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.
....The underlying state of belief (whether or not justified by what you consider evidence or facts) is the same state.... Psychologically, it is the same underlying state.
So you're apparently talking about a "state" of the mind that is detectable by MRI or some scanning instrument. Maybe in that sense religious belief and scientific understanding are similarly detected. This, however, discounts the actual content that produces such a state. This only seems to prove that religious belief fools its believer into thinking the belief is just as justified as a well supported scientific theory backed up by mountains of evidence.
Reality can either exist or not, just as belief can exist or not. We have matter, anti-matter, neither. Your frustration comes from your NEED to force others into your definitions, so you can prove them wrong, strawmanism.
The bold is an absurdity. Reality or existence itself is ALL that we can be certain exists. Whether or not it is God is a binary decision that grounds our interactions with it.
So you're apparently talking about a "state" of the mind that is detectable by MRI or some scanning instrument. Maybe in that sense religious belief and scientific understanding are similarly detected. This, however, discounts the actual content that produces such a state. This only seems to prove that religious belief fools its believer into thinking the belief is just as justified as a well-supported scientific theory backed up by mountains of evidence.
But I would point out that your use of the word "fools" is a somewhat biased interpretation since we do not know from what source such a state is derived. My encounter suggests to me that there is a source of influence within consciousness itself that may be responsible.
A belief is a state of mind involving a level of certainty about Reality. It has no valence. So your probable presumption that beliefs only apply to positive states of mind is incorrect. A negative belief is still a belief state of mind, it just happens to have a negative valence. Only neutral states of mind are without valence.
It must be a very "heady" experience or way of life to explain in so many ways why so many people are really not able to know reality and/or alter-reality like you do. What's it like up there?
M-kay well a lot hinges on your definition of belief.
Belief in the religious sense is just subscribing to an assertion.
Many people hold areligious beliefs on the same basis, because it fits their preconceptions or prejudices or hopes or whatever. That atheists are hateful or that black people are dirty or that asians have some hidden subversive side to themselves or that poor people are lazy are all negative examples. Positive examples might be, mother always knows best, authority figures are always trustworthy and wholesome, wise and good. People hold beliefs like those with great confidence, because it subjectively "feels right" to them and they can selectively see nothing but confirming examples. It supports the sort of world they choose to see.
My desire is for all beliefs I have to be justifiable and for the closeness or confidence with which I hold them to be proportional to their justifiability. To have a justified belief, it would be based on supporting facts or logical argument and perhaps consistent personal experience that is also reported by others. It could not merely be asserted as commonly accepted or common sense or with some appeal to ancientness or someone's claimed personal experience alone.
Your beliefs are based on personal experience which is fine for you but useless for anyone else. And I suspect that even if these specific meditative experiences you had were readily accessible to most people, they would be unlikely to draw the same conclusions from them as you. Indeed I suspect that someone with no exposure to Christianity would tend to try to fit it to very different religious views and urtexts.
You know...
It would be one thing if I read these comments being explained to new people, but that the same thing is explained over and over again to the same people makes me profoundly aware of yet another reality...
Sorry, but I've explained that one a few too many times to the same people as well. Might as well be spitting in the wind!
To the extent that one operates from the default position of No God until proven, they are NOT operating from a neutral position. Belief is binary. So what are you calling pure atheism?
It must be a very "heady" experience or way of life to explain in so many ways why so many people are really not able to know reality and/or alter-reality like you do. What's it like up there?
The truly Good News is that we will all find out how it is up there!
I agree Belief is Binary. Atheism is 0, no belief, Not an anti-belief, just non-existent.
Believing there IS no God is a 1, a belief that is positive, albeit, against a different positive belief.
I believe there is a god = Binary 1
I believe there is NO god = Binary 1
I don't believe either = Binary 0
You remind me of another fact I've often shared in this forum...
There are 10 kinds of people on this planet. Those who understand the binary system and those who don't.
The bold is an absurdity. Reality or existence itself is ALL that we can be certain exists. Whether or not it is God is a binary decision that grounds our interactions with it.
(Precluding going into the weeds talking about reality pre-big bang, & the possibility of non-existence of reality). Your wording leaves a bit of room for interpretation, so to clarify, when you say, "Whether or not it is God is a binary decision that grounds our interactions with it." What is 'IT', reality or god? IF you say god, you are presupposing there is a reason to call reality god (which I know you do), we are destined to break off or take another lap around a disagreement on the meaning of the word god vs. the meaning of the word reality (or universe). You consider them synonymous as fact, I do not. So I ask, which of us has more lack of evidence of god?
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.
But I would point out that your use of the word "fools" is a somewhat biased interpretation since we do not know from what source such a state is derived. My encounter suggests to me that there is a source of influence within consciousness itself that may be responsible.
