independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > GOD: An extension of yourself or a Simulacrum?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 09/04/13 11:32am

free0001

GOD: An extension of yourself or a Simulacrum?

free0001

In another thread (Intelligence & Religion) in this P&R forum, I shared my opinion that after a person undergoes a highly emotional religious conversion, a psychological phenomenon occurs. Which is characterized by the self induced inclusion of 'god' into the person's ego. Where 'god' becomes a physiological entity in the mind that we communicate with, all the while projecting that this same 'god' exists somewhere outside of ourselves, in another realm, called 'heaven'.

free0001

Alternatively but similarly, another, established position on the self-created aspect of god is the Simulacrum concept, introduced by the French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, which posits that god is maintained within the mind as a simulation. Similar to how we walk around with a simulation of our parents in our heads and actually make decisions based upon the standards that they instilled within us throughout our upbringing. It's the same with the simulation of our spouses or significant others that we carry along in our minds.

free0001

Through introspection, this former 'spiritual christian' (me/free0001) has arrived to the conclusion that god is indeed a material portion of our psyche that we maintain through the fuel of faith. In my introspected and researched opinion, faith, prayer, and music are the 'real trinity' & primary fuel that keeps 'god' active within the mind of the believer; our Sunday morning pastor plays the role of the 'hype-wo/man' while the wall-jarring music lifts our emotions, which is easily mistaken for the 'holy ghost'.

free0001

I welcome your opinion and have added a video which details another former christians history and understanding of the concept of god as a simulation which is attached to the ego. I should note that it was personal introspection in the late 1980's which led me to my conclusions. I did not have the advantage of youtube videos or the internet to assist me along my path of self truth. I depended on my public library in Charleston, WV to support my thirst for knowledge LOL. [Shout-outs to the CHS WV Public library & my fellow book-addicts]

free0001

[Edited 9/4/13 12:33pm]

[Edited 9/4/13 12:36pm]

[Edited 9/4/13 12:37pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 09/04/13 12:05pm

midnightmover

One only has to take the briefest looks at these Gods to see that they are projections. They behave just like us when we're at our worst. They have temper tantrums, they demand to be loved and worshipped. The Christian God even did something as earthly as to have a son for Godsake. The fact that we give it a gender by calling it Him also gives the game away.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 09/04/13 12:30pm

free0001

midnightmover said:

One only has to take the briefest looks at these Gods to see that they are projections. They behave just like us when we're at our worst. They have temper tantrums, they demand to be loved and worshipped. The Christian God even did something as earthly as to have a son for Godsake. The fact that we give it a gender by calling it Him also gives the game away.

The phenomenon is apparent to you, Mr/Ms Midnight. I'm fascinated by 'the barriers to understanding' as much as anything else in life. What is the mechanism which carries one from indoctrination to deconversion? I have my ideas on this subject as well.

free0001

free0001

If you don't mind sharing, are you a former Christian, Muslim, or other? When did you begin having doubts, and when did you have that 'aha!' moment?

[Edited 9/4/13 12:31pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 09/04/13 10:22pm

IanRG

First kudos for starting a new thread instead of further contaminating the old one with your self- confessed bullying.

Now, what you are saying here is not exactly what you said in the previous thread. You asserted without any evidence that ALL people who disagree with you have a mental condition. You gave the mental condition a name as if it was a real psychological problem but then admitted that you made up the condition after I showed that you misapplied the name. In the process you demonstrated that you do NOT have any real knowledge of psychological conditions. Now in this thread it is only those people who have had a highly emotional conversion that may have this “condition”. I note that you have stopped naming it because the name you gave it was already in use and meant nothing like this fabricated condition. In this your position reminds me of L Ron Hubbard when he made up some psychological mumbo jumbo on improving the mind by letting go (clearing or freeing) of conditions blocking the person from achieving a superior state.

Now you want to compare your fabricated “condition” with the work of Jean Baudrillard as if his views are “an established position” implying that this is widely accepted. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on Baudrillard by Douglas Kellner UCLA makes statements like

“Thus it is difficult to decide whether Baudrillard is best read as science fiction and pataphysics or as philosophy, social theory and cultural metaphysics, and whether his post-1970s work [including that on simulacrums] should be read under the sign of truth or fiction.”


Note in all these descriptions of what genre Baudrillard is never, ever, ever confused with being a psychologist able to assess real psychological states.

But what does he say about whether God exists in his work on simulations? In his post 1970 book “Simulacra and Simulation” 1994 not a whole lot. He made an exceptionally poor argument that Iconoclasts were only against images of God ...

“because they predicted this omnipotence of simulacra, the faculty simulacra have of effacing God from the conscience of man, and the destructive, annihilating truth that they allow to appear – that deep down God never existed, that only the simulacrum ever existed, even that God himself was never anything but his own simulacrum.”


This is silly argument – Some iconoclasts (e.g. Muslims) are against the depiction of people and animals – Does this mean that this is because these Iconoclasts fear people finding out that there are no people or animals? Obviously not, this is a bogus argument. He carries on with the furphy that Jesuits “knew” this too and this is what is behind their politics. Obviously this is just a two sentence assertion with no facts or substantiation:


“This was the approach of the Jesuits, who founded their politics on the virtual disappearance of God and on the worldly and spectacular manipulation of consciences - the evanescence of God in the epiphany of power - the end of transcendence, which now only serves as an alibi for a strategy altogether free of influences and signs. Behind the baroqueness of images hides the éminence grise of politics.”


He then talks about a continuum from where the simulation/image is a reflection of a profound reality, a good appearance where the representation is of the Sacramental order through to where it is has no representation to any reality and is a pure simulacrum. HE MAKES NO STATEMENT ABOUT WHICH IS CORRECT but only concerns himself with IF the last option is correct.

So your choice is a false dichotomy between whether to believe a made up theory by you or a made up one by Baudrillard. There are other choices – most notably that people who disagree with you are not suffering from a mental disorder but rather, consistent with the book that looked at 1600 different academic studies and peer reviews and found that mental health is generally better in believers than others. That belief that God actually exists and cares for us is, in the total absence of proof that God does not exist, a valid choice today.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 09/05/13 12:00am

ConsciousConta
ct

I agree with J krishnamurti when he said that religous people worship themselves. Which I believe is what the OP is alluding to, that what religous people call "God" is part of the ego and that is what they are worshipping.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 09/05/13 4:40am

IanRG

ConsciousContact said:

I agree with J krishnamurti when he said that religous people worship themselves. Which I believe is what the OP is alluding to, that what religous people call "God" is part of the ego and that is what they are worshipping.


Yes & not just alluding to. However, that does not make it anything other than a unsubstantiated assertion - A faith based belief if you will.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 09/05/13 5:26am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

IanRG said:

ConsciousContact said:

I agree with J krishnamurti when he said that religous people worship themselves. Which I believe is what the OP is alluding to, that what religous people call "God" is part of the ego and that is what they are worshipping.


Yes & not just alluding to. However, that does not make it anything other than a unsubstantiated assertion - A faith based belief if you will.

Yeah, because while people of faith would say and believe that God and the kingdom is within you, science would say that's your conscious or ego that is simulating results. Faith is saying who it is, while science is saying what it is. Therefore, you cannot reach common ground, fully. At the end of the video, the person was left saying then who is God, even after the professor called it an simulation.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 09/05/13 6:26am

free0001

IanRG said:

First kudos for starting a new thread instead of further contaminating the old one with your self- confessed bullying.

Now, what you are saying here is not exactly what you said in the previous thread. You asserted without any evidence that ALL people who disagree with you have a mental condition. You gave the mental condition a name as if it was a real psychological problem but then admitted that you made up the condition after I showed that you misapplied the name. In the process you demonstrated that you do NOT have any real knowledge of psychological conditions. Now in this thread it is only those people who have had a highly emotional conversion that may have this “condition”. I note that you have stopped naming it because the name you gave it was already in use and meant nothing like this fabricated condition. In this your position reminds me of L Ron Hubbard when he made up some psychological mumbo jumbo on improving the mind by letting go (clearing or freeing) of conditions blocking the person from achieving a superior state.

Now you want to compare your fabricated “condition” with the work of Jean Baudrillard as if his views are “an established position” implying that this is widely accepted. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on Baudrillard by Douglas Kellner UCLA makes statements like

“Thus it is difficult to decide whether Baudrillard is best read as science fiction and pataphysics or as philosophy, social theory and cultural metaphysics, and whether his post-1970s work [including that on simulacrums] should be read under the sign of truth or fiction.”


Note in all these descriptions of what genre Baudrillard is never, ever, ever confused with being a psychologist able to assess real psychological states.

But what does he say about whether God exists in his work on simulations? In his post 1970 book “Simulacra and Simulation” 1994 not a whole lot. He made an exceptionally poor argument that Iconoclasts were only against images of God ...


This is silly argument – Some iconoclasts (e.g. Muslims) are against the depiction of people and animals – Does this mean that this is because these Iconoclasts fear people finding out that there are no people or animals? Obviously not, this is a bogus argument. He carries on with the furphy that Jesuits “knew” this too and this is what is behind their politics. Obviously this is just a two sentence assertion with no facts or substantiation:


“This was the approach of the Jesuits, who founded their politics on the virtual disappearance of God and on the worldly and spectacular manipulation of consciences - the evanescence of God in the epiphany of power - the end of transcendence, which now only serves as an alibi for a strategy altogether free of influences and signs. Behind the baroqueness of images hides the éminence grise of politics.”


He then talks about a continuum from where the simulation/image is a reflection of a profound reality, a good appearance where the representation is of the Sacramental order through to where it is has no representation to any reality and is a pure simulacrum. HE MAKES NO STATEMENT ABOUT WHICH IS CORRECT but only concerns himself with IF the last option is correct.

So your choice is a false dichotomy between whether to believe a made up theory by you or a made up one by Baudrillard. There are other choices – most notably that people who disagree with you are not suffering from a mental disorder but rather, consistent with the book that looked at 1600 different academic studies and peer reviews and found that mental health is generally better in believers than others. That belief that God actually exists and cares for us is, in the total absence of proof that God does not exist, a valid choice today.

Free0001

Hello Ian. My question is whether or not your faith in god is rational? Is god a self-induced, self-sustained figment in your mind? And if so, what will you do about it? These are the primary questions. Can you answer these? If you don't want to, it's ok. However, I'm not engaging in 'gotcha'-games with bug-dust arguments over semantics any longer.

.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 09/05/13 6:35am

free0001

ConsciousContact said:

I agree with J krishnamurti when he said that religous people worship themselves. Which I believe is what the OP is alluding to, that what religous people call "God" is part of the ego and that is what they are worshipping.

Free0001

Hello CC. Krishnamurti asserted that thought is a material process of the brain. I tend to agree, and there is data to suport this assertion.

Free0001

Thoughts of god and the devil and the resulting feelings of bliss and fear are brain-driven. They are not something which happen externally, but are initiated and sustained within our minds. I agree with JK as well.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 09/05/13 6:39am

toejam

avatar

^^Turn it up, Ian lol

People coming to conclusions as to why our fellow members of the human race believe in non-evident beings does not mean they're taking those conclusions on "faith". You're so full of see-through smear it's laughable. You and I both come to conclusions as to why children fall for Santa Claus, and why grown men and women in healing crystals etc. Whatever our conclusions, the reality is there's probably a lot more to why children believe in Santa Claus and adults in healing crystals than we'll probably ever know. But we both know enough to say with confidence that belief in them is unjustified. It doesn't mean we put "faith" into those conclusions. We know enough to say that bad info and wishful thinking plays a big part in why people believe in such things. It's simply not true that conclusions we do draw as to why others believe are "faith" based. You probably draw very similar conclusions as to why others believe in the definitions of God/s you don't believe in.

I don't think free0001 is presenting a false dichotemy. This is you simply over-blowing standard day-to-day language. It's like a sports writer asking: "Why did the Miami Heat win the NBA championship? Because they had Lebron James? Or because the Spurs choked?". Everyone knows there are lots of other factors. It's not some deep seeded faith-based false dichotemy the sports writer is making.

I also don't think honest belief is a "choice". Either you believe something is true, or you don't. Or at the very least, you believe something is likely true, or possibly true etc. I can't think of any fact-of-reality belief that I have that I personally "choose" to believe. Of course, some facts of reality are more pleasing than others, it doesn't mean I choose to believe them. I believe them because they're evidentially apparent to me that they're true/likely true etc. I'm sure illusion is very helpful to some people's mental health. But I'm with Carl Sagan - "Better by far to embrace a hard truth than a reassuring fable."

I think there is much in the ideas presented here. My own experience of deconversion was a long and drawn out process of coming to realise that what I was calling "God" was indistinguishable from simply an imaginary friend. My inner-Occam's Razor chipped away slowly but surely. Thankfully for me my original belief was very ill-defined to begin with (I describe it now as "vaguely Christian"), so when I realised one day in my late 20s that I didn't really believe any of it anymore, it felt more like a moment of maturity than the devastating blow that I suspect it can be to some.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 09/05/13 6:40am

Graycap23

free0001 said:

ConsciousContact said:

I agree with J krishnamurti when he said that religous people worship themselves. Which I believe is what the OP is alluding to, that what religous people call "God" is part of the ego and that is what they are worshipping.

Free0001

Hello CC. Krishnamurti asserted that thought is a material process of the brain. I tend to agree, and there is data to suport this assertion.

Free0001

Thoughts of god and the devil and the resulting feelings of bliss and fear are brain-driven. They are not something which happen externally, but are initiated and sustained within our minds. I agree with JK as well.

Agree 100%

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 09/05/13 6:59am

free0001

Beautifulstarr123 said:

IanRG said:


Yes & not just alluding to. However, that does not make it anything other than a unsubstantiated assertion - A faith based belief if you will.

Yeah, because while people of faith would say and believe that God and the kingdom is within you, science would say that's your conscious or ego that is simulating results. Faith is saying who it is, while science is saying what it is. Therefore, you cannot reach common ground, fully. At the end of the video, the person was left saying then who is God, even after the professor called it an simulation.

free0001

Hi Starr. Here is a question to ask yourself: is it at all possible that Jesus/god/satan/angels are just a memory that your brain resucitates, gives life, and claims is 'real'? Similar to how a person remembers a dead grandparent or friend and internally chats with them. Which, by the way, is the mechanism that kids use to believe in and communicate with Santa.

free0001

For now, all I'm asking, is this possible?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 09/05/13 7:06am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

free0001 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Yeah, because while people of faith would say and believe that God and the kingdom is within you, science would say that's your conscious or ego that is simulating results. Faith is saying who it is, while science is saying what it is. Therefore, you cannot reach common ground, fully. At the end of the video, the person was left saying then who is God, even after the professor called it an simulation.

free0001

Hi Starr. Here is a question to ask yourself: is it at all possible that Jesus/god/satan/angels are just a memory that your brain resucitates, gives life, and claims is 'real'? Similar to how a person remembers a dead grandparent or friend and internally chats with them. Which, by the way, is the mechanism that kids use to believe in and communicate with Santa.

free0001

For now, all I'm asking, is this possible?

One way we're all going to find out about Jesus is when we die. In the meantime, folks will put their faith in what they believe. Why change them. Leave it alone.

...on a sidenote one thing that is agreed upon is cause and effect to all things.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 09/05/13 8:21am

free0001

Beautifulstarr123 said:

free0001 said:

free0001

Hi Starr. Here is a question to ask yourself: is it at all possible that Jesus/god/satan/angels are just a memory that your brain resucitates, gives life, and claims is 'real'? Similar to how a person remembers a dead grandparent or friend and internally chats with them. Which, by the way, is the mechanism that kids use to believe in and communicate with Santa.

free0001

For now, all I'm asking, is this possible?

One way we're all going to find out about Jesus is when we die. In the meantime, folks will put their faith in what they believe. Why change them. Leave it alone.

...on a sidenote one thing that is agreed upon is cause and effect to all things.

"why change them. Leave it alone."

Here's why:

1) Some faith-driven acts kill innocent human beings. Explanation self-evident.

2) The obviously-fabricated faiths, such as Santa Claus, can be gateways into the Fatal Faiths. How would you like it if one of your children suddenly became immersed into a belief system which led to the loss of human life?

3) Faith and belief-systems directly affect society in the form of our laws and the judiciary. Religious judges can often render biased decisions. New & existing laws can discriminate against whole swaths of society in the attempt to uphold 'religious values'.

Faith and belief are serious matters...it amounts to: "what worldview am I choosing for myself, which will affect how I view and treat others." It has a much greater implication, in the here-and-now (not after we die and meet Jesus and the Saints) than choosing the color of a new car or other low-level decisions. See the difference?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 09/05/13 9:13am

midnightmover

free0001 said:

midnightmover said:

One only has to take the briefest looks at these Gods to see that they are projections. They behave just like us when we're at our worst. They have temper tantrums, they demand to be loved and worshipped. The Christian God even did something as earthly as to have a son for Godsake. The fact that we give it a gender by calling it Him also gives the game away.

The phenomenon is apparent to you, Mr/Ms Midnight. I'm fascinated by 'the barriers to understanding' as much as anything else in life. What is the mechanism which carries one from indoctrination to deconversion? I have my ideas on this subject as well.

free0001

free0001

If you don't mind sharing, are you a former Christian, Muslim, or other? When did you begin having doubts, and when did you have that 'aha!' moment?

[Edited 9/4/13 12:31pm]

I'm British. People over here are nowhere near as religious as you guys in the States. When we see the role religion plays in public life over there it strikes us as strange. Same goes for your gun culture. I'm almost 40 now and I've never seen a gun in my life except on TV.

To me my issue is with irrational, unreasonable thought in general. Religion is obviously the biggest example of that, but in truth you can see it everywhere. People deceive themselves and indulge in sophistry all the time without realizing it. If not for this flaw in the human psyche religion could not exist.

“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 09/05/13 9:43am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

free0001 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

One way we're all going to find out about Jesus is when we die. In the meantime, folks will put their faith in what they believe. Why change them. Leave it alone.

...on a sidenote one thing that is agreed upon is cause and effect to all things.

"why change them. Leave it alone."

Here's why:

1) Some faith-driven acts kill innocent human beings. Explanation self-evident.

2) The obviously-fabricated faiths, such as Santa Claus, can be gateways into the Fatal Faiths. How would you like it if one of your children suddenly became immersed into a belief system which led to the loss of human life?

3) Faith and belief-systems directly affect society in the form of our laws and the judiciary. Religious judges can often render biased decisions. New & existing laws can discriminate against whole swaths of society in the attempt to uphold 'religious values'.

Faith and belief are serious matters...it amounts to: "what worldview am I choosing for myself, which will affect how I view and treat others." It has a much greater implication, in the here-and-now (not after we die and meet Jesus and the Saints) than choosing the color of a new car or other low-level decisions. See the difference?

Yep, the views that you've chose for yourself.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 09/05/13 9:45am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

...and a very subjective topic to boot.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 09/05/13 9:56am

free0001

Beautifulstarr123 said:

...and a very subjective topic to boot.

Alright Starr. I've beaten you around the neck and knees enough. I will not try and urge you to intellectually engage any further.

[Edited 9/5/13 9:57am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 09/05/13 3:18pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^^Turn it up, Ian lol

People coming to conclusions as to why our fellow members of the human race believe in non-evident beings does not mean they're taking those conclusions on "faith". You're so full of see-through smear it's laughable. You and I both come to conclusions as to why children fall for Santa Claus, and why grown men and women in healing crystals etc. Whatever our conclusions, the reality is there's probably a lot more to why children believe in Santa Claus and adults in healing crystals than we'll probably ever know. But we both know enough to say with confidence that belief in them is unjustified. It doesn't mean we put "faith" into those conclusions. We know enough to say that bad info and wishful thinking plays a big part in why people believe in such things. It's simply not true that conclusions we do draw as to why others believe are "faith" based. You probably draw very similar conclusions as to why others believe in the definitions of God/s you don't believe in.

I don't think free0001 is presenting a false dichotemy. This is you simply over-blowing standard day-to-day language. It's like a sports writer asking: "Why did the Miami Heat win the NBA championship? Because they had Lebron James? Or because the Spurs choked?". Everyone knows there are lots of other factors. It's not some deep seeded faith-based false dichotemy the sports writer is making.

I also don't think honest belief is a "choice". Either you believe something is true, or you don't. Or at the very least, you believe something is likely true, or possibly true etc. I can't think of any fact-of-reality belief that I have that I personally "choose" to believe. Of course, some facts of reality are more pleasing than others, it doesn't mean I choose to believe them. I believe them because they're evidentially apparent to me that they're true/likely true etc. I'm sure illusion is very helpful to some people's mental health. But I'm with Carl Sagan - "Better by far to embrace a hard truth than a reassuring fable."

I think there is much in the ideas presented here. My own experience of deconversion was a long and drawn out process of coming to realise that what I was calling "God" was indistinguishable from simply an imaginary friend. My inner-Occam's Razor chipped away slowly but surely. Thankfully for me my original belief was very ill-defined to begin with (I describe it now as "vaguely Christian"), so when I realised one day in my late 20s that I didn't really believe any of it anymore, it felt more like a moment of maturity than the devastating blow that I suspect it can be to some.


I think we are largely agreeing (except obviously where we don't) but you are reading more into how I said it than I what I said. Had Free1 just presented this as his view, opinion, belief then I would agree with your first paragraph. Except he, through this thread and in the thread in which he first raised it presented it as everyone who disagrees with him has a mental defect that they can only overcome if they adopt his beliefs. Against this I presented a study of 1600 academic papers and peer reviews that showed that mental health among the religious is actually better than among others. When a religious person presents a belief that is against the evidence and walks away saying "Whatever you do and whatever you believe, now and into the future, try and make sane decisions. And I promise you that I will continue making decisions that benefit not only myself, but others of whom my very existence affect. Take care, and please do not be offended if I choose to not respond to any more of your posts" then you would and have often, indeed only ever considered that to a "faith" based answer.

I hope what I am saying is always completely transparent but I know I always try to ensure that it is not a smear.

As to your sports analogy: Again we are agreeing, just not on the words. If I in an intelligent written discussion on philosophy/pschycology point out that there are more than these two choices by starting with "ya talkin out ya arse" this would be inappropriate. However, if we are discussing Miami Heat's victory in a Brissy pub over a beer or few and you said "you are just presenting a false dichotomy" then you are going to get some strange looks at best: although in some wine bars in Melbourne ...

(Note to non-Australians: it is just about the culturally "elite" in Melbourne)

I note in your belief/non belief journey you have no highly emotional conversion or deconversion, no feeling of being set free, becoming clear or any mention of anything that indicates a reunified ego, just a maturity. I started as a non-believer, became a believer, lost my faith and recovered it. The only highly emotional conversion was the loss of faith and I can assure you my recovery made me more whole & helped me pull my mental state back together. As you know, I was sexually abused (and not by a catholic priest) - In the councilling with a real pschycologist who is an atheist, he agreed that my recovered faith was nothing but an absolute positive in overcoming a traumatic event. Given that this discussion has seen the assertion reduce from ALL believers to just those believers whose conversion to belief was accompanied with a highly emotional event then the discussion has been positive.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 09/05/13 3:54pm

V10LETBLUES

I have personally seen people close to me who turn to religion after a very difficult personal crisis. And often times I find they are still reliving the personal crisis in their minds and it is always close to the surface. So that the old assumption that it is a coping mechanism rings true for me.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 09/05/13 5:19pm

free0001

V10LETBLUES said:

I have personally seen people close to me who turn to religion after a very difficult personal crisis. And often times I find they are still reliving the personal crisis in their minds and it is always close to the surface. So that the old assumption that it is a coping mechanism rings true for me.

God (Allah/Jehovah/Yahweh/Zeus/etc) is a thought that is memorized, resucitated & prayed to. God has no INDEPENDENT affect on the physical world. We carry this god within our heads, just like we carry the image of our spouses, our children, our friends. We 'talk to god' internally, not recognizing or realizing that this god is really a figment of our own construction and is actually attached to our ego. We have done this for thousands of years, as a species.

God has always been a 3rd-party entity which is attached to the mind of the believer.

God always requires an intercessor to prove it's case.

God is not a 1st person entity who can personally schedule a press conference and in first-person, prove me and those who think like me, wrong.

If anyone on this site has firsthand knowledge of Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah/etc and can set up a meeting for me to speak with this entity, man to god, please let me know. No 2nd or 3rd party communications will be accepted.

[Edited 9/5/13 17:26pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 09/05/13 8:07pm

IanRG

free0001 said:

IanRG said:

First kudos for starting a new thread instead of further contaminating the old one with your self- confessed bullying.

Now, what you are saying here is not exactly what you said in the previous thread. You asserted without any evidence that ALL people who disagree with you have a mental condition. You gave the mental condition a name as if it was a real psychological problem but then admitted that you made up the condition after I showed that you misapplied the name. In the process you demonstrated that you do NOT have any real knowledge of psychological conditions. Now in this thread it is only those people who have had a highly emotional conversion that may have this “condition”. I note that you have stopped naming it because the name you gave it was already in use and meant nothing like this fabricated condition. In this your position reminds me of L Ron Hubbard when he made up some psychological mumbo jumbo on improving the mind by letting go (clearing or freeing) of conditions blocking the person from achieving a superior state.

Now you want to compare your fabricated “condition” with the work of Jean Baudrillard as if his views are “an established position” implying that this is widely accepted. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on Baudrillard by Douglas Kellner UCLA makes statements like

“Thus it is difficult to decide whether Baudrillard is best read as science fiction and pataphysics or as philosophy, social theory and cultural metaphysics, and whether his post-1970s work [including that on simulacrums] should be read under the sign of truth or fiction.”


Note in all these descriptions of what genre Baudrillard is never, ever, ever confused with being a psychologist able to assess real psychological states.

But what does he say about whether God exists in his work on simulations? In his post 1970 book “Simulacra and Simulation” 1994 not a whole lot. He made an exceptionally poor argument that Iconoclasts were only against images of God ...


This is silly argument – Some iconoclasts (e.g. Muslims) are against the depiction of people and animals – Does this mean that this is because these Iconoclasts fear people finding out that there are no people or animals? Obviously not, this is a bogus argument. He carries on with the furphy that Jesuits “knew” this too and this is what is behind their politics. Obviously this is just a two sentence assertion with no facts or substantiation:


“This was the approach of the Jesuits, who founded their politics on the virtual disappearance of God and on the worldly and spectacular manipulation of consciences - the evanescence of God in the epiphany of power - the end of transcendence, which now only serves as an alibi for a strategy altogether free of influences and signs. Behind the baroqueness of images hides the éminence grise of politics.”


He then talks about a continuum from where the simulation/image is a reflection of a profound reality, a good appearance where the representation is of the Sacramental order through to where it is has no representation to any reality and is a pure simulacrum. HE MAKES NO STATEMENT ABOUT WHICH IS CORRECT but only concerns himself with IF the last option is correct.

So your choice is a false dichotomy between whether to believe a made up theory by you or a made up one by Baudrillard. There are other choices – most notably that people who disagree with you are not suffering from a mental disorder but rather, consistent with the book that looked at 1600 different academic studies and peer reviews and found that mental health is generally better in believers than others. That belief that God actually exists and cares for us is, in the total absence of proof that God does not exist, a valid choice today.


Free0001

Hello Ian. My question is whether or not your faith in god is rational? Is god a self-induced, self-sustained figment in your mind? And if so, what will you do about it? These are the primary questions. Can you answer these? If you don't want to, it's ok. However, I'm not engaging in 'gotcha'-games with bug-dust arguments over semantics any longer.

.


My faith is perfectly rational (but not empirically provable) and not a self-sustained figment in my mind, therefore there is nothing I need do about it. Having said that I ALWAYS question my faith and recognise that I always should - by questioning it I have only ever enhanced it. Having been an atheist I know from where you are coming from but having experienced God's love directly so many times (and without errors like the youtube girl who says she convinced herself that God said she will marry a person with whom she had no actual relationship) I know that others can and do experience the same love. The rational response is not to assume that everyone who disagrees with me must have a mental defect. Before I answer your next question asking me to substantiate this position - You have been asserting much with no substantiation and have not answered my comments, justify your assertions and answer my comments first.

My reply to you here is not an argument over semantics:

  • There is no definitional conflict in me pointing out that you have zero proof or even substantiation that everyone who disagrees with you must be suffering from a mental disorder.
  • There is no defintional conflict in me pointing out that Jean Baudrillard's position is SO not an established position in psychology and that there are strong arguments against his views even as philosophy to the point that many academics consider his writings at best science fiction.
  • There is no definitional conflict in me pointing out that Baudrillard allowed for the similacra of God being in his own words a reflection "of a profound reality, a good appearance where the representation is of the Sacramental order."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 09/05/13 8:09pm

IanRG

midnightmover said:

free0001 said:

The phenomenon is apparent to you, Mr/Ms Midnight. I'm fascinated by 'the barriers to understanding' as much as anything else in life. What is the mechanism which carries one from indoctrination to deconversion? I have my ideas on this subject as well.

free0001

free0001

If you don't mind sharing, are you a former Christian, Muslim, or other? When did you begin having doubts, and when did you have that 'aha!' moment?

[Edited 9/4/13 12:31pm]

I'm British. People over here are nowhere near as religious as you guys in the States. When we see the role religion plays in public life over there it strikes us as strange. Same goes for your gun culture. I'm almost 40 now and I've never seen a gun in my life except on TV.

To me my issue is with irrational, unreasonable thought in general. Religion is obviously the biggest example of that, but in truth you can see it everywhere. People deceive themselves and indulge in sophistry all the time without realizing it. If not for this flaw in the human psyche religion could not exist.


As an Australian, I generally agree with this - except the last sentence.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 09/05/13 8:17pm

IanRG

V10LETBLUES said:

I have personally seen people close to me who turn to religion after a very difficult personal crisis. And often times I find they are still reliving the personal crisis in their minds and it is always close to the surface. So that the old assumption that it is a coping mechanism rings true for me.


Absolutely agree. But think on this: the services of a Rape Crisis Centre provide coping measures: This does not mean that this crisis is removed nor does it mean that the Rape Crisis Centre does not exist. That God helps us cope does not mean God does not exist or that we don't have to stuggle to cope.

Also, as I said above about myself, a very difficult personal crisis can drive you away from God just as easily drive you to God. I have seen a ordinary, easy, fully expected death with dignity at very old age cause a family to fall apart and faith reduce in some and a child with a hidden cancer die unexpectedly drive that family back together and back to God.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 09/06/13 3:41am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

free0001 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

...and a very subjective topic to boot.

Alright Starr. I've beaten you around the neck and knees enough. I will not try and urge you to intellectually engage any further.

[Edited 9/5/13 9:57am]

Fair enough, because I saw where you was going with this.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 09/06/13 6:44am

free0001

Beautifulstarr123 said:

free0001 said:

Alright Starr. I've beaten you around the neck and knees enough. I will not try and urge you to intellectually engage any further.

[Edited 9/5/13 9:57am]

Fair enough, because I saw where you was going with this.

"Fair enough, because I saw where you was going with this."

What does this mean? Do you think that I'm engaging in tricks or deception? That is exactly what I want others to stop doing, internally. To challenge their internal "voice of god".


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 09/06/13 11:08am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

free0001 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Fair enough, because I saw where you was going with this.

"Fair enough, because I saw where you was going with this."

What does this mean? Do you think that I'm engaging in tricks or deception? That is exactly what I want others to stop doing, internally. To challenge their internal "voice of god".


More like an conversion, and if that's the case, save it. I have been down this road before, especially here. Good day.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 09/06/13 11:15am

V10LETBLUES

IanRG said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I have personally seen people close to me who turn to religion after a very difficult personal crisis. And often times I find they are still reliving the personal crisis in their minds and it is always close to the surface. So that the old assumption that it is a coping mechanism rings true for me.


Absolutely agree. But think on this: the services of a Rape Crisis Centre provide coping measures: This does not mean that this crisis is removed nor does it mean that the Rape Crisis Centre does not exist. That God helps us cope does not mean God does not exist or that we don't have to stuggle to cope.

Also, as I said above about myself, a very difficult personal crisis can drive you away from God just as easily drive you to God. I have seen a ordinary, easy, fully expected death with dignity at very old age cause a family to fall apart and faith reduce in some and a child with a hidden cancer die unexpectedly drive that family back together and back to God.

Yes I have seen this myself too. I have two very dear friends who have done just that. Once dedicated to their faith, now abstaining, yet not completely renouncing. Both having to do with the death of their children.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 09/06/13 3:20pm

IanRG

V10LETBLUES said:

IanRG said:


Absolutely agree. But think on this: the services of a Rape Crisis Centre provide coping measures: This does not mean that this crisis is removed nor does it mean that the Rape Crisis Centre does not exist. That God helps us cope does not mean God does not exist or that we don't have to stuggle to cope.

Also, as I said above about myself, a very difficult personal crisis can drive you away from God just as easily drive you to God. I have seen a ordinary, easy, fully expected death with dignity at very old age cause a family to fall apart and faith reduce in some and a child with a hidden cancer die unexpectedly drive that family back together and back to God.

Yes I have seen this myself too. I have two very dear friends who have done just that. Once dedicated to their faith, now abstaining, yet not completely renouncing. Both having to do with the death of their children.


Grief is one of the hardest challenges in anyone's life, especially if they have to face the death of their own child. I pray that you friends find their way through this as well as they can - Whether or not they refind their dedication

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 09/08/13 5:25pm

free0001

IanRG said:

free0001 said:


Free0001

Hello Ian. My question is whether or not your faith in god is rational? Is god a self-induced, self-sustained figment in your mind? And if so, what will you do about it? These are the primary questions. Can you answer these? If you don't want to, it's ok. However, I'm not engaging in 'gotcha'-games with bug-dust arguments over semantics any longer.

.


My faith is perfectly rational (but not empirically provable) and not a self-sustained figment in my mind, therefore there is nothing I need do about it. Having said that I ALWAYS question my faith and recognise that I always should - by questioning it I have only ever enhanced it. Having been an atheist I know from where you are coming from but having experienced God's love directly so many times (and without errors like the youtube girl who says she convinced herself that God said she will marry a person with whom she had no actual relationship) I know that others can and do experience the same love. The rational response is not to assume that everyone who disagrees with me must have a mental defect. Before I answer your next question asking me to substantiate this position - You have been asserting much with no substantiation and have not answered my comments, justify your assertions and answer my comments first.

My reply to you here is not an argument over semantics:

  • There is no definitional conflict in me pointing out that you have zero proof or even substantiation that everyone who disagrees with you must be suffering from a mental disorder.
  • There is no defintional conflict in me pointing out that Jean Baudrillard's position is SO not an established position in psychology and that there are strong arguments against his views even as philosophy to the point that many academics consider his writings at best science fiction.
  • There is no definitional conflict in me pointing out that Baudrillard allowed for the similacra of God being in his own words a reflection "of a profound reality, a good appearance where the representation is of the Sacramental order."

"My faith is perfectly rational (but not empirically provable) and not a self-sustained figment in my mind, therefore there is nothing I need do about it."

If your faith is not empirically provable, it is NOT perfectly rational! At most, it is PERFECTLY (Perfect in that you are too stubborn to move from your position) IRRATIONAL (Lacking sound reason)

Everything you stated after your 'perfectly rational' testament is nullified by your "not empirically provable" statement.

-You believe because you're COMFORTABLE [in a self-admitted irrational belief.] Which is irrational, empirically speaking. Believing in Jesus feels good to you. (Just as it did to me when I was a christian)

-You believe because you're EMBEDDED PHYSIOLOGICALLY [in a self-admitted irrational belief.] Which is irrational, empirically speaking. Belief in Jesus results in an emotional high in your brain. (Just as it did to me when I was a christian)

You believe and have placed your intellectual credibility on the Creation/Fall of Man/Redemption mythos that has been recycled and reconstituted for eons into your particular brand of christianity. You then defend your belief in Jesus, as fervent as the Muslim defends Mohammed, and as the 9 year old boy initially defends Santa to his 14 yr old sister. I have told you this, many times.

I no longer want to hear your long-winded refutations to 2+2 = 4; I want to see you logically defend your belief in something which is religiously equal to a belief in Santa. And even more than that, I'd like to see you RENOUNCE ALL YOUR BELIEFS WHICH CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY PROVEN. Be always intellectually honest and logically sound.

In closing, I want to apologize. I realize that you will remain a christian until you have your 1st logic-doubt which sends you on the road to true inquiry. I realize that everything I've said in the opening of this letter will be disputed, refuted, remixed and denounced. Believers will remain believers until they are not. It's easiest to just believe.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > GOD: An extension of yourself or a Simulacrum?