just how head strong are creationists

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.
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 3:07 am

xouper wrote:
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.

In your previous post, I really feel that you were jumping in with objections without having a full understanding of what I was saying. I'm pretty good with words, and I can convey a concept. My experience with atheists is that they don't want to understand anything that might move them to a new point of view. A person who doesn't want to believe in something will talk in circles in order to avoid it.

Logic can be a trap that prevents personal growth. And even if it isn't, there may be logic in something that you aren't able to see at first.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:22 am

CMurdock wrote:You see flaws, but I don't see any flaws. To me, the Seth material is seamlessly consistent and logical.

Then you are not seeing correctly. Sorry to be blunt.

CMurdock wrote: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.

Well well well . . .. look who's claiming to know the one true Truth™.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


For the record, yes I am qualified to find logical flaws in someone's thesis, including that of Jane Roberts.

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 3:24 am

You know, it just occurred to me: If you read The Seth Material and The Nature of Personal Reality and didn't find them convincing, there is nothing I can say that will convince you. You drank from the fountain and your thirst wasn't quenched, so I can't quench it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:31 am

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote:
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.

In your previous post, I really feel that you were jumping in with objections without having a full understanding of what I was saying.

You are mistaken about what I understand.

CMurdock wrote: I'm pretty good with words, and I can convey a concept. My experience with atheists is that they don't want to understand anything that might move them to a new point of view.

So, you make the mistake of assuming I'm as stoopid as others you've met?

CMurdock wrote: A person who doesn't want to believe in something will talk in circles in order to avoid it.

Since that is not my motive, your criticism does not apply to me. My objections to Jane Roberts' philosophy are straight forward. No circles in my stuff. Plenty of circles in your stuff. Perhaps your observation here applies to you, since you have avoided answering any of my questions or objections. In fact instead of sticking to the topic, you have shifted your comments to my character. Is that how you think we should interact here, by attacking each other?

CMurdock wrote:Logic can be a trap that prevents personal growth.

Then why do you use it so heavily in your arguments?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:35 am

CMurdock wrote:You know, it just occurred to me: If you read The Seth Material and The Nature of Personal Reality and didn't find them convincing, there is nothing I can say that will convince you.

Agreed.

What I find amusing is that you believe everyone creates their own reality, and yet here you are criticizing MY reality as if you knew what the correct reality is supposed to be.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby SweetPea » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:37 am

Seth Denier willfully ignoring the evidence while trumpeting with megaphone in the denialist echo chamber to the other lemmings all nose to sphincter plunging over the cliff.


I hope I got that right.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:53 am

:lol:
Hi, Io the lurker.

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 3:56 am

Okay, you want me to respond to your specific objections, so I'll do my best.

xouper wrote:
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.

You didn't read the Seth material enough to understand the nature of the reality that Seth was describing. It would take me paragraph after paragraph to restate it all.

I want to say that there is an objective reality out there, but that within that objective reality there are spheres which are entirely subjective -- but that isn't quite accurate.

xouper wrote: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.

This takes us back to our discussion about faith. Of course there is no scientific evidence. According to Seth, scientists are the actors in the play who are studying the stage set, believing that the stage set is the true reality. Their science is useful only to the extent that it reveals that the stage set is a false reality. In other words, science is relevant only to the extent that it confirms the larger truth. The stage set AND the science practiced by the scientists in the play are both part of the fiction. But this is something that you have to feel in your bones and take on faith. I take it on faith, you certainly don't.

xouper wrote: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?

I don't think i said your reality was wrong, just that it isn't what it appears to be.

xouper wrote: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.

So what? Even if it IS based on a logically inconsistent premise, that doesn't mean it isn't true. This is where logic can lead us astray. Logic and sophistry are cousins, you know.

xouper wrote:
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.

I can't speak to Seth's reality. Presumably, wherever he is, he is creating his own reality.

I think I answered most of this already.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:08 am

CMurdock wrote:I can't speak to Seth's reality. Presumably, wherever he is, he is creating his own reality.

And that's us? :scratch:
Hi, Io the lurker.

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 4:11 am

Listen, I think my original point has gotten lost. My original point was that logic and skepticism do not preclude being religious IF the religion strikes you as logical and convincing. Skepticism does not have to preclude faith. But you fellows appear to be masters at using logic as a defense. You've made your choice (as have I), but it is an emotional choice that you have made, not a logical choice. You then use logic to justify your emotional choice. This is, in fact, what almost all atheists do. You don't want to be religious (for whatever reason), so you use so-called logic to find objections to all religions.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:29 am

CMurdock wrote:Listen, I think my original point has gotten lost. My original point was that logic and skepticism do not preclude being religious IF the religion strikes you as logical and convincing. Skepticism does not have to preclude faith. But you fellows appear to be masters at using logic as a defense. You've made your choice (as have I), but it is an emotional choice that you have made, not a logical choice. You then use logic to justify your emotional choice. This is, in fact, what almost all atheists do. You don't want to be religious (for whatever reason), so you use so-called logic to find objections to all religions.


At a point in my life I wanted to believe but found that was only an emotional choice without any evidence to back it up.

Furthermore, you said: "God is a gestalt of all things", so why would anyone worry about getting it wrong? No one and nothing could go wrong if that be true?

Nature does no wrong, it just is. There is no need for a God.
Hi, Io the lurker.

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 4:49 am

Well, God isn't something that is needed or not needed. God either exists or doesn't exist.

Seth said that God longs to know his creations (which are portions of him), and his creations long to know God. That's how I feel. I feel a great longing to know my Source. And, surprisingly, I think that's how many atheists also feel. At least some atheists -- not you necessarily -- are disappointed devotees.

But you are right. It doesn't matter. There is very little consequence to what we believe in our individual lives. I've probably spent lives as an atheist. I've probably spent lives as an individual that I would disapprove of now. The value of our lives is what we take from them, though obviously that isn't what you believe.

If I have gotten personal in these discussions, it's because I think the whole subject is personal. In my opinion, we all make personal decisions and then justify them. The decision comes first; the justification comes later.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19634
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:20 am

CMurdock wrote:Seth said that God longs to know his creations (which are portions of him)


Why would that be so?
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:35 am

CMurdock wrote:You didn't read the Seth material enough to understand the nature of the reality that Seth was describing.

That is factually incorrect.

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote: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.

This takes us back to our discussion about faith. Of course there is no scientific evidence. According to Seth, scientists are the actors in the play who are studying the stage set, believing that the stage set is the true reality. Their science is useful only to the extent that it reveals that the stage set is a false reality. In other words, science is relevant only to the extent that it confirms the larger truth. The stage set AND the science practiced by the scientists in the play are both part of the fiction. But this is something that you have to feel in your bones and take on faith. I take it on faith, you certainly don't.

Correct, I don't. Why should I have faith in a fairy tale?

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote: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.

So what? Even if it IS based on a logically inconsistent premise, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

That's exactly what it means. By definition. A logically inconsistent premise is, by definition, not true.

xouper wrote:This is where logic can lead us astray.

Only if logic is misused. Show me the error in my logic and then we can discuss further.

xouper wrote:I can't speak to Seth's reality.

Then how do you know what he says is true? You already answered that question. You don't know. You merely choose to believe it because you want to. Sorry, but that kind of epistemology does not work for me.

CMurdock wrote:Listen, I think my original point has gotten lost. My original point was that logic and skepticism do not preclude being religious IF the religion strikes you as logical and convincing.

So by inference, you agree that logic and skepticism does preclude being religious IF the religion strikes you as illogical and unconvincing?

CMurdock wrote: Skepticism does not have to preclude faith.

Yes it does. By definition.

CMurdock wrote: But you fellows appear to be masters at using logic as a defense. You've made your choice (as have I), but it is an emotional choice that you have made, not a logical choice. You then use logic to justify your emotional choice. This is, in fact, what almost all atheists do. You don't want to be religious (for whatever reason), so you use so-called logic to find objections to all religions.

Your speculation about my motive is way off base. Why do you presume to pass judgment on my character like that? Why do you even comment on what you see as failings in other people? Especially since it is -- by your own admission -- merely your personal opinion. Is that what Seth would do?

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 6:15 am

xouper, there's no point in going on. You haven't heard anything I've said.

Chachacha
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:07 am
Custom Title: Irrational Skeptic

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Chachacha » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:46 am

:lol: Before we can discuss the existence and non-existence of gods, we must first determine WHICH god/s is/are being discussed: that always cracks me up!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:56 am

CMurdock wrote:xouper, there's no point in going on. You haven't heard anything I've said.

And by "haven't heard" I assume you mean "haven't agreed with".

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 8:47 am

No, I don't. It's obvious that you just don't want to believe in anything, and that's why you set the bar of evidence so high.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:50 am

CMurdock wrote:It's obvious that you just don't want to believe in anything, and that's why you set the bar of evidence so high.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Where do you get off making such a ridiculous accusation about my character? Why do you change the topic away from discussing the arguments to making disparaging remarks about my character? Are you itching to get on my {!#%@} list?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19455
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:35 pm

CMurdock wrote:No, I don't. It's obvious that you just don't want to believe in anything, and that's why you set the bar of evidence so high.

Deflection? Sorry, but the bars of evidence haven't been moved, it's just that believers have ignored them for so long they have begun to think they don't apply to religion. That {!#%@} has to stop.
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
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8110
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Poodle » Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:55 pm

Well, I guess wakawakawaka has his answer.

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 5:20 pm

xouper wrote:
CMurdock wrote:It's obvious that you just don't want to believe in anything, and that's why you set the bar of evidence so high.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Where do you get off making such a ridiculous accusation about my character? Why do you change the topic away from discussing the arguments to making disparaging remarks about my character? Are you itching to get on my {!#%@} list?

Let's see, where do I get off making judgements about your character? From having a long tedious debate with you that is going in circles. Your denial of everything I said, and your use of the words "fairy tale", made it obvious what was happening. I don't have to know you personally for a year to see where you're coming form.

You don't have an open mind. Your responses are emotional, and you are doing what I said you were doing: You've decided against religion for emotional reasons, and you use concepts of logic to justify your decision. It's painfully obvious. And it has now gotten to the point where my time is being wasted.

By all means, put me on your {!#%@} list.

I'll leave you with my article about the misuse of the word "skepticism":

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:41 pm

CMurdock wrote:
xouper wrote:
CMurdock wrote:It's obvious that you just don't want to believe in anything, and that's why you set the bar of evidence so high.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Where do you get off making such a ridiculous accusation about my character? Why do you change the topic away from discussing the arguments to making disparaging remarks about my character? Are you itching to get on my {!#%@} list?

Let's see, where do I get off making judgements about your character? From having a long tedious debate with you that is going in circles. Your denial of everything I said, and your use of the words "fairy tale", made it obvious what was happening. I don't have to know you personally for a year to see where you're coming form.

You don't have an open mind. Your responses are emotional, and you are doing what I said you were doing: You have decided against religion for emotional reasons, and you use concepts of logic to justify your decision. It's painfully obvious. And it has now gotten to the point where my time is being wasted.

You're more delusional than I thought. None of that is true. Seems to me what is happening here is you are doing some Freudian projection. Seriously, go look in the mirror before you go getting all self-righteous on the rest of us.

The point of my question is that this forum is primarily for discussing ideas, not attacking the other person's character flaws. Those who are interested in having a civil dialog do not stoop to the level of attacking the other person's character. But now that it's clear that's where you want to go with this, I can play that game too.

CMurdock wrote:By all means, put me on your {!#%@} list.

OK. You've certainly earned it.

CMurdock wrote:I'll leave you with my article about the misuse of the word "skepticism":

http://calebmurdock.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... elves.html

Swell, another anti-skeptic rant. {!#%@} off. You've got your head so far up your ass you all you see is {!#%@}. In that sense, Seth is correct, you have created your own perception of reality which has nothing to do with the real reality.

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 5:53 pm

I'll respond to one thing:

xouper wrote:Those who are interested in having a civil dialog do not stoop to the level of attacking the other person's character.

First, making observations about your character isn't necessarily an attack.

Also, you weren't being that civil. To refer to another poster's beliefs as a "fairy tale" is quite provocative. Essentially, you found a way to attack my character without doing it directly.

It became clear that you were ready to talk forever without conceding any points. I don't have the time for that. If the objective is to come to an understanding, then points have to be conceded on both sides.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby xouper » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:10 pm

CMurdock wrote:I'll respond to one thing:

xouper wrote:Those who are interested in having a civil dialog do not stoop to the level of attacking the other person's character.

First, making observations about your character isn't necessarily an attack.

The mere fact that you choose to get side-tracked from the topic and comment on what you perceive as character flaws in others, proves you are not here to have a civil dialog. That was my point. I should have made that explicitly blunt right from the start, but I was hoping to give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not need to be beaten over the head to see that point.

CMurdock wrote:Also, you weren't being that civil. To refer to another poster's beliefs as a "fairy tale" is quite provocative.

You are quite correct. It was a deliberate retaliation to your uncivil insinuations about my character. I was merely following your lead. You started disparaging my character on page one of this thread and I didn't mention fairy tales until halfway down page two. So don't pretend you didn't start it.

CMurdock wrote:It became clear that you were ready to talk forever without conceding any points. I don't have the time for that.

What points would you like me to concede? I already mentioned that Jane Roberts has some useful wisdom in her books. But I find her metaphysics to be flawed.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Aztexan » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:23 pm

Jesus wore a flowing robe
Jesus had long, girly hair
Jesus could have made babies with that hot piece of ass, Mary Magdeline, but he chose to hang with a group of 12 guys instead
Jesus had a stepdaddy that made him work his wood


Sounds like a "fairy" tale to me
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

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 6:29 pm

Aztexan, I'm not a Christian.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 7847
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Aztexan » Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:31 pm

Your use of correct spelling had me suspecting that
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.

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 6:42 pm

Xouper, let me just close by saying that there can be no objective discussion of religion. It is essentially a personal, emotional thing. I admitted that I need religion in my life; and I was hoping you would admit that you eschew religion for personal reasons also, but you didn't. You kept harping back to logic, which has no meaning in this context. I started to feel that you weren't being honest. So that's where it stands for me, and why the discussion is over.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29090
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Gord » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:10 pm

CMurdock wrote:Listen, I think my original point has gotten lost. My original point was that logic and skepticism do not preclude being religious IF the religion strikes you as logical and convincing. Skepticism does not have to preclude faith. But you fellows appear to be masters at using logic as a defense. You've made your choice (as have I), but it is an emotional choice that you have made, not a logical choice. You then use logic to justify your emotional choice. This is, in fact, what almost all atheists do. You don't want to be religious (for whatever reason), so you use so-called logic to find objections to all religions.

You still think believing is a choice?

I guess responding to you was a waste of my time.
"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 » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:23 pm

Did I say that believing is a choice? We are all slaves to our nature. That's something that people are becoming aware of. Like with gays, they don't choose their sexual orientation. Conservatives are conservative because they naturally have conservative natures (at least, in some cases -- I know a conservative who is now a liberal). Liberals are liberal because they have liberal natures. And I think this applies to religion too. I feel a need to believe in something; atheists don't (although atheists do, as I've said, put their faith in science, a religion of sorts). Because we are all responding to our natures as they were handed to us, all this involvement of logic in the discussion of religion is pretty useless, in my view. People don't make choices in this area for reasons of logic. However, in my case -- having come from a non-religious family -- I was able to choose my religion, and I chose one that is pretty remarkable, but nonetheless logical in itself. Christianity has no such logic.

So no, believing isn't a choice. It arises from our emotions, and our emotions arise from ... well, I'm not sure. My belief is that we choose our parents, our genes, and our essential character before we are born, but a non-religious person would just ascribe our natural tendencies to genes.

User avatar
angawawa
Regular Poster
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:41 pm
Custom Title: A little strange

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby angawawa » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:30 pm

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 spent my years from 12 to 43 as an outspoken atheist. Before 12, I was a devout little Catholic girl and I wanted to be a nun. When I was 43 I had a spiritual experience that changed the way I thought about God, and which created inside of me a feeling of being connected to something that, if nothing else, at least sympathized with me. I will tell you that when I was a Catholic, I was constantly filled with fear- the fear of disappointing God, the fear of being punished- and also the ubiquitous Catholic guilt. When I was an atheist, I was constantly filled with fear-the fear of death, the fear of pain, the fear of being abandoned (I could go on and on). Now, as a person who believes there is something greater than myself but who holds to no dogma, I have very little fear in my life. One day, that choking dread that filled my entire self every time I considered my own death was gone. If I were to face death this very moment, I would face it with a sense of peace. I believe that religion was created for one main reason. People did not know what happened to them when they died and this made them very afraid, so they created an idea that made a life after death a reality for them, and then they were not so scared anymore.

As an atheist I never found religious concepts to be frightening, I found them to be ridiculous. There were many many times during those years when I really wanted to believe in a god, any god, just as long as it made me feel like life had some meaning, that someone was watching over me and they had a PLAN. I am not afraid now, but I also do not believe that any of the religious dogmas out there have any truth to them. The thing I feel, which I do not even call God, I refer to it as "The Universal Consciousness", or maybe "The Collective Soul," is something that is impossible for me to know. All it is is a feeling, and that feeling helps me get through bad times and stressful times and the truly awful things that everyone goes through, without wanting to blow my own head off. And it's good enough for me. I am aware that there is a good possibility that this "feeling" is a creation of my own mind and I don't care. I am not scared all the time and that is what matters.
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw all manner of garbage into it.

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 8:57 pm

Angawawa, I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my comments, but I love what you just said. I really think the Seth material would suit you, and I recommend that you investigate it. The Seth material is a religion without judgement or anything that is fear-inducing. Also, your approach now seems to be pantheistic, and Seth described a pantheistic universe. I agree with you that the ancient religions are ridiculous -- Christianity especially, with its heaven and hell and its angry, judgemental father-figure of a God. The Seth sessions started in 1963 and ended in 1984, so the Seth material is very modern. Jane Roberts, the psychic, was an atheist when Seth first started to come through her, and she ended up believing in the material (though she didn't at first).

I imagine the atheists on this board would say that you have made something up to give yourself comfort, but I think that overlooks something. Some of us have an intuitive awareness, something inside that tells us there is more to the universe than science can reveal. That's what I keep coming back to, and why I'll never let anyone tell me that my religion is a crutch. In your case, though, you had a spiritual event that changed things.

It took me years and years of reading the Seth material to fully understand the picture of reality that Seth was painting. It is, in its own way, quite simple and elegant, but it is so different from what we know that it seems very strange and foreign.

Incidentally, since you are a woman, let me convey one thing about the Seth material. Jane Roberts was from a Catholic family, and she had a manipulative mother, and she clearly had a lot of emotional problems. Seth said shortly before Roberts died that he presented himself to her as a man because Roberts had her own prejudices against women, and she wouldn't have accepted Seth if he had presented himself as a woman. Almost all religions are male-dominated, and I just want you to understand why Seth was also a male.

User avatar
angawawa
Regular Poster
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:41 pm
Custom Title: A little strange

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby angawawa » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:11 pm

I will give it a read. I am always studying something, religious or otherwise. Lately it has been Buddhism, which I don't really think qualifies as a religion, it's more of a world-view. But I just started learning about it so I could be wrong. I have to say that although I would LOVE it if there were psychics (as long as they stayed out of my head), or if Bigfoot was real (as long as he stayed out of my backyard), or if there were aliens (as long as they stayed out of my bedroom), there simply has not been enough evidence put forth for me. Now, that does not mean that the things Ms. Roberts said aren't things that a person could use in their own lives, to be a better person or to be more comfortable in their own skin, or whatever. But maybe she could have just a written her own book?
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw all manner of garbage into it.

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 11:45 pm

Roberts was a writer who decided to try a book on ESP, though she knew nothing about it. She and her husband borrowed a Ouija board and started playing with it. After a couple days, they started to get coherent words. A few days after that (or perhaps longer; I've forgotten), Roberts started to hear the words in her head as they came off the board, and then she started to speak them spontaneously. It took her half a year before she got used to the sessions.

Roberts wrote plenty of her own books, but she didn't consider the Seth material to be hers. After giving sessions for a year or so, she started to lose consciousness during the sessions, and she wouldn't know what she had said -- so how could she write her own books about it? Actually, her husband transcribed all the sessions and was the one who put the books together.

On the topics you mentioned, Seth said that Bigfoot exists (actually, he said there are two species), but there have been no aliens on Earth. The mention of Bigfoot came at the end of her life, when Roberts was in the hospital, and she was chagrined that Seth was mentioning such a sensational topic.

Consider this: Human scientists have established that matter is made of energy (atoms are units of energy) and that even the densest matter (such as lead) is approximately 99.9999% empty space. Seth explains how things like that can be true. He fills in the blanks and ties all the loose ends together. He also explains how pantheism works. The concept has been with us for a long time, but only Seth has provided an explanation of how God can be the universe, and we can be part of God.

Try to read the books in order, starting with The Seth Material.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8110
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Poodle » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:19 am

Clever bloke, this Seth. Not too clever, though, as he nominated Jane Roberts as his sole channeling agent but failed to foresee that she would die before completing her work (two volumes are unfinished, it seems). Still, she did manage to get a good few books out, which can now be found on sale - and they must be good because they're being sold at a price which could not be described as charitable.

In my opinion, based upon nothing more than the familiarity of the modus operandi, David Icke speaks as much sense and sells in exactly the same way.

CMurdock, having read through all of your posts to date, I am developing a belief that you are not here to join in with the Great Spirit of Skepticism, but to fight the corner for yet more religious dogma. I could be wrong, but it's my reality, after all. Do you, by any chance, have a connection with the Sethcenter?

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby SweetPea » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:27 am

Challenge
name ten good Seths
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

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

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:37 am

Do you mean http://www.sethcenter.com? For heaven's sake, no. That should be obvious to you. No one would make 40 posts on a forum just to sell a few books. I've spent hours here involved in passionate discussions about my beliefs -- spammers don't do such things. However, when my original copies of the Seth books got too worn to use, I did buy replacement books from them.

People who are into spiritual stuff can be very fickle. They think that because Jane Roberts died in 1984, that means the information she channelled is "old" (as if immortal truths could go out of date in 30 years). Shortly after she died, sales of her books plunged. The psychic du jour is someone who channels a spirit called "Alexander". Alexander sounds a lot like Seth, but he is sometimes mundane and sometimes petty and sometimes arrogant. The Seth material is much more authentic. A lot of people can't recognize authenticity.

Seth said that there are many probable realities to the one we know, and that a probable action will take place in one of the probably realities if it doesn't take place in this one. It's a similar concept to the one set forth in quantum mechanics. I assume that in some of those probably realities, Jane Roberts didn't die young.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8110
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby Poodle » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:09 am

"The Seth material is much more authentic. A lot of people can't recognize authenticity."

Would you care to expand on that? Not too quickly, as it's way past my bedtime. You will understand, I'm sure, why a skeptic would question your ability to recognise authenticity in such material. What criteria do you use to establish authenticity? And why would you reject Alexander because he is mundane, petty and arrogant?

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

Re: just how head strong are creationists

Postby CMurdock » Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:37 am

Isn't that self-evident? Doesn't it make sense that I would put my faith in a psychic personality that doesn't sound mundane, petty and arrogant, rather than in one who does?

I've written an article about why Jane Roberts could not have faked Seth, but I haven't posted it on my blog yet.


Return to “Origins”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 360spider [spider] and 1 guest