Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But then what if we independently verify and test the table, and that verification shows that the table is actually a floor that looked like a table, and the wood is actually birch.
In that case we were both incorrect in our perceptions.
So someone who has a perception, should be open to the possibility of that perception being wrong.
.
Once the table has collapsed into its parts it is merely wood. The table is just an idea in your mind it does not exist as a reality. But wood does, in fact it is cellulose, cells, tree, roots, earth, wind and air. That is what Reality is. Table is an illusion.
Seeking spirituality comes from self awareness and self confidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Strange, I observe the opposite.
Self confidence and awareness does not necessarily reduce or negate spiritual quests, but does lead to approaching things from a different angle/path, or entering from the backdoor. It also more readily leads to personally designed/customized/hybrid spirituality over stock beliefs and/or institutions.
Self confidence and awareness does not necessarily reduce or negate spiritual quests, but does lead to approaching things from a different angle/path, or entering from the backdoor. It also more readily leads to personally designed/customized/hybrid spirituality over stock beliefs and/or institutions.
I have no stock beliefs. The beliefs I do have are well thought out, reasoned, understood, and are part of me.
To whom else should it matter? You too? Us two? What the hell dies it even mean? Dont answer.
I guess, based on one of your posts yesterday, that I should point out that you have at least four errors in that short post. But of course, that would be 'snarky'. So, I won't say that.
"To whom else should it matter?" Well, you're posting for the world to see. I thought that meant that you thought you had something to share with others.
You think that your 'religionist' posts contain valuable insights that you want to share with others. Atheists here think their insights are just as valuable. But, I don't see you giving atheistic posts any respect.
You hold others to a VERY different standard than the standard(s) that you exhibit. To an extent, that's a human thing to do, but you are a textbook example of that.
What I have been waiting to see is beyond your knowledge of certain religions. It's how you put those religious concepts into practice on this forum. Thus far, it's not a pretty picture.
Once the table has collapsed into its parts it is merely wood. The table is just an idea in your mind it does not exist as a reality. But wood does, in fact it is cellulose, cells, tree, roots, earth, wind and air. That is what Reality is. Table is an illusion.
And what it it turns out it is metal and not wood? In this case you mis-perceived it as wood. One must always be open to the possibility of ones perceptions being wrong.
How arrogant must someone be to not be open to the possibility that their perceptions are wrong?!
Self confidence and awareness does not necessarily reduce or negate spiritual quests, but does lead to approaching things from a different angle/path, or entering from the backdoor. It also more readily leads to personally designed/customized/hybrid spirituality over stock beliefs and/or institutions.
I find it slight surprising the aversion by some to the possibility of their perceptions being wrong. Surely someone with self-awareness must understand the possibility of their perceptions being wrong, and that they themselves are not best suited to detect the mis-perception. They may not have a way to verify their perception, and hence think it is best to trust their perceptions which is fine. But surely they must also realise that the trust is blind to a point.
Have they never though "I know what species of bird that is" only to later find out they were wrong? Or "I know the answer to that question" only to later find out they were wrong? I certainly have thought I knew things, that it turned out were wrong. Surely the same is true for you, and for others.
You seem to forget that you are talking to a PhD trained Social Pschologist who literally created the instruments and study designs you rely on. I know all the quirks of human perception and yet I fo not have such an unreasonable doubt about my ability to interpret my experiences. Your self-doubt is not reasonable.
And yet I have had training on spotting my biases at work from psychologists, and surprise surprise I have biases, as did every other manager in our team. During hiring processes in the last decade, under guidance from psychological studies and best practices, I have discounted parts of my experience because I knew they were not reliable. I would never now hire a person just based on my experience of them at interview, because I know my experience can be biased.
If anything, society is moving towards questioning their own beliefs and perceptions more, which is the intellectually sound thing to do.
Have you never been sure you "knew" something, only to later find out through external verification that you were wrong? I suppose every answer you thought you knew to every question you were asked, your answer was correct? Never wrong? What arrogance. It is entirely reasonable to put an asterisk against knowledge that has not been verified externally.
Just as a separate example - If I was an evil person, would I self identify as such? I doubt it. In which case I'm not based place to decide whether I'm evil or not. Nevertheless it is not good for my mental health to go around questioning whether I'm evil, so I accept the blind belief that I'm not evil, but also understand the limitations of that belief.
Well the topic is not relevant for this thread anyway, so maybe on a thread for that discussion.
For this thread neither your experience or my experience are in question. Rather what trend we will see overall in the population's experience, if better mental health support is available to everyone.
Surely you realise that if more people have mental health support (and in particular prophylactic support), then their experiences will be affected by that. So a percentage of those people may not need religion as a result of being able to lean on better mental health support.
And to support my position, I presented two individual experiences linked in the OP. Those individuals, in their experience, suggest that good mental health support has replaced their need for religion.
So my question in this thread, is how many more will there be.
I think I'd be a bit more thorough in my curiosity; specifically, would the percentage of people relying on religion CHANGE (Up OR Down) with better mental health support. As your premise is predisposed to a biased outcome and therefore would have an elevated proclivity to omitting some data.
Last edited by Cyno; 11-13-2021 at 11:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
