[Laughing Man]

Your argument has extended beyond that of religion and why its is wrong to a more personal self obligatory structure. I commend your conviction in Neo-fruedian I myself prefer a more humanistic position on personality and emmotion and perhaps partial to Ottos's theory on religion. I feel that you have read to far into my playful banter which was not intended to be serious, 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 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. I have a great background in psychology and I just didnt want to share that at the time, I wanted this argument to continue so I just made it appear as though I was perhaps slightly innocent to post modern psychology to recieve a somewhat more humorous response.

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. I could careless what school of psychology you believe for they hardly have any real or correct observation on religion and I will make this clear in my next argument, which I may thank you for giving me the idea.

You will notice that I am in such a position to have opinions and have them be both relevant and greatly correct.I shall end this discussion here as you seem to be traveling on a very different path.You have dedicated some portion of your life to psychology and I wont take that away from you infact I applaud your pesonal convictions even your own bias. 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 am currently righting both a thesis paper on Social Cognivity and The Man on the Mountain: Psychology of Religion. I hope you take a similiar intrest and I will welcome your neo-freudianism.

[ManthaStoirmeil]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Laughing Man]

"Can science ever be immune from experiments conceived out of prejudices and stereotypes, conscious or not? (Which is not to suggest that it cannot in discrete areas identify and locate verifiable phenemonena in nature.) I await the study that says lesbians have a region of the hypothalamus that resembles straight men and I would not be surprised if, at this very moment, some scientist somewhere is studying brains of deceased Asians to see if they have an enlarged "math region" of the brain."

* Kay Diaz, Z, Dec 1992


It is one of the rules of the internet: that 'lol' counters all malicous intent.

Borishly should be boarishly...

I do believe you have made the argument something it is not. Reread title.

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.

If you are refereing to Freud here then I do not find his understanding of religion relevant. You misinterpreted what I had said aswell.

[Storiesmaniac]

May i interject here for one second...

This will be short...But it seems to me that by bringing psychology into it you are automatically assuming that people who believe in religion are wrong...Now be that as it may...there is no proof here nor there that you are right and they are wrong, nor that they are right and you are wrong...no side has an absolute truth...So while you may continue to argue physcological point, and determine what kind of people are more likely to be involved in religion, it technically has no basis for the argument because im pretty sure that religion is a side point that has been brought into it...without reading the original argument again i could be completely wrong. But, is this not an argument about God... or gods...as the title would suggest...or should we rename it the Religion Hypothesis....

On a complete side point...I also believe that freud is a complete sicko...smart in some areas, but very very wrong in others...sorry if that is offensive but, comeon when you really look at it he's pretty messed up.

[Laughing Man]

lol...indeed. Infact that point you had made was spot on. We have gone of track and I have been attempting to route the argument back.

[ManthaStoirmeil]

Originally Posted by storiesmaniac

May i interject here for one second...

Of course! At least, OK by me . . . I understood the thread to be altogether about God and human arguments for the existence of God. If I haven't understood this correctly, then I may have caused a digression, and if so I regret it.

About Freud -- I think you have to define sicko, and then you have to point to specifics from the original source, to really be justified in this. I think Freud was both brilliant and phenomenally flawed, at the same time, and there is some to keep and some to pitch out. But I also think it's better to keep that argument ad theorem, as it were, and not go over into ad hominem. "Freud was wrong" is fine, and in many respects true. "Freud was a sicko" just drags you and your credibility down.

TL -- as to "lol" being intended to counter malicious intent, well, I know that -- but I'm referring to the actual claim being made, something about niche-grabbing and what you could do about it if you wanted? Oh -- "lol".

[Storiesmaniac]

Not really...Freud was a sicko...is in many aspects just as acurate as saying he was wrong...and dont get me wrong i like some of freuds work and dont believe modern Pyschology would be where it is without him, but that doesnt mean he wasnt a sicko...But then again im not backing this up with anything, which i probley should and would if i wasnt too lazy...and tired seeing as it's 4 am...

[Laughing Man]

...He was a sexist aswell. If I do recall corectly he never studied women because he felt them less adapted.

[ManthaStoirmeil]

Originally Posted by t.l.COYE

...He was a sexist aswell. If I do recall corectly he never studied women because he felt them less adapted.

This is the usual feminist/postfeminist response, and it's too whole-cloth to be productive as well as being anachronistic. The entire historical context was that way, and if you look at some of the things he tried to do with regard to the study of women, he was well ahead of it. If you are going to damn him for not being in synch with present-day gender equality standards, you will have to sink most of our intellectual heritage with him, to be fair.

[Laughing Man]

Hmm...

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.

This is the usual feminist/postfeminist response, and it's too whole-cloth to be productive as well as being anachronistic. The entire historical context was that way, and if you look at some of the things he tried to do with regard to the study of women, he was well ahead of it. If you are going to damn him for not being in synch with present-day gender equality standards, you will have to sink most of our intellectual heritage with him, to be fair.

...bias?

[ManthaStoirmeil]

No smug toss-offs, now, lol. Say why you think so, or why you are asking.

[Laughing Man]

I would...but I think we have carried this out to far...aha.

Well, if i may go off subject for a moment here.
Im 16, and sadly have read most of the books you two are refferencing. I am a freshman in college, having skipped my 11th and 12th grade highschool years, i am 2 years ahead of my peers. I am majoring in Computer networking, with my minor being psychology.
I must say, I have read every word both TL and Marth have wrote, and if i was a nuetral subject, i would still be nuetral, in the sence that both of you have very strong arguments about your opinion.
But, being a non-believer of sorts, I must say that I am very intruiged on how this will end up. I have spent the last 2 hours reading and going over the two arguments, and it is 4am.
I know im 16, and i probably should be sleeping seeing as i have a test in 3 hours, but you both have really gotten me interested in this. i have never seen such a profound argument on either side, both of you have really gotten into this. For this, I thank both of you, knowing that i am not the only person in the world who takes an argument seriously and knows what im talking about. I say this because in Highschool, and even some of the proffesors in Psych at my college, dont fully think about what they're arguing, and usually end up coontradicting themselves horribly.
Sorry i wrote so much, all I really wanted to say was goodjob to the both of you, and I am going to get some last minute cramming for my test in Computer class^_^ (Btw, 4th day of school...were done with chapter 3 and testing today....Such a change from the one chapter a month bullshit in highschool)

Goodnight to you both.

[alloallo3]

Forty years ago when I was young and lived in Louisiana, many people enjoyed hating blacks, jews and homosexuals. It was a quite popular sport. It was considered enlightened.

These days it is widely popular to "despise Christians and all of its deviants."

Bigotry lives on, always. It fills a need -- the need of the bigot to feel superior to others. That is why it is mostly the pastime of the lesser folk, who recognize they are altogether too ordinary. This makes them angry. They lash out.

The subjects of bigotry occasionally change. Anti-Christian bigotry is quite hip these days, but this too shall pass.

It is always interesting to hear high school and college students debate, as we do so often here, because they bring such passionate belief to the table. They are drunk with the idea of ideas, which is refreshing. But as for me, I've lived as a witness to bigotry for too long. I'm sick to death of it.

[Laughing Man]

We are hardly attacking the christian faith directly, we are merely stating that the postulation that is 'god' is an illogical one.

[Timmay]

I dont really care about stuff being illogical. i think its fun to be illogical. for instance, its pretty illogical to think gravity doesnt exist as a law, i think that gravity exists as luck. an object can fly into the air of you drop it, its just it hasnt happened yet. you cant prove me wrong. you could drop a pen for your entire life and never have it fly into the air, but that doesnt prove my hypothesis wrong.

same thing with god. you cant disprove it; as i say, its just some big invisible guy floating in the air. can't prove me wrong.

also, many people i know ( actually, only about one wacko, but thats ok) worships the sun. Unlike god, it always answers his prayer for sunlight, he can always see it, and it hasnt failed him yet. god doesnt have to be invisible. To me, god is nature. You can tell when youre all alone, sitting outside or something on a sunny day. the trees, everything has an aura around it. its those moments that tell me god exists. even while its raining, it has a certain beauty.
i dont think it could exist without something. bringing us back to the sun.


i used to live by there. that is how i know god exists
http://www.archives.gov/press/press-...nake-river.jpg

more examples of gods works
http://studyabroad.msu.edu/photocont...ibbons_jpg.jpg

[alloallo3]

Ti,
Please don't say "we aren't attacking the Christian faith directly..." I'm talking to you, the one who said "I despise Christianity and all its deviants..." I think you need to deal with your irrational hatred, which is another word for bigotry. Here is a useful thought experiment you might want to try. Exchange Christianity in your comment with something else. "Islam," for example. Judaism. Blacks. Women. Left-handers. Try to find another word that would not result in your instant excoriation by others. You picked the right word. Not only is it acceptable among many people to hate Christians, but just as importantly, Christians don't strike back.

You might also consider that when you say you despise Christianity, you are talking about the source and substance of the works of a few folks you likely don't despise, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela. Are you sure you despise Christianity, or is it just fun to say because it makes you feel like a brave iconoclast? If you want to be an iconoclast, take the opposite viewpoint. See what it feels like to say something that is not politically popular and politically correct among the intellectualoids.


In response to the logical points in your arguments, let me just note that logic only works when the postulates are flawless. Your assumptions, and those included in your citations, are breathtaking. A loving God would make his creatures perfect? Would have to make them aware of his existence? Those of your supporters go even further afield. God directs people to kill others?

Consider this for a moment: what would be the result if God had made us perfect? These questions may help you to think profitably about this question: After you have won a video game, do you continue to play it over and over? Do you want to know the end of the movie before you pay your $10?

Let me propose something to you, something that most religious folk of all denominations have known for a long time. God didn't make us perfect because that would be BORING. Why does he allow pain? Because he cares more about our character than our comfort.