or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Ophiuchus: 13th Zodiac Sign
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ophiuchus: 13th Zodiac Sign - Page 2

post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius

Well, some people have a psychological need to justify themselves. They only do this if they have some doubt or there is an element of imbalance.

People who know how to fix TVs or speak French don't form organizations to prostletyze and go screaming about it to all and sundry, getting incandescent with rage if you deny the existence of France or Television sets. They just laugh.

It's always helpful I find to never listen to them but rather just watch them. Hours of fun - and of course you don't have top hear what passes for their ideas which is a bonus. Seriously, switch off from them and just observe them. You can discover many Americas.

Sounds like you're on the right track and have little to worry about now or in the hereafter. Well, maybe you have to worry a bit about the people who will tell you you're going to hell but we must have compassion for all sentient beings no? father, forgive them and all that...

I do that quite often actually. I have a friend that is an atheist and another, the one mentioned before, that believes that god is everything good. It interesting to pit them against each other in a religious argument. I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it didn't create such stubborn closed minded people. They will never admit that they are wrong or that their beliefs may be based on a mixture of religions that existed before Christ did.
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" ~ Vroomfondel
Reply
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" ~ Vroomfondel
Reply
post #42 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius

Well, some people have a psychological need to justify themselves. They only do this if they have some doubt or there is an element of imbalance.

People who know how to fix TVs or speak French don't form organizations to prostletyze and go screaming about it to all and sundry, getting incandescent with rage if you deny the existence of France or Television sets. They just laugh.

which begs the question I have been wrestling with for some time. Lets use me as an example...

Suppose I know that if I was to rant on about something (lets say Sun_Gods - for a completely random choice) for a while AND as I also knew that a psychologist would also define this behaviour as trying to justify myself - and if I was trying to be smarter than a psychologist, yet still carried on....well what does that say.

It would seem every thread in AO/PO is someone trying to justify themselves or straigthten out the imbalance, but if we all knew that it betrays some subconscious fault with ourselves, then it would either be an empty place, or perhaps we would have outsmarted the psychologists?

[edit] to sum up, what would a psychologist do if he knew his behaviour was being monitored by another psychologist, whom he was monitoring? - could be a whole can of worms
post #43 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

which begs the question I have been wrestling with for some time. Lets use me as an example...

Suppose I know that if I was to rant on about something (lets say Sun_Gods - for a completely random choice) for a while AND as I also knew that a psychologist would also define this behaviour as trying to justify myself - and if I was trying to be smarter than a psychologist, yet still carried on....well what does that say.

It would seem every thread in AO/PO is someone trying to justify themselves or straigthten out the imbalance, but if we all knew that it betrays some subconscious fault with ourselves, then it would either be an empty place, or perhaps we would have outsmarted the psychologists?

[edit] to sum up, what would a psychologist do if he knew his behaviour was being monitored by another psychologist? - could be a whole can of worms

Imo, all such behaviour is a means of coming to terms with an underlying issue. I rant about Fundies for example so I have an issue there. No question. Obviously I know what the issue is and any Fundie who calls me on it is invariably wrong about its true nature but that's another story.

Imo it can be like therapy. if you hate spiders and force yourself to touch them every day then maybe you are curing yourself of the phobia. Or maybe you are making it far worse.

All depends on you. Only 'God' (and maybe you) knows the true situation - everyone else with an opinion is merely indulging in onanism. Even if they are coincidentally right.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #44 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maimezvous

I do that quite often actually. I have a friend that is an atheist and another, the one mentioned before, that believes that god is everything good. It interesting to pit them against each other in a religious argument. I think that I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it didn't create such stubborn closed minded people. They will never admit that they are wrong or that their beliefs may be based on a mixture of religions that existed before Christ did.

Yes, this is the main problem with religion - although it is both true and not true at the same time, it has reached stasis.

That is to say, its rules are rules that are true but for a specific time. Imo, the Islamic sharia was specific to 7/8th century Arabia and the teaching of Jesus was specific to that group of disciples he gathered.

Of course the two are in essence the same but projected in differing cultural frameworks - people who say that one religious formulation applies for all time and is the same everywhere are essentially saying that humans are everywhere the same, at all periods and n all regions. I dispute this.

There are similar (and worse) problems on the theological level that can be used to disprove this 'static' position (which is essentially the Fundie/literalist position.

For example, the God described in the Old Testament and Qur'an - although He differs in certain respects - is in no way a static God. He reacts. He changes His mind. He considers things and decides on specific courses of action - these courses of action are subject to human interaction in some cases: He obeys the pleas of Prophets to change His decisions for example. In fact, the whole concept of petitioning God with prayer is based on this conception and people would not pray if they did not believe God was 'flexible' in His decisions.

But - they have a false position in many cases, especially Fundies - because they do not in fact conceive of a flexible God. There God is rigid. What He said 2000 or 1500 years ago is unchangeable and the same for all time. The Fundie God does not evolve and develop over time as does the OT/QWur'anic God - He is mired in a timewarp thousands of years old and a prisoner of it. Of course He is not God in this case but a metaphysical construct to alleviate psychological pressures but you know what I mean....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #45 of 51
The problem with religion is that it's based on doctrine that itself states that everything extolled within that doctrine is unquestionable truth; therefore to question it or to compromise beliefs to a more reasonable hybrid of religion and logical thought is deemed illegal.
post #46 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

The problem with religion is that it's based on doctrine that itself states that everything extolled within that doctrine is unquestionable truth; therefore to question it or to compromise beliefs to a more reasonable hybrid of religion and logical thought is deemed illegal.

Yes, where that happens it is the big problem but I think it is not possible t make such a blanket statement as most religions are the opposite of dogmatic when they are first formulated. The dogmatism is the result of interference later on by people who don't quite cut it and have to bring it down to their level.

For example - in Islam there was originally a doctrine called ijtihad which essentially meant it was a DUTY for all Muslims t question all religious proclamations (and everything else) and, by extension, the religious authorities.

Obviously, such a doctrine cannot be allowed to last long or the power-possessors will find themselves questioned. It is still an essential part of the religion though even though it has been 'removed'.

Exact similar processes occurred in Christianity where the figure of Christ was morphed into a Vicarious Atonement and as such took away personal searching and questioning.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius

scientific rationalism.

I have never heard that term.
post #48 of 51
This is almost completely offtopic, but I still think it's kinda funny.

My wife and I visited the Houston science museum last weekend, (the museum itself mostly sucks, except for a few sections), and were enjoying the very extensive and strikingly beautiful crystal/mineral exhibit.

I noticed two women slowly moving their hands in front of the protective glass of several crystals, and gently chanting something. They were evidently new-age crystal worshippers of some kind.

My wife, who can't leave well enough alone, went up to one and asked "So, you getting anything?".

I about died.


Oh, excuse me. I'm off to worship the crystals in my salt shaker.
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
The secret of life: Proteins fold up and bind things.
Reply
post #49 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by benzene

My wife and I visited the Houston science museum last weekend, (the museum itself mostly sucks, except for a few sections), and were enjoying the very extensive and strikingly beautiful crystal/mineral exhibit.

I noticed two women slowly moving their hands in front of the protective glass of several crystals, and gently chanting something. They were evidently new-age crystal worshippers of some kind.

My wife, who can't leave well enough alone, went up to one and asked "So, you getting anything?".

post #50 of 51
In response to personalities: Based upon what i've seen, we as humans, have the same personalities. We just choose to exhibit the range of personalities as we see fit, within the circumstances we experience.
post #51 of 51
Richard Dawkins - The Enemies Of Reason - Part1 - Slaves to Superstition

Quote:
Dawkins points to some of sciences achievements and describes it as freeing most of us from superstition and dogma. Picking up from his superstition-reason distinction in The Root of All Evil? (while recycling some footage from it), he then says reason is facing an epidemic of superstition that impoverishes our culture and introduces gurus that persuade us to run away from reality. He calls the present day dangerous times.

He returns to sciences achievements, including the fact that, by extending our lifespan, it helps us to better appreciate its other achievements. He turns his attention to astrology, which he criticizes for stereotyping without evidence, and he tries an experiment in which 20 people of various star signs is asked if the verdict for Capricorn applies to them, while being told it is their own' star sign. The result was that the one Capricorn person did not believe it, but some of the others did. Dawkins is warned against the experiment by the astrologer Neil Spencer, and Dawkins tells him he is in a no-lose situation. I hope so, yes, replies Spencer.

Having put astrology to the test and referred to larger-scale experiments, he then talks about the real beauty in astronomy, and then expresses frustration that 50% of the UK population more than are members of one religion believe in the paranormal.

Found it informative and quite humorous. Thought I'd share it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Ophiuchus: 13th Zodiac Sign