Quote:
Originally Posted by t.l.COYE
I commend your conviction in Neo-fruedian
|
You speak of "conviction" as if it were an ideology. I don't hold it as such at all, just a useful set of tools and an angle of perspective among many. I really am very eclectic in my views, and the only line descended from Freud I hold fairly close is Erikson. Over and above that, I'm a neurocognition type -- but as I say, it's not as far from Freud as many peole think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.l.COYE
if you notice if I felt compelled to thwart your attempts at grabbing a niche in the world of modern philosophy on religion I would have done so fairly easily...lol
|
What expression of kind restraint on your part is this, garnished with "lol" so I will take it kindly? I don't understand what you are getting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.l.COYE
These arguments are hardly a representation of the self nor are they deep and I admit that. You may believe me a sexist or egotist or overely self confident from taking to heart a few comments however I had not intended to sound that way.
|
You need to re-read what it was I said. I was making the point, again in a playful manner (and maybe I didn't use enough smiley-memes) about why it would be incorrect and narrow of me to make such assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.l.COYE
I am sorry that you took it so personally and also sorry you brought your own personal bias onto this table of argument, albeit unintended.
|
There's nothing to take personally in a discussion of theory, and I have taken nothing personally, so you don't need to apologize, although it's courteous of you. It's strictly a contrast of position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.l.COYE
I could careless what school of psychology you believe for they hardly have any real or correct observation on religion
|
Well, I believe that's just incorrect in itself. There's been enough research on it, and not all of that research is junk. I hope you enjoy doing the paper you speak of, and that you find some stuff that demonstrates the alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.l.COYE
I must point out that perhaps your own confirmation bias has obscured some portion of your understanding of what I was trying to say and I will make it more, infact borishly so next time I post another essay.
|
I understand confirmation bias as cherry-picking the parts of a pool of facts or opinions that support one's pre-existing position, and ignoring the rest. Which confirmation bias of mine are you referring to? And I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "borishly."
I'm sorry for my part if this has turned out not to be fun for you, but it was an open discussion with very broad implications. I take it all very seriously, if not personally, and I consider the angle I have been coming from to be an important, maybe a crucial, adjunct to the logical rigor of the philosphical perspective, not only on the existence of God but what has made humans throughout history look for and create such an entity. I have to take it seriously -- I see as an applied matter what it does both
for people and
to people to have either protective or destructive religous convictions.