just how head strong are creationists

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
wakawakawaka
Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:13 am

just how head strong are creationists

Postby wakawakawaka » Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:48 pm

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/ha ... 55941.html and http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/au ... 61491.html so just how head strong as these people :?: what are they trying to accomplish :?: do they even know they are losing or not

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gord » Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:58 am

Keeping the faith means clutching at any remaining straws for as long as you can continue to believe you're spinning them into gold.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gravitycaptain
Regular Poster
Posts: 657
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:38 am
Custom Title: Trying not to fall
Location: So Cal the welfare state greetings comrade!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gravitycaptain » Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:05 pm

I agree with Gord on this. It would be interesting to see just how many people could have their minds changed to "no belief system". I think about as likely as changing a AGW believer into a skeptic or someone that believes in entitlements to become non-reliant on government. I see this divide between the pubs and dems. Being middle of the road I have seen very few people change from one belief to the other.

I would like to say belief in God is formed in the child hood years, their must be studies? I felt I was the exception as I didn't believe and was a fence sitter for years. Got a call from friends in NY and they were looking for a new church, it was all I could do not to say "why, that God wasn't good enough?" Turns out they were religious whore's and changed churches a lot. :roll:

.

Likelihood of me believing in God or other Deity within next 30 years....It would require evidence that is repeatable in a scientific setting peer reviewed. Yes there is a possibility, no I don't think it will happen.
But it's only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve. Therefore “At the precipice, we change.Day the earth stood still 2008

wakawakawaka
Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:13 am

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby wakawakawaka » Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:42 pm

well the creationists always seem to get really happy when a doctor( the medic type) starts believing in creationism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBG9VwdDotg

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:41 pm

Gravitycaptain wrote:I would like to say belief in God is formed in the child hood years, their must be studies?

Not in my case. I was an atheist in my mid-teens, and by my late teens I was investigating paranormal phenomena. By my early 20's I believed in God and an afterlife. My parents were not religious.

Gravitycaptain wrote:Likelihood of me believing in God or other Deity within next 30 years....It would require evidence that is repeatable in a scientific setting peer reviewed.

Why do you set the standard of evidence so high? The existence of God will never be proven to the satisfaction of scientists, and some things cannot be evaluated in scientific studies. The standard should not be scientific proof; it should be: logic, possibility, plausible evidence, authenticity of source, and other factors that may have slipped my mind right now.

Example: Edgar Cayce, the American "sleeping prophet" of the early 20th century, gave "health readings" in which he correctly diagnosed the illnesses of people without ever meeting them. That falls under the category of "plausible evidence", but not quite proof.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:31 am

CMurdock wrote:
Gravitycaptain wrote:Likelihood of me believing in God or other Deity within next 30 years....It would require evidence that is repeatable in a scientific setting peer reviewed.

Why do you set the standard of evidence so high? The existence of God will never be proven to the satisfaction of scientists, and some things cannot be evaluated in scientific studies. The standard should not be scientific proof; it should be: logic, possibility, plausible evidence, authenticity of source, and other factors that may have slipped my mind right now.

What you are proposing is the same mistake Aristotle made. He eschewed empirical evidence in favor of logic, etc, and made many errors as a result.

Why set the standards so high? Because epistemologically, anything less has proven to be less reliable.


CMurdock wrote:The existence of God will never be proven to the satisfaction of scientists, and some things cannot be evaluated in scientific studies.

How do you know that?

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:48 am

I shouldn't have asked such a foolish question. Obviously, you set the standard so high because you don't want to believe in anything.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:48 am

CMurdock wrote:I shouldn't have asked such a foolish question. Obviously, you set the standard so high because you don't want to believe in anything.

For the record, that is not my motive, and you are out of line for suggesting such a thing.

I answered your question without getting nasty and then asked you a simple question and in response you attacked my character. Is that really how you want to interact with people here? Is that what Jesus would do?

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:12 am

I don't know what Jesus would do. I don't believe in the guy.

You're too sensitive. What I said wasn't any kind of attack. I just realized by your response that you want to talk in circles, and I don't want to do that. When I asked you why you set the evidence bar so high, I was looking for a personal response.

What I said is true. The bottom line is that you don't believe in anything because you don't want to, and I believe in something because I want to. Since I can't prove that there's a God, and you can't prove that there isn't a God, it really all comes down to our individual characters and needs.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:22 am

CMurdock wrote:I don't know what Jesus would do. I don't believe in the guy.

Why not?

CMurdock wrote:You're too sensitive. What I said wasn't any kind of attack.

Yes it was. You made a false accusation about my character.

CMurdock wrote:When I asked you why you set the evidence bar so high, I was looking for a personal response.

I gave you one. I said the bar is set that high because setting it lower produces less reliable results.

CMurdock wrote:What I said is true. The bottom line is that you don't believe in anything because you don't want to, and I believe in something because I want to.

How can you possibly know what my motive is? The best you can do is guess.

CMurdock wrote:Since I can't prove that there's a God, and you can't prove that there isn't a God, it really all comes down to our individual characters and needs.

The truth of a scientific assertion is not determined by one's character or needs.

In any case, I can prove God doesn't exist.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:26 am

NOW I'm laughing. Okay, let's hear your proof.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:18 am

Which God would you like me to prove doesn't exist?

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:27 am

Well, since I believe in the multi-dimensional God described in the Seth material, why don't you start with that God.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:11 am

CMurdock wrote:Well, since I believe in the multi-dimensional God described in the Seth material, why don't you start with that God.

I confess, I didn't see that one coming. Kudos. Of all the Gods I know of, that one makes more sense than most. As does the God in Robert Monroe's books.

I haven't read any of Jane Roberts books in almost 20 years so my recollection of that God needs refreshing. I still have some of those books around here somewhere. I suspect Richard Bach wrote about that same God in his book Illusions, especially considering he knew Jane Roberts.

Anyway, here's the short form proof. Seth's God does not exist because Seth does not exist other than in the imagination of Jane Roberts.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26788
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:41 am

CMurdock wrote:Well, since I believe in the multi-dimensional God described in the Seth material, why don't you start with that God.


I had not heard of the Seth Material and I looked it up on Wikipedia. I'm a bit unclear on this. Is Seth a god that creates things or simply a wise entity that talks through others?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Is Seth a god that creates things or simply a wise entity that talks through others?

The latter. Jane Roberts channels Seth.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19802
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:17 am

CMurdock wrote:Example: Edgar Cayce, the American "sleeping prophet" of the early 20th century, gave "health readings" in which he correctly diagnosed the illnesses of people without ever meeting them. That falls under the category of "plausible evidence", but not quite proof.

Poor use of the word "plausible". Adman and Jamie would not be pleased.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gord » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:54 pm

CMurdock wrote:The bottom line is that you don't believe in anything because you don't want to, and I believe in something because I want to.

In my particular case, I don't believe in things I can't believe in, whether I want to believe in them or not. I tried for many years to believe in God during high school. Didn't work. It just doesn't seem plausible that one can believe in something simply by wanting to believe in it -- the capacity to believe must come first, and the desire to believe must follow.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:28 pm

Gord wrote:
CMurdock wrote:The bottom line is that you don't believe in anything because you don't want to, and I believe in something because I want to.

In my particular case, I don't believe in things I can't believe in, whether I want to believe in them or not. I tried for many years to believe in God during high school. Didn't work. It just doesn't seem plausible that one can believe in something simply by wanting to believe in it -- the capacity to believe must come first, and the desire to believe must follow.

Well, you weren't convinced by anything. I wasn't convinced by anything in high school either. But then, I hadn't started investigating. We are still very young in high school.

xouper wrote:Anyway, here's the short form proof. Seth's God does not exist because Seth does not exist other than in the imagination of Jane Roberts.

That's no proof, of course. That's just your opinion.

I believe in the Seth material because it meets my standard of evidence: The statements given by Seth were consistent over 20 years of readings; the picture of reality painted by Seth was highly original and creative; his picture of reality was in many ways fantastic but nonetheless plausible to me; there is a tremendous amount of wisdom in the Seth material; the material is consistently compassionate and agrees with my compassionate point of view; Seth's diction and statements were sufficiently different from Roberts' that I believe the same personalities were not talking; and finally, I believe that faking the whole thing would have been impossible. You see, charlatans are not wise or forward-thinking, and no charlatan could have come up with the Seth material, which is a unique philosophy in itself. Roberts/Seth broke new ground in the world of theology by introducing a half-dozen new concepts; no fake could have done that.

My last two sentences explain why a logical and -- yes -- skeptical person can eventually develop a religious faith. Insisting on proof is meaningless. In a world where no proof exists for most things, you have to have faith in something. Even science requires faith, since modern science is fairly new and is often wrong.

You won't find much on Wikipedia about the Seth material because two editors -- an atheist and a Christian -- wrestled control of the article and cut it down to a stub.

You know, we all live just 80 years or so, and we can decide to believe in nothing, which really isn't much fun; or we can decide to believe in something and have a life which is greatly enhanced. I would never believe in one of the ancient religions, however (with the possible exception of Buddhism), because their philosophies are highly restrictive and oppressive. If the ancient religions were all that there was, I would be an atheist too.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3450
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Lausten » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:03 pm

grav wrote:I would like to say belief in God is formed in the child hood years, their must be studies?

You might like these, or at least one of the books they talk about
http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2012/08/10/episode-105-are-we-born-to-believe/
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby busterggi » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:48 pm

CMurdock wrote:
Gord wrote:
CMurdock wrote:The bottom line is that you don't believe in anything because you don't want to, and I believe in something because I want to.

In my particular case, I don't believe in things I can't believe in, whether I want to believe in them or not. I tried for many years to believe in God during high school. Didn't work. It just doesn't seem plausible that one can believe in something simply by wanting to believe in it -- the capacity to believe must come first, and the desire to believe must follow.

Well, you weren't convinced by anything. I wasn't convinced by anything in high school either. But then, I hadn't started investigating. We are still very young in high school.

xouper wrote:Anyway, here's the short form proof. Seth's God does not exist because Seth does not exist other than in the imagination of Jane Roberts.

That's no proof, of course. That's just your opinion.

I believe in the Seth material because it meets my standard of evidence: The statements given by Seth were consistent over 20 years of readings; the picture of reality painted by Seth was highly original and creative; his picture of reality was in many ways fantastic but nonetheless plausible to me; there is a tremendous amount of wisdom in the Seth material; the material is consistently compassionate and agrees with my compassionate point of view; Seth's diction and statements were sufficiently different from Roberts' that I believe the same personalities were not talking; and finally, I believe that faking the whole thing would have been impossible. You see, charlatans are not wise or forward-thinking, and no charlatan could have come up with the Seth material, which is a unique philosophy in itself. Roberts/Seth broke new ground in the world of theology by introducing a half-dozen new concepts; no fake could have done that.

My last two sentences explain why a logical and -- yes -- skeptical person can eventually develop a religious faith. Insisting on proof is meaningless. In a world where no proof exists for most things, you have to have faith in something. Even science requires faith, since modern science is fairly new and is often wrong.

You won't find much on Wikipedia about the Seth material because two editors -- an atheist and a Christian -- wrestled control of the article and cut it down to a stub.

You know, we all live just 80 years or so, and we can decide to believe in nothing, which really isn't much fun; or we can decide to believe in something and have a life which is greatly enhanced. I would never believe in one of the ancient religions, however (with the possible exception of Buddhism), because their philosophies are highly restrictive and oppressive. If the ancient religions were all that there was, I would be an atheist too.


Funny, I folloswed the same path and found Cthulhu.

And as HPL pre-dates Jane Adams his pedigree is older than Seth's.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:35 pm

Isn't that a fictional character? Jane Roberts (not Adams) believed that Seth was real, although she wasn't sure at first.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gord » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:10 am

CMurdock wrote:
Gord wrote:
CMurdock wrote:The bottom line is that you don't believe in anything because you don't want to, and I believe in something because I want to.

In my particular case, I don't believe in things I can't believe in, whether I want to believe in them or not. I tried for many years to believe in God during high school. Didn't work. It just doesn't seem plausible that one can believe in something simply by wanting to believe in it -- the capacity to believe must come first, and the desire to believe must follow.

Well, you weren't convinced by anything.

That's right. As much as I wanted to believe, I wasn't able to. It takes more than the wanting to achieve the belief.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:28 am

If you really want to believe in something, you haven't looked hard enough. My search for religious truth took me years. Some atheists don't want to believe in anything, while others find the ancient religions unacceptable.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:37 am

CMurdock wrote:If you really want to believe in something, you haven't looked hard enough. My search for religious truth took me years. Some atheists don't want to believe in anything, while others find the ancient religions unacceptable.

Now that I know you are fan of the Seth Material -- and I do not mean that in a derogatory way -- I understand what you mean. However, those who are not already familiar with what you mean will not get past the ambiguous wording. It might help if you found another way to say it.

In other words, those who have read Jane Roberts know immediately what you mean, but everyone else sees a word salad. However, once you get into explaining the whole concept of "you create your own reality", you will lose many people because there is zero evidence that is literally true.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29477
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gord » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:50 am

CMurdock wrote:If you really want to believe in something, you haven't looked hard enough. My search for religious truth took me years. Some atheists don't want to believe in anything, while others find the ancient religions unacceptable.

Um, no. In high school I desperately wanted to believe in God. But I didn't. There simply is no "looking hard enough" to overcome that.

I'm an athiest because I don't believe, not because I don't want to believe, or even because I do want to believe. Desire has nothing to do with it. I am simply unable to believe in something that I do not believe in. I've tried and tried, and it doesn't work.

Try it for yourself. Pick a different religion and/or belief than you have now, and be a believer in that one for a while. If you can do that, more power to ya!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:21 am

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote:Anyway, here's the short form proof. Seth's God does not exist because Seth does not exist other than in the imagination of Jane Roberts.

That's no proof, of course. That's just your opinion.

It is indeed a proof. What I have not yet given is the corroborating evidence. And I have not yet given the details of the proof that Seth is only in the imagination of Jane Roberts. That is a different proof that you have not yet asked for.

CMurdock wrote:I believe in the Seth material because it meets my standard of evidence:

That's fine. It doesn't meet my standards of evidence, nor that of most scientists.

CMurdock wrote:The statements given by Seth were consistent over 20 years of readings; the picture of reality painted by Seth was highly original and creative; his picture of reality was in many ways fantastic but nonetheless plausible to me; there is a tremendous amount of wisdom in the Seth material; the material is consistently compassionate and agrees with my compassionate point of view;

I agree with all of the above.

For example, one of the useful concepts I got from Jane Roberts is the idea that "emotion follows belief". That's the bumper sticker version of a very powerful idea and I use it often. In fact, if I had not gone into computer science or mathematics, I was strongly tempted to get a PhD in psychology researching that very topic.

CMurdock wrote:Seth's diction and statements were sufficiently different from Roberts' that I believe the same personalities were not talking; and finally, I believe that faking the whole thing would have been impossible. You see, charlatans are not wise or forward-thinking, and no charlatan could have come up with the Seth material, which is a unique philosophy in itself. Roberts/Seth broke new ground in the world of theology by introducing a half-dozen new concepts; no fake could have done that.

What you say makes sense, but there is an underlying problem here. The core of your argument rests on the fallacy of personal incredulity. In essence, you are saying, "I can't see how it can possibly be fake, therefore it must be real".

That is a classic fallacy. For those who are interested, more about that at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... magination

CMurdock wrote:Insisting on proof is meaningless.

Why is it meaningless?

CMurdock wrote: In a world where no proof exists for most things, you have to have faith in something.

Why?

CMurdock wrote:Even science requires faith, since modern science is fairly new and is often wrong.

Not so fast. Science is based on methodological materialism, which does not require faith, merely a provisional acceptance as a practical matter. If any evidence whatsoever shows up to challenge that axiom, then science will adjust accordingly.

Science is sometimes wrong, but all other methods have a worse track record. Science is by far the best epistemological tool we have. And science is intended to be self-correcting when errors are discovered. Can you say the same about any other "faith"?

When I hear people object that science is often wrong, I like to propose they jump off a ten story building and see for themselves whether science is wrong about gravity. I admit, that's a bit extreme, but it points out the core problem with saying science is often wrong. How do you know when science is wrong? Only by doing more science. Do you see the paradox in arguing against science on that basis?

CMurdock wrote:You won't find much on Wikipedia about the Seth material because two editors -- an atheist and a Christian -- wrestled control of the article and cut it down to a stub.

That's unfortunate and is one of the weaknesses inherent in Wikipedia. That's not an isolated occurrence.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:27 am

xouper wrote:Now that I know you are fan of the Seth Material -- and I do not mean that in a derogatory way -- I understand what you mean. However, those who are not already familiar with what you mean will not get past the ambiguous wording. It might help if you found another way to say it.

In other words, those who have read Jane Roberts know immediately what you mean, but everyone else sees a word salad. However, once you get into explaining the whole concept of "you create your own reality", you will lose many people because there is zero evidence that is literally true.


I don't fully understand what you are saying ("ambiguous", "word salad", etc.); however, I'll respond to your last sentence.

There is actually plenty of evidence, but none of it is scientific. Reincarnation provides an example: The fact that dozens of religions and other spiritual sources and/or disciplines state that reincarnation is real, is evidence in itself. In the area of religion, scientific evidence and/or proof are nearly non-existent; and you simply can't decide for or against it based on that. If that is your criteria, religion must always be rejected.

As I've said before, you guys have already taken a leap of faith -- you've given your faith to science. But human science is in its infancy. In 200 years, today's level of knowledge will be considered rudimentary. And let me reiterate that science is often wrong.

To me, atheists are like people who are tone deaf or color blind. They lack inner awareness that tells them what is true and what isn't true. Now, to someone who doesn't believe in inner awareness, it sounds like gobbledygook. But to the people who experience it, they know that it is more real than objective proof.

Indeed, Seth said that there is no objective reality. All experience is subjective. If that is true, then your search for objective evidence is entirely futile. In short, you have set up insurmountable barriers to faith. Having done that, instead of claiming that the evidence is lacking, you need to simply acknowledge that you don't want to believe.

My opinion is that atheists find the physical world familiar and comforting, and find religious concepts to be unsettling. In other words, I think that many atheists are simply afraid of the unknown. Fear isn't always present, however. Some atheists may simply be satisfied with physical life, and feel no need to look beyond it. The ones who are afraid are the ones who actively try to debunk religion; they need to debunk it because it frightens them.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:46 am

xouper wrote:It is indeed a proof. What I have not yet given is the corroborating evidence. And I have not yet given the details of the proof that Seth is only in the imagination of Jane Roberts. That is a different proof that you have not yet asked for.

You can't have any corroborating evidence of any kind about Jane Roberts. All you can have are reasoned arguments.

xouper wrote:For example, one of the useful concepts I got from Jane Roberts is the idea that "emotion follows belief". That's the bumper sticker version of a very powerful idea and I use it often. In fact, if I had not gone into computer science or mathematics, I was strongly tempted to get a PhD in psychology researching that very topic.

I agree with you here! Emotions (most of them, not all of them) result from beliefs. That is one of Seth's all-time gems, and one of the reasons I have faith in Jane/Seth. Seth taught me things.

xouper wrote:What you say makes sense, but there is an underlying problem here. The core of your argument rests on the fallacy of personal incredulity. In essence, you are saying, "I can't see how it can possibly be fake, therefore it must be real".

That is a classic fallacy.

In the area of spirituality, we look for pieces of a puzzle, and incredulity is acceptable evidence. If all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, the result is faith.

I posted my last message while you were posting yours, so I didn't see what you said about science being wrong. To me, science is somewhat irrelevant. My faith is more real to me than science. I look to science to corroborate my faith. If it is true that all realities are subjective (as Seth said), then it is useless to look to science for anything else. However, I do have respect for science. If my faith were completely contrary to science, then I would know that something was wrong. In other words, I'm not like Christians who think the world is 4000 years old.

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 871
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby busterggi » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:04 am

CMurdock wrote:Isn't that a fictional character? Jane Roberts (not Adams) believed that Seth was real, although she wasn't sure at first.


No, HPL unconciously channeled Cthulhu.

Seth is a fictional character from the buy-bull.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:15 am

If you say so, it must be true.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:01 am

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote:Now that I know you are fan of the Seth Material -- and I do not mean that in a derogatory way -- I understand what you mean. However, those who are not already familiar with what you mean will not get past the ambiguous wording. It might help if you found another way to say it.

In other words, those who have read Jane Roberts know immediately what you mean, but everyone else sees a word salad. However, once you get into explaining the whole concept of "you create your own reality", you will lose many people because there is zero evidence that is literally true.


I don't fully understand what you are saying ("ambiguous", "word salad", etc.); however, I'll respond to your last sentence.

There is actually plenty of evidence, but none of it is scientific. Reincarnation provides an example: The fact that dozens of religions and other spiritual sources and/or disciplines state that reincarnation is real, is evidence in itself. In the area of religion, scientific evidence and/or proof are nearly non-existent; and you simply can't decide for or against it based on that. If that is your criteria, religion must always be rejected.

As I've said before, you guys have already taken a leap of faith -- you've given your faith to science. But human science is in its infancy. In 200 years, today's level of knowledge will be considered rudimentary. And let me reiterate that science is often wrong.

To me, atheists are like people who are tone deaf or color blind. They lack inner awareness that tells them what is true and what isn't true. Now, to someone who doesn't believe in inner awareness, it sounds like gobbledygook. But to the people who experience it, they know that it is more real than objective proof.

Indeed, Seth said that there is no objective reality. All experience is subjective. If that is true, then your search for objective evidence is entirely futile. In short, you have set up insurmountable barriers to faith. Having done that, instead of claiming that the evidence is lacking, you need to simply acknowledge that you don't want to believe.

My opinion is that atheists find the physical world familiar and comforting, and find religious concepts to be unsettling. In other words, I think that many atheists are simply afraid of the unknown. Fear isn't always present, however. Some atheists may simply be satisfied with physical life, and feel no need to look beyond it. The ones who are afraid are the ones who actively try to debunk religion; they need to debunk it because it frightens them.

I am tempted to respond to all the problems in your reply point by point, but for the moment, let me just point out the one huge flaw that undermines your entire position. It is in fact a fatal flaw in Jane Roberts' philosophy.

You (and Seth) claim there is no objective reality, that all truths are subjective. And yet you present that claim as an objective truth. The premise of subjective reality is self-contradicting. You accuse others of not having the correct "truth" and yet you also say there is no objective truth.

Here's the bumper sticker version:

Believer: There is no objective reality.
Skeptic: Is that an objective reality?

If the answer is yes, then the believer's claim is wrong.
If the answer is no, then the believer's claim is wrong.

In other words, there is no way the first claim can be logically valid. It is internally inconsistent, as we say in mathematics, and therefore useless.

My second main problem with your thesis is that your comments are very judgmental of other people's truth. If there is no objective reality as you claim, then how do you know other people have got it wrong? Answer: You don't. And yet you still claim others have got it wrong. This in another reason why your position is self-contradicting.

If anyone wants to see a point by point rebuttal, I can do that too.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:12 am

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote:It is indeed a proof. What I have not yet given is the corroborating evidence. And I have not yet given the details of the proof that Seth is only in the imagination of Jane Roberts. That is a different proof that you have not yet asked for.

You can't have any corroborating evidence of any kind about Jane Roberts. All you can have are reasoned arguments.

Are you correcting me? I am reminded of a comment you made elsewhere:

In another thread, CMurdock wrote:I should also point out that you are not in a position to "correct" anyone, since all you have is your own personal opinion.

According to you, you have your personal opinion and I have mine. So on what basis do you presume to "correct" my opinion?

Secondly, I apologize for not being clear in my comment. What I had in mind was corroborating evidence about Seth's God, not about Jane Roberts. Sorry about creating that confusion. My fault for not being more explicit.


CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote:What you say makes sense, but there is an underlying problem here. The core of your argument rests on the fallacy of personal incredulity. In essence, you are saying, "I can't see how it can possibly be fake, therefore it must be real".

That is a classic fallacy.

In the area of spirituality, we look for pieces of a puzzle, and incredulity is acceptable evidence. If all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, the result is faith.

That's nice. But it does not remove the underlying fallacy in your argument.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:44 am

xouper wrote:You (and Seth) claim there is no objective reality, that all truths are subjective. And yet you present that claim as an objective truth. The premise of subjective reality is self-contradicting. You accuse others of not having the correct "truth" and yet you also say there is no objective truth.

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that all reality is subjective. Saying that was a little off-topic.

According to Seth, the objective reality IS that all reality is subjective. However, an individual who has the ability can perceive the subjective reality of another.

Seth said we live in a pantheistic universe, meaning that we are part of God. We have God's creative powers, and each of us (i.e., a portion of each of us we aren't aware of)* uses those powers to create our own reality. The realities that we all create seem to jibe because there is general, telepathic agreement about physical reality. For example, if you have four people sitting around a coffee table, each individual is creating his own coffee table. Indeed, there will be 16 bodies in the room because each individual creates his own body and all the bodies of the others. Now, this is a somewhat far-out aspect of the Seth material, and I am conveying it but don't necessarily take it on faith because I have no way of confirming it.

There was one session in which Jane Roberts picked up a beetle while in trance. Seth said that both Roberts and her husband, Robert Butts, who was recording the session, were creating their own beetle, and that there were differences between the two.

Generally speaking, according to Seth each individual in the universe creates his own reality. It has to do with the nature of creativity. No one can create a reality for another individual. (Well, here on earth we can, but only because that is part of the natural laws or "root assumptions" of this universe.)

I'm not sure I've really answered you. I have no evidence for anything I've said.
___________
* Seth said that each individual is a gestalt of many other individuals, and that God is a gestalt of all things in the universe.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:54 am

Let me try to clarify that a little.

If you have ever watched the later StarTrek series, the ones that feature something called a holodeck, then you will understand what I'm about to say.

Reality is like a spiritual holodeck. According to Seth, the pattern for the Earth and for the entire physical universe is projected into space by the inner selves of the occupants. As each occupant lives on the earth, he (or she) fills in the pattern with substance, as needed; and in so doing, he (or she) has a certain amount of leeway in creating the details.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:19 am

CMurdock wrote:According to Seth, the objective reality IS that all reality is subjective.

That is still self-contradictory. Seth presumes to be describing an objective reality and then says all reality is subjective. Try rephrasing it. Can't be done without destroying the very philosophy Jane Roberts promotes.

If you accept that Seth's observations about reality are objective and you agree with those observations, then on what basis do you claim your own reality is not objective? By repeating what Seth says, you are claiming to know what the objective reality is. Which completely contradicts your assertion that we cannot know any objective reality.

The second problem is that there is no credible scientific evidence that we create our own reality as Seth claims. The problem is with the word "create". We don't literally create anything physical in the sense Seth means it.

That is my reality. If it is true that we each create our own reality, then on what basis do you say my reality is wrong?

The entire basis of Jane Roberts' philosophy is based on a logically inconsistent premise. That's why Jane Robert's God does not exist. It is not logically possible that such a God exists.

CMurdock wrote:Reality is like a spiritual holodeck.

All of reality? Even all of Seth's reality? How do you know that? How does Seth know it? Is that the objective reality? If so, then it is possible to know that objective reality by stepping out of the holodeck. It is also possible to know the objective reality while IN the holodeck.

None of the Star Trek characters forget the reality of the holodeck, even while they are in the middle of a simulation. So it is not the case that all reality is subjective. Some of it might be, but there is in fact an objective reality. You implied as much in claiming that reality is like a holodeck.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:38 am

When we die, we step out of the holodeck to some extent. By recognizing that we are in a spiritual holodeck, we empower ourselves.

Another analogy is being actors in a play. The actors perform within a stage setting, but the stage setting is not the true reality. Some actors go through the play believing that they are the characters they are playing, while some actors go through the play with the knowledge that they are playing a part. The scientists in the play busily study the stage-settings, believing that they are studying reality.

As for the other things you said, I think you are getting hung up on semantics, and I also think you are being somewhat defensive and argumentative. I'm trying to convey a little of the Seth material to you, but you are throwing up multiple objections before you fully understand what I'm saying.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:50 am

CMurdock wrote:As for the other things you said, I think you are getting hung up on semantics, and I also think you are being somewhat defensive and argumentative. I'm trying to convey a little of the Seth material to you, but you are throwing up multiple objections before you fully understand what I'm saying.

I have already read The Seth Material and The Nature of Personal Reality as well as several of her other books. You have not said anything I did not already know. I am explaining the conclusions I have come to about it and the flaws in it.

You seem to be arguing that my perception of reality is wrong. Well, I am just arguing back. :)

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10764
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:53 am

CMurdock wrote:. . . I think you are getting hung up on semantics

Semantics are all we have. On this forum, we are limited to using words and must have a common understanding of what those words mean if we are to have any chance at communicating. If you cannot explain yourself clearly or answer my questions about your intended meaning, then what's the point? There is nothing else but the semantics in a forum discussion.
.

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:00 am

You see flaws, but I don't see any flaws. To me, the Seth material is seamlessly consistent and logical. It is such a highly original and brilliant body of work. You make me think of someone reading Shakespeare or Frost and finding "flaws" in their poems. Are you qualified to find flaws?

I understand that each person has to make up his own mind, but no intelligent person looks greatness in the face and finds flaws.

Sorry to be blunt.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest