Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hi,

I'm a Jew an we don't prosceletize, so i really don't understand why every damn faith has to convert everyone to their own faith either by annoying the crap out of people, playing around with the government and legal system, or ethnically cleansing non-believers.
Discuss

It's that Hell thingie......save the world from Hell, and the more people you get into your church, the more money made....oh, and Jesus won't come until the world has been preached to.....all the world has to hear the message before he comes back.....and they want him to come back...

Originally posted by debbiejo
.....all the world has to hear the message before he comes back.....and they want him to come back...

This is probably the one right thing that you have said in all of your posts Debbiejo about the Bible.

Yeah, and the whole 10/40 window.........blah blah blah.......Don't you think they all know already???

Nah, most don't try to convert. Just the annoying ones....and those are the ones you remember the most.

....

Coincidentally, if you'd like to learn more about my beliefs, please feel free to send $50 to the "DigiMark kicks ass" First Unitarian Church. I'll write your ticket for heaven and send you a pleasant autumnal gift basket. No obligation, of course, but we require you to undergo some brief, harmless, brainwashing techniques as well.

Come on....it'll be fun!

Advertising is the key to religion. If only today's gods gives out divine spells to his or her faithful, conversion of the masses wouldnt be too difficult. Being a priest or cleric would kick so much ass.

Hey I'll convert.......all I'm asking is for god to give me heat vision. Hell it would HELP me , then when the heathens try to convert me I can smite them in the name of my lord.

proselytism is another word for marketing..........

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hi,

I'm a Jew an we don't prosceletize, so i really don't understand why every damn faith has to convert everyone to their own faith either by annoying the crap out of people, playing around with the government and legal system, or ethnically cleansing non-believers.
Discuss

A wonderful question, one I also must ask. Though unfotunately I dont have an answer.

using those traditional methods to stay out of hell, you simply create a hell on earth. If people get pissed at you when you knock on their doors at all hours, try to pass theocratic laws, or heard you into cattle cars, please don't be surprised if they hate your guts, try to kick the crap out of you or kill you.
duh.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hi,

I'm a Jew an we don't prosceletize, so i really don't understand why every damn faith has to convert everyone to their own faith either by annoying the crap out of people, playing around with the government and legal system, or ethnically cleansing non-believers.
Discuss

Let us use science in relation to religion. We have scientific information. Should we share this science with, let us say third world countries? Why? Many beliefs have held that science was evil (e.g. photographs steal a part of the soul, technology makes man lazy, it is unnatural.) Given these views, should we give them the opportunity to refuse? Or do we leave them alone? What about their children? If the parents refuse, should we still suggest that their children need to learn about science? Science is unnecessary, it is a luxury.

Science has caused as much harm, in my opinion, as it has benefited humanity. A person would be accurate in stating that science is a bad thing, look at the bombs. A person would be accurate in stating that religion is a bad thing, look at the 9/11. A person would be accurate in stating that science is a good thing, look at medicine. A person would be accurate in stating that religion is a good thing, look at the good works of its adherents.

Yet we insist on bringing the "good news" of science to those that don't have it. Yet we insist on bringing the "good news" of religion to those that don't have it.

It really can be looked at in a similar light, yet I doubt people with access to science would view it as right to not share science just because someone does not agree with it.

It should be obvious that scientific proofs reveal the true religion whatever it may be.

Yes, but I wasn't saying science was bad or wrong or anything. My post was pointing out that most people believe we should share science with others that do not have it. Why should any religion be viewed differently by its adherents?

I'd say they should both be taught with equal fervor.

Originally posted by Nellinator
It should be obvious that scientific proofs reveal the true religion whatever it may be.

the idea of the true religion is obsessed. All religions are true and not true.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'd say they should both be taught with equal fervor.
Only because you believe your religion. Unless you are claiming that Science and the worship of Anubis should be taught with equal fervor

Religious people tend to believe what you say, but only abour their religion and science. I don't believe public education should teach any form of religion, that is the religion and parents domain to teach.

And I am a religious person

In the end there can only be one true religion. Whether its Christianity, Islam, or Atheism only one will be right.

Unless, of course, they are all wrong.

True.

Originally posted by Nellinator
In the end there can only be one true religion. Whether its Christianity, Islam, or Atheism only one will be right.

That is wrong thinking.

Why?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Why?

Are you asking me?

Yes.

But in death, there is either heaven, nothingness, reincarnation, etc. Only one is going to happen, that is what I am saying.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But in death, there is either heaven, nothingness, reincarnation, etc. Only one is going to happen, that is what I am saying.

In life, what happens in death, does not matter. Also, how do you know that all of those happen and more? I worry about people who know to much about death.

I don't know, those are simply the beliefs put forward my certain major religions and therefore am making generalizations on possiblities. I personally believe death is important in life because if there is an afterlife I am certain the actions in life will affect it.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I don't know, those are simply the beliefs put forward my certain major religions and therefore am making generalizations on possiblities. I personally believe death is important in life because if there is an afterlife I am certain the actions in life will affect it.

The only effect that death has on the living is the knowledge that we will die. That is were belief has it's greatest effect.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In life, what happens in death, does not matter. Also, how do you know that all of those happen and more? I worry about people who know to much about death.

This stance can be extended further. There is no knowledge about tomorrow, only the highly probable chance of it being similar to today. So, why should one waste years on education if it is possible one might not be alive at the end? There is a possibility that our existence as we know it will be very different tomorrow than it is today. So why live in a prescribed manner today, if no one really knows what will happen tomorrow? A belief on what occurs following death is not an irrational consideration any more than a belief as to what will occur following today.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Regret
This stance can be extended further. There is no knowledge about tomorrow, only the highly probable chance of it being similar to today. So, why should one waste years on education if it is possible one might not be alive at the end? There is a possibility that our existence as we know it will be very different tomorrow than it is today. So why live in a prescribed manner today, if no one really knows what will happen tomorrow? A belief on what occurs following death is not an irrational consideration any more than a belief as to what will occur following today.

However, when belief becomes foreknowledge, dilution fills the mind.

That's better than dying and going to hell (if it exists).

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hi,

I'm a Jew an we don't prosceletize, so i really don't understand why every damn faith has to convert everyone to their own faith either by annoying the crap out of people, playing around with the government and legal system, or ethnically cleansing non-believers.
Discuss

Typically there are two reasons. The first was mentioned by Debs and the second is because those members of a particular religion who feel the need to shove their faith down your throat are dwelling on that grain of doubt that sits in the back of their mind. So, the more people who think like they do, the better and more secure they feel in their own beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, when belief becomes foreknowledge, dilution fills the mind.

Foreknowledge... I am unsure if I understand your meaning here. Could you clarify?

Originally posted by Regret
Foreknowledge... I am unsure if I understand your meaning here. Could you clarify?

Someone who says "I am going to heaven when I die" is living with dilution. There is nothing really wrong about that, however, not realizing it can lead to unintended consequences.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hi,

I'm a Jew an we don't prosceletize, so i really don't understand why every damn faith has to convert everyone to their own faith either by annoying the crap out of people, playing around with the government and legal system, or ethnically cleansing non-believers.
Discuss

Well, if you're jewish like you claim to be...then by all means you do know that Judaism is NOT a missionary religion. Christianity seeks to spread the word of their savior Jesus Christ. Which as it mention in teh bible his teachings should spread throught the world. There is also no central figure of salvation in your religion. Only Yaweh and that's it. And as a far as I know...anyone can convert to Judaism...it really doesn't make you guys anything special.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Someone who says "I am going to heaven when I die" is living with dilution. There is nothing really wrong about that, however, not realizing it can lead to unintended consequences.

Agreed. I do not believe a person can know their status in the Heaven Hell paradigm, too many variables exist to make a prediction of this sort. But then I think all belief should be held with a grain of salt. It should be capable of altering when we find that we are wrong.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but I wasn't saying science was bad or wrong or anything. My post was pointing out that most people believe we should share science with others that do not have it. Why should any religion be viewed differently by its adherents?

Science isn't a religion. You cant compare religion with science. Get over it.

Originally posted by Alliance
Science isn't a religion. You cant compare religion with science. Get over it.

I wasn't comparing science and religion. I was comparing beliefs about the two.

Originally posted by Regret
I wasn't comparing science and religion. I was comparing beliefs about the two.

Even in science, belief can help or hinder. Staying at a point where you understand what you believe is just a belief, will allow you to have the flexibility enough to change.

So basically, we agree. It is the person who left that I don't agree with. To think that a person knows what the out come to death must be, is to be filled with dilution.

Originally posted by Regret
I wasn't comparing science and religion. I was comparing beliefs about the two.

Beliefs about the two don't overlap. Science is a method. Religion and facts have issues with eachother.

Originally posted by Alliance
Beliefs about the two don't overlap. Science is a method. Religion and facts have issues with eachother.

Beliefs about the distribution of knowledge can be compared, in this way I compared science and religion.

Originally posted by Regret
Beliefs about the distribution of knowledge can be compared

How so?

Originally posted by Alliance
How so?

I don't have time to consider this and respond appropriately, I'll try to respond to it tomorrow, it'll take some consideration to form my statement properly. At the moment I am running to and from the comp

And remember, you get extra points for succinctness.

Alliance, I believe that you are merely disagreeing based in your beliefs on religion and to disagree. I have considered this, and decided that it is not worth arguing. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of science, believe that we should share scientific knowledge with those that are in need of it. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of religion (whichever one doesn't matter), believe that we should share religious knowledge with those that are in need of it. If they don't want it when we offer it, I believe we can withdraw the offer to teach it unless they request it.

Knowledge is knowledge, whether it be scientific or religious. Distribution is the same no matter the type.

I believe that everyone should be allowed a religious education that covers all religions but promotes none. Due to the fact that people do not allow religious knowledge to be taught in U.S. public schools, it must needs be that the knowledge is dispersed in some other manner. An educated decision cannot be made in the United States because there is no method for gaining a balanced education on the subject. The majority of people are more capable of arguing diet than religion imo. This is due to the lack of education in this field. Given this, it should be incumbent on all religions to educate the public on their individual religions.

Originally posted by Regret
...I believe that everyone should be allowed a religious education that covers all religions but promotes none....

This sounds great, but it is a pipe dream. Christianity is too head strong to not try to dominate all that it touches.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This sounds great, but it is a pipe dream. Christianity is too head strong to not try to dominate all that it touches.

Agreed, but it is how it should be. Without that, there is not a valid argument against proselyting.

Originally posted by Regret
Agreed, but it is how it should be. Without that, there is not a valid argument against proselyting.

Hmmmmmmmm

I don't see the connection.

To me, Christian proselytizing is insulting, but it is better then extreme Islamic proselytizing, which can be deadly. jk

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hmmmmmmmm

I don't see the connection.

To me, Christian proselytizing is insulting, but it is better then extreme Islamic proselytizing, which can be deadly. jk

If their knowledge isn't being shared in some way, how else will they share it? I'm not saying any of them is right, only that the only means of stopping proselytizing is to flood the public body with all the religious knowledge and allow them to make religious choices from an educated position.

If you knew, hypothetically, because some fairy of knowledge popped up and showed you perfect evidence that eating chocolate would lower your life expectancy by fifteen years, and you could not reproduce the evidence, would you try to tell others that eating chocolate reduced their life expectancy? Most religions believe that they know something of value, whether or not it is true, they believe it. It isn't rational, but they view it as such.

Originally posted by Regret
Alliance, I believe that you are merely disagreeing based in your beliefs on religion and to disagree. I have considered this, and decided that it is not worth arguing. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of science, believe that we should share scientific knowledge with those that are in need of it. I, and I would say the majority of people that enjoy the benefits of religion (whichever one doesn't matter), believe that we should share religious knowledge with those that are in need of it. If they don't want it when we offer it, I believe we can withdraw the offer to teach it unless they request it.

Knowledge is knowledge, whether it be scientific or religious. Distribution is the same no matter the type.

I believe that everyone should be allowed a religious education that covers all religions but promotes none. Due to the fact that people do not allow religious knowledge to be taught in U.S. public schools, it must needs be that the knowledge is dispersed in some other manner. An educated decision cannot be made in the United States because there is no method for gaining a balanced education on the subject. The majority of people are more capable of arguing diet than religion imo. This is due to the lack of education in this field. Given this, it should be incumbent on all religions to educate the public on their individual religions.

No, I'm disagreeing because I think you're wrong. The public doesn't understand what science is. Science is areligious, it doesnt promote religion and it doesnt speak out against it. Of course thats in a perfect world, but there is practical leeway on all issues.

Religious education in public school is revolting. Your system promotes a religion, even though many people don't have one. Religious "knowledge" if you can call it that, is somehting that is taught at home and at the place of worship of your choice. There is no sanctatiy in religion, it does not make you a better person, it does not make you moral. There is no reason to teach religous "knowledge".

That being said, diversity of religion should be a major part of public education, allowing kids to learn some historical aspects of other faiths including agnocticism and athiesm. My high school had a program where you had to write a series of short papers about the history and general beliefs of Chrisitanity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, Zoroastarianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Athiesm, Agnociticism, and two other religions of your choice (Paganism etc.) This should be an integral part of public education and world history.

Originally posted by Alliance
No, I'm disagreeing because I think you're wrong. The public doesn't understand what science is. Science is areligious, it doesnt promote religion and it doesnt speak out against it. Of course thats in a perfect world, but there is practical leeway on all issues.

Religious education in public school is revolting. Your system promotes a religion, even though many people don't have one. Religious "knowledge" if you can call it that, is somehting that is taught at home and at the place of worship of your choice. There is no sanctatiy in religion, it does not make you a better person, it does not make you moral. There is no reason to teach religous "knowledge".

That being said, diversity of religion should be a major part of public education, allowing kids to learn some historical aspects of other faiths including agnocticism and athiesm. My high school had a program where you had to write a series of short papers about the history and general beliefs of Chrisitanity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, Zoroastarianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Athiesm, Agnociticism, and two other religions of your choice (Paganism etc.) This should be an integral part of public education and world history.

Agreed, and I believe this is what I was referring to. Perhaps your impression of what I was talking about was off from what I meant. I think that the areligious attitude of U.S. policy is a poor position. It allows the religiously bigoted (extreme anyones) to claim grievance against the public system as is, broad spectrum education as to the beliefs of the various religions (in the manner you described, if not coursework on the subject) is the only way that true ambivalence in the system can occur.

My impression was very different. I interpreted you saying that different religions should be instructed. Religions/Secularism/Atheism are important parts of world history and should be studed in the context of global culture and historical relevance.

No, I agree with you. I only believe that an overview of the impacts each has had on history and a basic overview of their origins and beliefs should be taught. This would include the agnostic stance and the atheist stance.

It's similar to my view on Psychology. A basic overview of all the schools of thought should be given, and then all students should learn Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History should be taught. All the other schools should be handled with the same skepticism that religion is. argue

Originally posted by Regret
It's similar to my view on Psychology. A basic overview of all the schools of thought should be given, and then all students should learn Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History should be taught. All the other schools should be handled with the same skepticism that religion is. argue

Actually, that is how psychology is taught in undergrad--and what I didn't like about it was that I got the impression everyone with a theory was competing with everyone else's theory, so you had to learn like a dozen terms for the same damn thing. It's basically information-dumping. But this also did include the more bio/neuro/experimental/stats-related branches of psych.

Grad school is where you start to learn the cool stuff, where you learn to actually apply things in realistic, practical and effective ways. Eg, hypnosis was quite fascinating, more in application than theory.

Originally posted by Mindship
Actually, that is how psychology is taught in undergrad--and what I didn't like about it was that I got the impression everyone with a theory was competing with everyone else's theory, so you had to learn like a dozen terms for the same damn thing. It's basically information-dumping. But this also did include the more bio/neuro/experimental/stats-related branches of psych.

Grad school is where you start to learn the cool stuff, where you learn to actually apply things in realistic, practical and effective ways. Eg, hypnosis was quite fascinating, more in application than theory.

Yeah, grad school is where it's at, post doc work is even better if you are working with decent people. I am not referring to what you are. I mean that Psychology should be taught with an intro to psychology course (covering all the speculative schools, and the solid schools) and then only Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History. I don't believe that Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology should be taught as scientifically valid systems. I also feel that a lot of Evolutionary Psychology should be looked at more heavily as to whether it fits with these or not.

edit: Gestalt is pretty much dead, it is typically only discussed in relation to perceptual phenomena in Physiological Psychology. I would also state that Physiological Psych would cover Perception and Psychophysics as well.

My opinion of hypnosis is rather skeptical though. Hypnosis doesn't work on those that don't want to be hypnotized. Given this, does it really do anything? I doubt it, the person wants the hypnotism to work, and so he does whatever was suggested. The physiological effects are there, but they are minimal, and may simply correlate with the act, and not be indicative of true control.

Originally posted by Regret
I mean that Psychology should be taught with an intro to psychology course (covering all the speculative schools, and the solid schools) and then only Behavior Analysis, Physiological Psychology, Stats, and Psychological History. I don't believe that Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology should be taught as scientifically valid systems. I also feel that a lot of Evolutionary Psychology should be looked at more heavily as to whether it fits with these or not.
Scientific validity can be tricky even with the hard sciences (eg, quantum mechanics: the most powerful scientific theory ever developed, yet the least understood in terms of what it "really" means). But I do agree, some schools of psychological thought do leave much to be desired. The trick is to find where certain systems can be used reliably, especially if improvement in quality of life is what you're after.

My opinion of hypnosis is rather skeptical though. Hypnosis doesn't work on those that don't want to be hypnotized. Given this, does it really do anything? I doubt it, the person wants the hypnotism to work, and so he does whatever was suggested. The physiological effects are there, but they are minimal, and may simply correlate with the act, and not be indicative of true control.
Absolutely: the power lies in the subject, and if you have a good subject (and you're a good "guide", some pretty cool things can be accomplished.

Originally posted by Mindship
Scientific validity can be tricky even with the hard sciences (eg, quantum mechanics: the most powerful scientific theory ever developed, yet the least understood in terms of what it "really" means). But I do agree, some schools of psychological thought do leave much to be desired. The trick is to find where certain systems can be used reliably, especially if improvement in quality of life is what you're after.

I agree, but I think the schools of thought I mentioned (Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology) hold as much credibility as most religions. They just avoid spirit/god type explanations in favor of unobservable and unprovable "mind/thought/process" explanations. The data can be interpreted without resorting to the fiction that is often thought up. IMO the religion forum is a good place to discuss them. Religion can be used reliably in specific situations, and it can be beneficial in those situations, does not make it valid based on that

Originally posted by Mindship
Absolutely: the power lies in the subject, and if you have a good subject (and you're a good "guide", some pretty cool things can be accomplished.

K, had to throw my skepticism out there.


Now, you mentioned an education in psychology, did you do undergrad and grad work in psychology?

psychology is as skeptical as religion.

Originally posted by Alliance
psychology is as skeptical as religion.

I agree as far as Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology and Gestalt Psychology are concerned. Behavior Analysis and Physiological Psychology are as solid as the majority of "Hard" sciences are.

with less direct experimentation.

No, look at our data and research. It is just as direct.

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, but I think the schools of thought I mentioned (Cognitive Psychology, Psychoanalysis, Humanistic Psychology, Positive Psychology, Gestalt Psychology) hold as much credibility as most religions. They just avoid spirit/god type explanations in favor of unobservable and unprovable "mind/thought/process" explanations. The data can be interpreted without resorting to the fiction that is often thought up. IMO the religion forum is a good place to discuss them. Religion can be used reliably in specific situations, and it can be beneficial in those situations, does not make it valid based on that
Without going into specific schools of thought: generally speaking, the mental-symbolic domain is very provable/observable (just not empirical) as evidenced--for example--by our being able to communicate (exchange of verbal symbols: meaning), or by how ideas have influenced the world. One can also just simply observe what is going on behind one's eyeballs to know that there is a whole reality in place, just as real/potent/credible as the physical-sensory world, only different. Indeed, one can ignore the outside world much more easily than one can ignore one's own consciousness.

What it all means, though, is open to interpretation; that I agree with. Is a reductionist/epiphenomenalist perspective all that's required to understand what's going on behind our eyes? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ultimately, any scientific venture--regardless of field--is an "as if" affair.

(IMO, an "only empirical evidence counts" stance brings in the self-contradiction of Scientism: that is, there is no empirical evidence that only empirical evidence counts, or even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."

Religion/spirit/soul/God is a whole other ballgame. Whereas the physical-sensory realm is explored with the "eye of flesh," and the mental-symbolic realm via the "eye of reason," this Level 3 would need to be explored via the "eye of contemplation." And certainly, if one is going to doubt the credibility of Level 2 (mental-symbolic sphere), then there is little hope for acceptance of Level 3, which, as a "pragmatic agnostic," I can at least appreciate.

Now, you mentioned an education in psychology, did you do undergrad and grad work in psychology?
Yes.


No, religion, I feel, is skepticaler cuz now we're dealing with not just a "transempirical" domain but a "transmental" one as well. At least, I can experience the power of my own thoughts (whatever their ultimate origin). "God," on the other hand, requires a whole new kind of effort which would need to be differentiated from, for example, the Level 2 quality of wish-fulfillment.

Originally posted by Mindship
Without going into specific schools of thought: generally speaking, the mental-symbolic domain is very provable/observable (just not empirical) as evidenced--for example--by our being able to communicate (exchange of verbal symbols: meaning), or by how ideas have influenced the world. One can also just simply observe what is going on behind one's eyeballs to know that there is a whole reality in place, just as real/potent/credible as the physical-sensory world, only different. Indeed, one can ignore the outside world much more easily than one can ignore one's own consciousness.

What it all means, though, is open to interpretation; that I agree with. Is a reductionist/epiphenomenalist perspective all that's required to understand what's going on behind our eyes? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ultimately, any scientific venture--regardless of field--is an "as if" affair.

(IMO, an "only empirical evidence counts" stance brings in the self-contradiction of Scientism: that is, there is no empirical evidence that only empirical evidence counts, or even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."

Religion/spirit/soul/God is a whole other ballgame. Whereas the physical-sensory realm is explored with the "eye of flesh," and the mental-symbolic realm via the "eye of reason," this Level 3 would need to be explored via the "eye of contemplation." And certainly, if one is going to doubt the credibility of Level 2 (mental-symbolic sphere), then there is little hope for acceptance of Level 3, which, as a "pragmatic agnostic," I can at least appreciate.

I agree to a point. I do not believe that we can claim that the person next to us has the same "internal experience" as ourselves. There is no means of supporting the idea, and it is often shown that much of it will not cross to various cultures. Much of it only works in the Western World and even then it will not work 100% of the time, and it is invalidated by this fact.

The mentalist schools in psychology rely on observable evidence which they then create an elaborate fictitious account to explain the "internal" workings that were at "really" at work. They then agree with one another and congratulate themselves on their brilliant work. They are unable to observe these internal workings, they just paint a pretty picture around the observable phenomena.

But if you've studied psychology you probably know my view. I am extremely Skinarian in my philosophy, and barely accept some of the more recent theories Staddon has put forth. He is bordering on a Bandura type of movement. I think he may leave Behavior for his Adaptive Dynamics, which is not as mentalist as Bandura was, but is still moving in the cognitive direction.

Originally posted by Mindship
Yes.

What school of psychology did you follow? What specialty did you pursue?

Originally posted by Mindship
No, religion is, I feel, is skepticaler cuz now we're dealing with not just a "transempirical" domain but a "transmental" one as well. At least, I can experience the power of my own thoughts (whatever their ultimate origin). "God," on the other hand, requires a whole new kind of effort which would need to be differentiated from, for example, the Level 2 quality of wish-fulfillment.

Agreed as far as God goes, but the "spiritual" experience is the exact same as mentalist views.

Originally posted by Regret
1. I agree to a point. I do not believe that we can claim that the person next to us has the same "internal experience" as ourselves. There is no means of supporting the idea, and it is often shown that much of it will not cross to various cultures. Much of it only works in the Western World and even then it will not work 100% of the time, and it is invalidated by this fact.

2. What school of psychology did you follow? What specialty did you pursue?

3. Agreed as far as God goes, but the "spiritual" experience is the exact same as mentalist views.

1. Absolutely we can't know the internal experience of the person next to us, as far as content goes. But just as there are universal biological processes (eg, respiration), there are also universal psychological processes (eg, pre-operational cognition) which have been demonstrated through behavior and problem-solving, and been shown to exist cross-culturally. Commonalities in esoteric/mystical literature throughout the world--and across the centuries--and just the fact that all human beings use symbols: these also demonstrate certain universal qualities of mind (regardless of why they exist).

2. My training is in clinical (cognitive and behavioral); I work in education; my personal philosophy is transpersonal.

3. I'm not sure what you, personally, mean by "spiritual." I imagine your "discomfort" with the word is like how I feel about "psychic": there's just too much New-Age, mumbo-jumbo, pseudoscience connotation for my tastes. In fact, "spiritual" doesn't thrill me either, which is why I wonder if a neutral term (eg, "Level 3" might be better, as long as one can supply an adequate operational definition.

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Absolutely we can't know the internal experience of the person next to us, as far as content goes. But just as there are universal biological processes (eg, respiration), there are also universal psychological processes (eg, pre-operational cognition) which have been demonstrated through behavior and problem-solving, and been shown to exist cross-culturally. Commonalities in esoteric/mystical literature throughout the world--and across the centuries--and just the fact that all human beings use symbols: these also demonstrate certain universal qualities of mind (regardless of why they exist).

I agree with the general statement here, but I believe that it is unnecessary to refer to the internal (e.g. mind and psychological processes.) "...there are also universal psychological processes (eg, pre-operational cognition) which have been demonstrated through behavior and problem-solving, and been shown to exist cross-culturally." What has been demonstrated is a common behavioral pattern, problem solving as tested shows the behaviors that lead to a solution. S-O-R : Where S=stimulus, O=internal processes in the organism, and R= response (sorry, had to spell it out for those reading that would be lost.) If presented stimulus A results in Response B, and this is reliable, there is no need for O in the equation. It isn't denial of its (i.e. mind, psychological process... the various internal variables) existence, it is the statement that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. And if the response is unreliable then manipulate the stimulus to find the aspects of it that produce the seemingly variant response. If you cannot predictably manipulate the response, then you have not found the aspect of the stimulus that is controlling it.

But, I am just pushing my view. I am strong behavior, and as such you probably wouldn't expect a different response. I don't think it would be worth our time to debate this here, we both know the strength of the opposition and there hasn't been agreement between behavior and the mentalist view as of yet. I think we should agree to disagree, and I'll attempt to not attack heavily your posts that promote mentalist views.

Originally posted by Mindship
2. My training is in clinical (cognitive and behavioral); I work in education; my personal philosophy is transpersonal.

I assume you are a school psychologist or counselor then?

Education is interesting. We do a lot of work in it, as you know. I have worked with a few school districts in consultation on behavior issues. I would assume that if you work in education you probably deal with behaviorally trained Spec. Ed. frequently. In my opinion it is too bad that they do not receive a stronger behavior education, in my experience there are often many problems that arise due to lack of behavioral understanding by novice, or poor, Spec. Ed. teachers.

I, like I have said, am behavioral in specialty. I focused in learning theory during my undergrad, and then split myself organizational behavior management and autism during grad school. I worked at an OBM firm for a while, and now freelance.

Originally posted by Mindship
3. I'm not sure what you, personally, mean by "spiritual." I imagine your "discomfort" with the word is like how I feel about "psychic": there's just too much New-Age, mumbo-jumbo, pseudoscience connotation for my tastes. In fact, "spiritual" doesn't thrill me either, which is why I wonder if a neutral term (eg, "Level 3" might be better, as long as one can supply an adequate operational definition.

I am used to the term "spiritual" it is descriptive, and will keep other readers aware of the topic of discussion. But yes, internal reference is distasteful for me, it goes counter to my choice of training. I actually have difficulty cringing when it is necessary to refer to internal variables. There were many times I cringed while reading Staddon's "Adaptive Dynamics." I think he has some good ideas, but he does like to refer to the internal a bit.

In reference to "spiritual" I am referring to the instance where an individual claims to have felt something "spiritual" (e.g. Christians claim they feel the Holy Spirit.) This is in the realm of the mentalist.

We as behavior analysts typically instinctively jump to the conclusion that they have been reinforced for religious comment, and so the statement that they "feel the Spirit" is just a further approximation to the goal of their belief.

Personally, I do believe that it is possible that a person does "feel the Spirit", but I think that for the most part the spiritual talk people have is based more in the respondent and operant paradigms, than in them actually having "felt the Spirit".

Originally posted by Regret
1. I agree with the general statement here, but I believe that it is unnecessary to refer to the internal. ... What has been demonstrated is a common behavioral pattern, problem solving as tested shows the behaviors that lead to a solution. S-O-R ... It isn't denial of its...existence, it is the statement that it is irrelevant and unnecessary. ... If you cannot predictably manipulate the response, then you have not found the aspect of the stimulus that is controlling it.

2. But, I am just pushing my view. I am strong behavior, and as such you probably wouldn't expect a different response. I don't think it would be worth our time to debate this here, we both know the strength of the opposition and there hasn't been agreement between behavior and the mentalist view as of yet. I think we should agree to disagree, and I'll attempt to not attack heavily your posts that promote mentalist views.

3. I assume you are a school psychologist or counselor then?

4. Education is interesting. We do a lot of work in it, as you know. I have worked with a few school districts in consultation on behavior issues. I would assume that if you work in education you probably deal with behaviorally trained Spec. Ed. frequently. In my opinion it is too bad that they do not receive a stronger behavior education, in my experience there are often many problems that arise due to lack of behavioral understanding by novice, or poor, Spec. Ed. teachers.

5. In reference to "spiritual" I am referring to the instance where an individual claims to have felt something "spiritual" (e.g. Christians claim they feel the Holy Spirit.) This is in the realm of the mentalist.
We as behavior analysts typically instinctively jump to the conclusion that they have been reinforced for religious comment, and so the statement that they "feel the Spirit" is just a further approximation to the goal of their belief.
Personally, I do believe that it is possible that a person does "feel the Spirit", but I think that for the most part the spiritual talk people have is based more in the respondent and operant paradigms, than in them actually having "felt the Spirit".

1. Understood, and to an extent I agree. However (and forgive me if I pontificate once more), the reason "mentalists" (I'm not crazy about that word either; sounds like a circus side-show or "Kreskinesque" and what has been called at times "radical behaviorism" don't agree is because removing the "O" does--as you've implied--leave glitches in explaining how S ---> R. But as you mentioned, one may need to better understand the "S-R" connection. It would certainly make things simpler from a problem-analysis and applied-solution perspective.

This reminds me a bit of the conundrum theoretical physicists are facing when dealing with unification theories, especially quantum gravity. Long-story short, they don't work so well until you interject the "unseen" variable of extra dimensions (comparable to the "O" in S-O-R). Then everything falls into place quite sweetly...except for the "problem" of now having these extra, unseen variables.

Perhaps, at times, the Simplification Pendulum can swing too far in the other direction?

2. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and it is always a pleasure--as well as a learning experience--doing business with you. Agreeing to disagree works fine with me.

3. School shrink, yes.

4. High schools, mostly spec ed. Ugh, don't get me started on "what's wrong with this picture." Another long story short: if Education (preparing for the real world) was valued 1/10 as much as, say, Entertainment (escaping from the real world), many short-comings, I feel, would've been adequately addressed a long time ago. But as someone once put it: what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid, and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?

5. Understood and agreed. This is why I feel--even if only for personal purposes--one needs to carefully observe and study their own inner space, so as to be able to differentiate between Level 2 and Level 3 experiences. Otherwise, wish-fulfillment and self-deception (Level 2 stuff) enter as complicating/contaminating variables.

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Understood, and to an extent I agree. However (and forgive me if I pontificate once more), the reason "mentalists" (I'm not crazy about that word either; sounds like a circus side-show or "Kreskinesque" and what has been called at times "radical behaviorism" don't agree is because removing the "O" does--as you've implied--leave glitches in explaining how S ---> R. But as you mentioned, one may need to better understand the "S-R" connection. It would certainly make things simpler from a problem-analysis and applied-solution perspective.

This reminds me a bit of the conundrum theoretical physicists are facing when dealing with unification theories, especially quantum gravity. Long-story short, they don't work so well until you interject the "unseen" variable of extra dimensions (comparable to the "O" in S-O-R). Then everything falls into place quite sweetly...except for the "problem" of now having these extra, unseen variables.

Perhaps, at times, the Simplification Pendulum can swing too far in the other direction?

Agreed that there is something that occurs between S and R. I do not have issue with O if it is necessary. My issue comes from the automatic jump to O without considering if O is necessary.

Now, as far as O goes, I believe that as physiological psychology progresses it will find the physiological cause of psychological phenomena. Given this, we will be able to experiment on these phenomena with observable result. This will open up more cognitive language to true scientific support.

Originally posted by Mindship
2. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and it is always a pleasure--as well as a learning experience--doing business with you. Agreeing to disagree works fine with me.

We can discuss this topic in more detail if you would like, I think we should move into the philosophy forum, or discuss it via PMs instead of in the religion forum, unless, of course, we are discussing psychological aspects of religious behavior.

Originally posted by Mindship
3. School shrink, yes.

I have a friend that is doing grad work in school psychology at the moment. I don't remember which school it was, but that was his aim.

Originally posted by Mindship
4. High schools, mostly spec ed. Ugh, don't get me started on "what's wrong with this picture." Another long story short: if Education (preparing for the real world) was valued 1/10 as much as, say, Entertainment (escaping from the real world), many short-comings, I feel, would've been adequately addressed a long time ago. But as someone once put it: what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid, and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?



Originally posted by Mindship
5. Understood and agreed. This is why I feel--even if only for personal purposes--one needs to carefully observe and study their own inner space, so as to be able to differentiate between Level 2 and Level 3 experiences. Otherwise, wish-fulfillment and self-deception (Level 2 stuff) enter as complicating/contaminating variables.

Agreed. Although I think that if a person has a valid religious experience that it will often, unless it is a blatantly overt experience, be indistinguishable event from their own personal internal dialogue.

I don't know whats going on, but I just read this "But as someone once put it: what can you expect from a society that puts real lemon juice in its dishwashing liquid, and artificial lemon flavor in its lemonade?"

My day is now

Originally posted by Regret
...the physiological cause of psychological phenomena...
Another word I'm not crazy about...in this context

Agreed. Although I think that if a person has a valid religious experience that it will often, unless it is a blatantly overt experience, be indistinguishable event from their own personal internal dialogue.
Yes. Thus, one of the tasks during meditation: looking past the inner dialogue (inner cinema?) and learning to differentiate what arises.


I wish I could remember who said it. It was years ago and has been a staple in my head ever since.

Originally posted by Mindship
Another word I'm not crazy about...in this context

Yes, and it was an inappropriate term for me to use "Cause" is a word I typically avoid, I'm not sure why I used it

Originally posted by Mindship
Yes. Thus, one of the tasks during meditation: looking past the inner dialogue (inner cinema?) and learning to differentiate what arises.

I am unsure if this is really possible. Given that all experience is interpretted by the brain. I believe that covert spiritual experience is something a person cannot be sure of.

Originally posted by Regret
I am unsure if this is really possible. Given that all experience is interpretted by the brain. I believe that covert spiritual experience is something a person cannot be sure of.

IMO, it is very difficult. I've been a meditator and lucid dreamer for many years, so I have (or at least, I like to think I have) some experience touring my own inner space. For what it's worth, I've had some "mildly eye-opening" experiences here/there, but nothing I would unequivocally label as Level 3. The various sources of mystical literature serve as some guide, but basically, I am very, Very, VERY conservative in interpreting what I experience.

1UP

1UP?

This is why I would evangelize if I were you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dh1W_pPnHk&search=evangelical

Originally posted by Nellinator
This is why I would evangelize if I were you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dh1W_pPnHk&search=evangelical

That was slightly entertaining, I couldn't decide if it was comedic support or a sarcastic attack.

Me either.

Originally posted by Nellinator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dh1W_pPnHk&search=evangelical

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lcpmBTyAZk&mode=related&search=evangelical
this is still my fav....

I like it better when they looked drugged and are trying to masturbate the air.

Its still funny.

Their shirts have nice design though.