a couple of years. One of the practices is concentrating on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference. Since I am an amateur athlete, that's home territory.

I was thinking about joining a Buddhist group, investigated, but all the ones available struck me as too liberal, too Christian, too Western, too far away from what the Suttas teach, so I decided not to join - and they weren't particularly thrilled to have me anyway ...

Whatever. But your particular interests and feelings and desires are central to this. And if you don't have these right now, well, maybe it's time for you to just have a good time and get out of your head for a while in less all encompassing ways. Maybe you are avoiding dealing with a lack of sex because it is easier to feel hopeless about finding out if there is a God or not then confronting what actually scares you more: women (or men) don't find you sexually attractive. (or whatever. this was not meant as a jab. I am being serious. I think a lot of philosophy is avoidance)

I don't want to feel terrorized and all confused anymore whenever a Mormon, Jehowa's Witness, Born Again Christian or some such other knocks on my door or I come across them some other way, like in the street, in a social circle, in a film or TV ad.
I hate how a few words from these people throw me off completely. It's so bloody shameful.
There's no way to completely avoid these people or what they say, so apparently I need to deal with it somehow.

I want to have peace in regards to theism and theists. Unfortunately, the only way to do this, has so far been to join them or at least approve of them from a distance. That way, I had some peace in regards to theism and theists, but was otherwise deeply unhappy about doing it.

So in working out my answers to your questions here I ending up saying things I hadn't quite consciously thought and were good for me to hear myself. And I could feel that or experience it that way as I wrote the responses.

:)
See, discussions can be useful, in unpredictable and indirect ways.

greenberg

11-01-07, 12:24 PM

Oh, and not to forget: Adstar has again posted in this thread, and has again not answered the questions from the OP.

Grantywanty

11-02-07, 04:04 AM

Of course. But as far as Christianity is concerned, it has consistently been my experience that their interpersonal skills and their assumptions are apparently a part of their belief system.
Yes, and it's a good way to get insight into a system if there is a consistant pattern. I just meant that there are even Christians who avoid a lot of unpleasant interpersonal crap.

It can help, tremendously. Sometimes, the input of another person is just what one needs to figure out one's situation.

Well, that's good then. I am not sure it can answer your questions, was more what I meant. I certainly don't want to dissuade you from something that helps or feels good.

That's interesting. I've never thought of it that way.
We all do it, I am pretty sure. We all find relationships, or moments in relationships, where we can reassure ourselves that we are not like what the other person is exhibiting or we have it under control.

I agree. But such a stance pretty much undermines the validity of proselytizing. - But I don't know, perhaps the theists are right, perhaps I am evil and in denial and believing in God is actually really simple. I can't shake that thought.

Thoughts can be in there pretty deep. My sense is thoughts can only stay stuck in there if there is damage or past trauma undealt with. Do with that what you will. If I have done something bad, and I know it, I can feel bad and have self-judgemental thoughts about it. But somehow I find these thoughts don't freeze me. Or suck the life out of me. But thoughts that seem to shut me down seem to have a different purpose. They are not there to develope me, make me face something and more on. They are there to keep me from being myself. To keep me on half an engine. To make me small. To weaken me. I guess I've learned, am learning to feel the difference. Often I have been able to find the root experiences that leave me vulnerable to such thoughts. (and in some of these memories these thoughts were said by someone else first ((or implied))).

The metaphor of getting under such thoughts has helped me at times. What is underneath. Generally, feelings, of course. But I just keep going down and try to be open to what comes up: images, memories. I don't have to beleive they are real in relation to my past or in relation to reality. I just try to stay open to what is underneath. Holding open the experience longer and longer, without necessarily committing myself to forming a conclusion, but not allowed my mind to cut it off.

I think it can also be helpful to see the actual effects of that kind of thought.

In the end of course it will be your choice whether to accept that thought or throw it off.

We can throw off thoughts. Not that it is easy if there is something big underneath.

Like I said elsewhere, (strong) agnosticism is a nightmare to live in.
So, of course, I wish to move off of it.

Yeah, it is hell. To me I think it is good you notice that. But I don't want that to sound callous. It's just that a lot of people don't seem to notice hell, their own private ones. And not oddly enough their not noticing does not make it go away.

I need to make myself more clear - The gut reactions that I trust are mostly only the ones regarding the body. Other gut reactions I don't trust, but am capable of doubting them on and on.
It's only with things like the breath, heartbeat and so on that agnosticism's grip loosens up a bit.

Well, I can see the appeal of Buddhism for you. Myself I have a lot problems with Buddhism, but that is neither here nor there.

I've been doing some Buddhist meditation and studying, for a couple of years. One of the practices is concentrating on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference. Since I am an amateur athlete, that's home territory.

I was thinking about joining a Buddhist group, investigated, but all the ones available struck me as too liberal, too Christian, too Western, too far away from what the Suttas teach, so I decided not to join - and they weren't particularly thrilled to have me anyway ...

Am I guessing right that discipline is important to you?

I don't want to feel terrorized and all confused anymore whenever a Mormon, Jehowa's Witness, Born Again Christian or some such other knocks on my door or I come across them some other way, like in the street, in a social circle, in a film or TV ad.
I hate how a few words from these people throw me off completely. It's so bloody shameful.
There's no way to completely avoid these people or what they say, so apparently I need to deal with it somehow.

Well, let me toss something out. How accepting are you of your own anger? Can you allow yourself to feel hate? I read, Ithink, in one of your posts somewhere, your reference to negative emotions. I don't agree with this idea. I think the emotions have been judged a lot especially the so called negative ones. But that is my belief, fits with my desires and needs. I am not interested in proselytizing life paths. If that feels like your core, that you want to move away from negative emotions (and add to that my guess above that you like discipline) than Buddhism might be just the ticket. And there is some place in Massachussettes or used to be where they did heavy, intensive two week retreats. I will try to remember the name of the group. These guys were serious.

That direction is not mine. In some ways the opposite. But I think it is important to follow what you are drawn to as long as that doesn't include shitting on other people and worse.

On the other hand if you have reservations about Buddhism or about shutting off or disdentifying with 'negative' and other emotions, well I would give a little spiel about that direction.

I bring up the anger because in people who have suppressed anger, perhaps have tended more towards withdrawel/fear/self-doubt reactions, anger can be the missing piece that helps throw off certain thoughts, interpersonal patterns and so on.

I want to have peace in regards to theism and theists. Unfortunately, the only way to do this, has so far been to join them or at least approve of them from a distance. That way, I had some peace in regards to theism and theists, but was otherwise deeply unhappy about doing it.

Well, you've got a contract to assuage your guilt. And fear often goes along with guilt because it is afraid. The contract sounds like you will not reject them and, I am guessing not hate them, because then you would really be evil and they would be right. But you don't embrace them. Limbo. Floating in the void.

And what the fuck do those guys know anyway. How much do they even know about themselves?

Focusing on that contract like you are will dissolve it one way or the other eventually.

It can be your Koan. (as a friendly gesture to the Zen tradition which I still have some fondness for, more what was implied about freedom and spontanaeity than all the sitting around meditating and discipline and so on)

:)
See, discussions can be useful, in unpredictable and indirect ways.

Yeah, yeah. OK. But not in getting the answers to those questions. (adding that comment was cranky and immature but not including it would be misleading and not just about my character)

greenberg

11-02-07, 01:49 PM

We all do it, I am pretty sure. We all find relationships, or moments in relationships, where we can reassure ourselves that we are not like what the other person is exhibiting or we have it under control.

Oh, the I'm-better-than-you ego-boosting game ... :bawl:

Thoughts can be in there pretty deep. My sense is thoughts can only stay stuck in there if there is damage or past trauma undealt with. Do with that what you will. If I have done something bad, and I know it, I can feel bad and have self-judgemental thoughts about it. But somehow I find these thoughts don't freeze me. Or suck the life out of me. But thoughts that seem to shut me down seem to have a different purpose. They are not there to develope me, make me face something and more on. They are there to keep me from being myself. To keep me on half an engine. To make me small. To weaken me. I guess I've learned, am learning to feel the difference. Often I have been able to find the root experiences that leave me vulnerable to such thoughts. (and in some of these memories these thoughts were said by someone else first ((or implied))).

I used to think about it this way for some time and it helped; but at some point, it didn't help anymore.
I then came upon the concept of the double bind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind). The double bind is the worst sledge hammer for the mind. It cannot be rationally argued against, it can only be resolved sometimes, by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication.

But the sort of double binds as are posed especially by Christianity are impossible to outmaneuver by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication, because it seems that Christianity took care also of that.
E.g., "If I don't understand something, it's because I am a sinner, not because it wouldn't be true", "My rejection of Christianity is proof that I am bad and Christianity is right - for Christianity says that bad people reject the Truth".

No matter what I do, I lose:
If I reject Christianity, I will go to hell.
If I accept Christianity, I will go to hell - because my acceptance would not be genuine, as I would do it only to avoid hell and without freely loving God.

Am I guessing right that discipline is important to you?

Not as such. I want to accomplish tihngs, I want to get things done, achieve - and if I want that, I need to "get down to it". "Liking discipline" can be another wording for it.

Well, let me toss something out. How accepting are you of your own anger? Can you allow yourself to feel hate?

Oh yes, very much so. But feeling anger or hate doesn't really help anything. They're only useful to me inasmuch that if I am concentrated when I'm angry or hating, I can notice what actually triggered that anger and hate. For the most part, it is the urge to protect myself and the sense that I have so far often done wrong when I didn't protect myself.

In Tibetan Buddhism, they have the concept of vajra wrath - a wrath meant to protect what is precious. You've probably seen some pictures of wrathful deities - some of them are about vajra wrath. It wasn't until I saw that and read about it, that I understood my own anger and hatred better, and stopped feeling so guilty about it.

(Unfortunately, the mainstream idea of Buddhism is one of lovey dovey almost naive niceness - but this is really in grave discord with what the Suttas and some not so popular Buddhist teachings teach.)

But as you can probably conclude - my getting involved with Buddhism raised a lot of Christian objections in my mind. It's a fight.

I want to have peace in regards to theism and theists. Unfortunately, the only way to do this, has so far been to join them or at least approve of them from a distance. That way, I had some peace in regards to theism and theists, but was otherwise deeply unhappy about doing it.

Well, you've got a contract to assuage your guilt. And fear often goes along with guilt because it is afraid. The contract sounds like you will not reject them and, I am guessing not hate them, because then you would really be evil and they would be right. But you don't embrace them. Limbo. Floating in the void.

After I had posted this, I thought about it some more, and asked myself -
What does it mean to have peace in regards to theism and theists?
Over the course of the day, the following answers appeared in my mind and I wrote them down -
- To think I have a system of morality which is superior to theirs.
- To not feel threatened by them.
- To not feel compelled to listen to them.
- To not feel compelled to take them seriously.
- To think they are harmless.
- To think they are wrong.
- To not feel bothered by them.
- To think that the Universe is basically good.
- To think that eventually, all will be fine.

I'll have to work on this.

greenberg

11-02-07, 02:30 PM

What do you mean? The distinction is reality is how things really are and wishful thinking is how you would want it to be....pretty simple distinction

Yes, so the dictionary ...

But what about practical application?

How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

lightgigantic

11-02-07, 07:37 PM

Greenberg

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Therefore you could say that the first issue for discerning notions of god is to have a good grounding in theory - namely what words like "god" actually mean and what is the job description of authentic practitioners - then one has a proper footing for applying one's discrimination
”
Sure, this makes sense.

But there are numerous theisms in this world, each of them purporting to be the only right one.
So what is a person to do? Whose theory to learn? There surely is not enough time in one lifetime for a proper study of all of them.
Nor does it seem feasible to take these things lightly, as if it were a hobby.

once again, a good place to start is theory - despite a myriad of different practices and understandings there is also a foundation of greatly similar foundations to begin with. IOW there tends to be two types of theistic endeavours - peripheral and essential - and discerning the difference between the two can be arrived at through theory and practice

IOW examining the philosophical foundations of what a spiritual path advocates is a good place to start

greenberg

11-03-07, 04:36 AM

once again, a good place to start is theory - despite a myriad of different practices and understandings there is also a foundation of greatly similar foundations to begin with. IOW there tends to be two types of theistic endeavours - peripheral and essential - and discerning the difference between the two can be arrived at through theory and practice

IOW examining the philosophical foundations of what a spiritual path advocates is a good place to start

Again, of course, this makes sense, and I've done it for years.

But the impression I am inevitably picking up from this approach is that one's spiritual and philosophical endeavors are to be taken not too seriously; that one is to get into them as if one had eons and eons of time, and as if it wouldn't really make any difference how soon one arrives at a solution.

It's this laxity, this attitude as if these endeavors wouldn't be a matter of life and death, that really really upset me.

Grantywanty

11-03-07, 10:31 AM

Oh, the I'm-better-than-you ego-boosting game ... :bawl:

Yes, but it may not be about the other person. You may not care about their reactions. They serve a roll in replacing one of your own internal parts that you are not happy with. YOu don't have to be aware of this.

I used to think about it this way for some time and it helped; but at some point, it didn't help anymore.
I then came upon the concept of the double bind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind). The double bind is the worst sledge hammer for the mind. It cannot be rationally argued against, it can only be resolved sometimes, by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication.

But the sort of double binds as are posed especially by Christianity are impossible to outmaneuver by referring to the metacommunicative level of the communication, because it seems that Christianity took care also of that.
E.g., "If I don't understand something, it's because I am a sinner, not because it wouldn't be true", "My rejection of Christianity is proof that I am bad and Christianity is right - for Christianity says that bad people reject the Truth".

No matter what I do, I lose:
If I reject Christianity, I will go to hell.
If I accept Christianity, I will go to hell - because my acceptance would not be genuine, as I would do it only to avoid hell and without freely loving God.

Logic can set off an aha experience. But logic is not going to make those thoughts get off.

Your feeling body will have to reject them intuitively. Or not. If you do not trust your emotions, you will not allow them to throw off the thoughts that make you feel like shit. There are ways to move from not accepting to accepting your emotions.

Not as such. I want to accomplish tihngs, I want to get things done, achieve - and if I want that, I need to "get down to it". "Liking discipline" can be another wording for it.

Or not. I like the way you worded it here much more than discipline which again implies to me one part dominating and judging other parts of the self (forever) rather than moving towards being one person.

Oh yes, very much so. But feeling anger or hate doesn't really help anything. They're only useful to me inasmuch that if I am concentrated when I'm angry or hating, I can notice what actually triggered that anger and hate. For the most part, it is the urge to protect myself and the sense that I have so far often done wrong when I didn't protect myself.

Feeling anger and hate have helped me. But perhaps there are other emotions at various steps in the process that are getting skipped over. Of certain kinds of anger. Also I realized a few years ago that I had been allowed myself to feel anger about something. But it was always in a kind of psychological context of being rebellious and somehow wrong. I allowed the feeling but it was (sublty) judged by me. When it shifted to real acceptance of the feeling, I felt some release both from the people involved and my own guilt.

In Tibetan Buddhism, they have the concept of vajra wrath - a wrath meant to protect what is precious. You've probably seen some pictures of wrathful deities - some of them are about vajra wrath. It wasn't until I saw that and read about it, that I understood my own anger and hatred better, and stopped feeling so guilty about it.

Great. Of course there may be other angers that don't seem OK because they don't seem to fit that model.

(Unfortunately, the mainstream idea of Buddhism is one of lovey dovey almost naive niceness - but this is really in grave discord with what the Suttas and some not so popular Buddhist teachings teach.)

But as you can probably conclude - my getting involved with Buddhism raised a lot of Christian objections in my mind. It's a fight.

Yes, I can imagine.

After I had posted this, I thought about it some more, and asked myself -
What does it mean to have peace in regards to theism and theists?
Over the course of the day, the following answers appeared in my mind and I wrote them down -
- To think I have a system of morality which is superior to theirs.
- To not feel threatened by them.
- To not feel compelled to listen to them.
- To not feel compelled to take them seriously.
- To think they are harmless.
- To think they are wrong.
- To not feel bothered by them.
- To think that the Universe is basically good.
- To think that eventually, all will be fine.

I'll have to work on this.

Sometimes actually saying out loud things like this can be liberating. This is not to condition the mind, like in positive thinking. I find that if I say something I wish I believed but don't it tends to bring up all sorts of emotions and parts of me that doubt that idea hysterically strongly. This can lead to understanding about experiences and patterns that have led to these beliefs as seeming dangerous or impossible.

Why?

11-03-07, 10:36 AM

A belief in God is wishful thinking. Faith is wishful thinking. I believe in God, but that doesn't mean I know there is a God. I simply choose to believe there is a God despite the lack of physical evidence. Faith is a belief despite the lack of evidence.

Saquist

11-04-07, 03:15 AM

To theists:

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?

What are your criteria for making this distinction?

How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

I'm not asking this question in idleness. To give you my background - I was born into a Christian society and for a long time, I thought I believed in God. But eventually, I realized I wasn't sure whether what I thought was God, truly was God or just my wishful thinking, my fantasy.

So I'm asking those who do believe in God -

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?
What are your criteria for making this distinction?
How can you make sure that what you know as "God", truly is God, and not simply your projections and wishful thinking?

Firstly my appreciation for your invitation, greenberg.

I must tell you before I begin that Saquist is name I made up. It means to me..."to be in error". It's a reminder that I am fallible... irrevocably human. It's a word that describes me as pessimistic. As a result, I must reconcile that description. This is the reason that I do not regard myself as a theist. I am a realist. I seek to define my world by what is probable, attainable, and not by what is desirable.

That being said.
I think belief is a strange word. Many of us apply this word to decribe understandings that we are certain about. We also use 'belief' to describe what we are UN-certain about. The answer to your question-

How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking?

-starts here. Belief...seems to aptly describe the words..."wishful thinking." but we often use "belief" to describe reality. This has to be wrong. They can't be both by my reckoning be the same. SO, I've chosen to seperate the words by their definition...Belief is wishfull thinking and Reality is knowing.

As a direct result of that. I don't believe in God...I know God exist. Yet at one time I had to come to this knowledge and so...I was taught to believe, to have that wishfull thinking that there was only one true God and that he did care for mankind. I was not an easily convinced person. School was a strong influence. I realized that I must challenge both, the secular system and the parental system that was impressing God.

As I examined the wealth of information science gave me, I was fascinated. The bible was very difficult to understand and sometimes it did not make sense to me. However I wasn't one to give up and remain in a comfortable place. To this day...if I want to be sure, If I want to know for sure about anything the answer is to take in knowledge. If I left either side out I would then be biased. So I read...I read books on evolution and studied biology and I read and studied the bible. It took years, From 13 to 22 I read far, far more than I do today.

At some point I had to make a call based on the information I had taken in. Being a realist I decided that science was better equpied to describe what we are, than what we will be or...what we were. I believe in String theory but I know...God exist. I know General Relativity was correct but I don't know if my name is written in the book of life, I hope it is.

Knowing General Relativity was correct despite the theory status was me- being a realist. Hoping to be in God's favor- is me being an optimist. It's a belief. I've done much wrong and so I don't know if my judgement will be favorable or not.

There are certain things you can be sure of even without a blinding obvious clue other things...well.. we just hope for the best.