New study proves someones "god" is nothing more than one's own image! Religion crumbles...

reply to post by Lilitu


Absolutely preachy. "lets treat this adult woman who is excited about a religious faith like a child. lets treat jesus christ like an invisible man at the table, because it makes me feel like a big girl."

If you're so insecure in your own beliefs that you have to brag about treating others like no-nothings, i feel sorry for you.

So much for reason

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Lilitu

 

What a rude, nasty and preachy thing to do. No wonder you were probably never invited back.

Ah so much for reading comprehension.

I don't need an invitation in my own home. And how was it rude to offer Jesus a drink? He's really real right? He's with us always right?

Preachy?

Was she a good friend, tho? I have a friend who nonstop talks about her boyfriend who is probably the most ridiculous person I have ever met. She is always pushing me to think the stuff he says is funny or cute when really I find it unsufferable. It is near non-stop.

However, she is my best friend so I listen.

Also, take MooCow and I. Atheist and God believer and yet...he worships me. He lets me talk all day long about Jesus. Oh, sure he won't tell you this. It would just make him appear weak, but in the comforts of his salon he lets me wax on wax on while I sip tea and eat crumpets.

What a good little MooCow.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Lilitu

 

Absolutely preachy. "lets treat this adult woman who is excited about a religious faith like a child. lets treat jesus christ like an invisible man at the table, because it makes me feel like a big girl."

If you're so insecure in your own beliefs that you have to brag about treating others like no-nothings, i feel sorry for you.

So much for reason

Pay attention. She did most of the talking. If anyone was "preachy" it was her. I just let her preach herself into a corner. As for treating her as a child, no. I treated her as a delusional adult. An adult with an imaginary friend. But that is rather childish don't you think? For a child it is, but for an adult it is pathological.

There is a old chinese proverb to the effect that the respectful person will not let his friend go out with his coat on awry. The best way to wake up the religiously delusional person is to hold up a "mirror". Confront and confound them with their own imagination. Realistically though, most of the time it won't happen without intervention and advanced detoxification therapies.

reply to post by Lilitu

So you proved to your friend that Jesus wasn't physically there in that room to drink that juice...but what does that have to do with proving he is a figment of your neighbor's imagination? Obvious, from her reaction, your neighbor never actually thought that Jesus was physically in the room with her.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't believe in Jesus either, but I don't understand what it is you think you proved by doing that.

If God exists, the manner in which each individual perceives God is irrelevant. Your neighbor may have devised a "special relationship" in her own mind concerning Jesus. However, Jesus could still exist even without your neighbor's imagination (or without your neighbor at all).

If a "supreme creator" exists, then it would still exist in the absence of organized religion (i.e. without worshipers).

[edit on 12/2/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Lilitu


intolerance masquerading as reason. how charming. i'm sure when you "exposed" her deeply held beliefs to be "delusions" you felt a lot better knowing there'd be one more person in the world just like you. maybe the OP was more right than i imagined. but listen to me talk about manners to someone who brags about being intolerant. ignore.

Good news, folks. The article described in the OP is now online, and it's free

www.pnas.org...

You can also download supporting information, which includes more details about methods and results. A link is provided on the page that comes up with the link given in this post.

Now, finally, it is possible to discuss the work itself. Enjoy.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits
Good news, folks. The article described in the OP is now online, and it's free

www.pnas.org...

Like I said before, isn't the conclusion of this study very obvious? Humans have free will, so I think it's obvious that their idea of God will be dependent on their own personal experiences and their own attitudes. Are there people who find the conclusion of the study surprising?

Furthermore, I think people KNOW that their own personal idea of God may differ from what their own religion tells them, and I think they are mostly OK with that -- the notion that their "tweaked" beliefs concerning God are a little better than what their religion's dogma is telling them to believe, but they still agree in general with church dogma.

I don't see this as the "crumbling of religions" (such as the OP claimed) because I think this is the way people have felt since the beginning of religion. This is not a new phenomenon.


[edit on 12/2/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

I'm finding this to be a very lively discussion. I've watching the back and forth, kind of taking a neutral observer stance. I spend alot of time (sometimes probably too much) contemplating the big what and why's of life. And I'm fortunate enough to have friends with enough depth and dimension to be able to have little existential roundtables where ideas can be exchanged face to face.
I believe in some sort of eternal transcendent energy. In my 20's and 30's I had a few experiences where I separated from my body. Where I literally felt my essence. I became aware of my energy, my chi or soul if you want to call it that. And it was also a disconnect from space/time. I was finite and infinite, i was eternal energy and yet, never existed, simultaneously. I was one with the entire universe but utterly alone. Looking back on those experiences definately leaves me with alot more questions than answers.
As far as organized religions are concerned, I don't have a very high opinion of their behavior. I think "GOD" as we call it, if real, is something so enormous, and so much more than this bearded night court judge it is painted to be.
I sometimes wonder if we are basically physical manifestations of God's imagination. Are we the energy that bridges the synaptic cleft of some other energy or entitiy?
That's my 2 cents in this discussion.
Thanks to the OP for sparking a nice debate this evening.

I don't see this as the "crumbling of religions" (such as the OP claimed)

Yes, I would be inclined to agree, but as you say, that was the OP talking. Now we get to look at the work itself, to see whether there is anything new and useful there.

I am still working on the article and supplemental material. It does seem, so far, that if atheists can spin this, then those of other faiths could spin it, too.

Can't you imagine a signboard outside a church? With the title of next Sunday's sermon:

When you talk with God, do you let Him get a word in?

Actually, the title of the article (not to be confused with the misleading title of this thread) is almost church-signboard material:

Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs

just a little stilted .

Originally posted by reasonable
scienceblogs.com...

Posted on: November 30, 2009 3:30 PM, by Ed Yong

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Wow, great stuff. I'm not religious but do have my own belief of "God," and this confirms that belief for me. You are made in your own image.

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought." - Buddha

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." - Comedian Bill Hicks

Asian cultures such as the Japanese bow because they are acknowledging the spark of God inside you. There is no bearded old man on a cloud watching you at all times to see if you're being bad or good; so be good for goodness sake! That's what the myth of Santa Claus is supposed to teach you! Surprise - your parents were pretending to be Santa! There is no entirely external & watchful God - it's you! (And every-one else as well. Not to say that a creator/demiurge doesn't exist, but if one does, does it matter? Would living in accord with nature change if you were being watched? If you act differently when there's a possible punishment (hell), then maybe you shouldn't be living among other people in the first place...).

"If you can't see God in everything, you can't see God in anything."

"We shall not cease from our exploration, and at the end of all our exploring, we shall arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." - T.S. Elliot

"Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens." - Carl Jung

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates (470-399 BCE)

"Know Thyself." - Oracle at Delphi

"I think therefore I am." - René Descartes (1596 - 1650)

"I saw faces coming towards me, but all were the same face... All were my face. I was not the center of the cosmos. I was the cosmos itself."

"There was one who arrived there, and when he lifted the veil, wonder above wonder, he saw himself!"

This same idea is presented in several movies, such as The Matrix, and the television series The Prisoner. Obviously, if you tell people that there is no vengeful god who punishes the wicked (which should be obvious from simple observation - the wicked always rule), and they arn't already morally/spiritually enlightened, then they might just go ape****crazy and run amok. That's why the secret that 'one can kill for gain' (or lie/cheat/steal - the lesson Cain learned when he killed his brother Abel and was not struck down) is kept from the profaine and only given to those who have "bettered themselves." Though today that just means paying your Freemasonry dues. (Cain is called a "Master Mahan" in Mormonism (Master of the Great Secret), or "Master Mason" to us.) It's like telling a child that he can do whatever he wants and he won't be punished. Well, obviously there's some kids who need that threat in order to live in peace with the other kids on the playground. Same goes for adults. Some people aren't mature enough to live with that knowledge.


“God does not need me or the church to defend God. Any God that I have to defend is a pretty weak God it seems to me, and any God the church needs to defend. I'm always amazed at religious people who somehow think I have the power to destroy God. The only power I might possibly have is the power to raise questions about their limited understanding of God. And if they've identified their limited understanding of God with all that God is, then it feels to them as if I'm destabilizing belief in God itself. I don't have that power. I certainly don't have that ability.” - Bishop John Shelby Spong



[edit on 12/2/2009 by ViolatoR]

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Lilitu

 

intolerance masquerading as reason. how charming. i'm sure when you "exposed" her deeply held beliefs to be "delusions" you felt a lot better knowing there'd be one more person in the world just like you.

No. I'd be happy if she were just herself which is why I exposed her to her own "reflection" as it were. I induced in her a state of hyperarousal. The so-called fight/flight response. She took flight. Another might have responded by fighting - becoming angry, making baseless accusations,hurling insults, attempts at demoralizing or dehumanizing the perceived threat or with violent action. You know. getting preachy.


You can be sure of what I think and feel? That's amazing! My own lover is not so insightful.

reply to post by A Fortiori

Also, take MooCow and I. Atheist and God believer and yet...he worships me. He lets me talk all day long about Jesus. Oh, sure he won't tell you this. It would just make him appear weak, but in the comforts of his salon he lets me wax on wax on while I sip tea and eat crumpets. What a good little MooCow.

That was so poetic I gave you a star, nothing is finer with tea in bone china, than the caress of your dulcet tones.

reply to post by reasonable


Everybody is the One Infiite creator in his own image. Think about it.

Everything IS 'God'. All is one infinte being.

That which is infinite cannot be many, for many-ness is a finite concept. To have infinity you must identify or define the infinity as unity; otherwise, the term does not have any referent or meaning. In an Infinite Creator there is only unity. You have seen simple examples of unity. You have seen the prism which shows all colors stemming from the sunlight. This is a simplistic example of unity.

Death is only of the body. This is why I iterate quite often, when asked for specific information, that it pales to insignificance, just as the grass withers and dies while the love and the light of the One Infinite Creator redounds to the very infinite realms of creation forever and ever, creating and creating itself in perpetuity.

Why then be concerned with the grass that blooms, withers and dies in its season only to grow once again due to the infinite love and light of the One Creator? This is the message I bring. Each entity is only superficially that which blooms and dies. In the deeper sense there is no end to being-ness.

Namaste brothers and sisters.

reply to post by Psychonaughty


Basically you just said what the bible says with "A house that is divided cannot stand" and "No one can serve two masters" except for that you've used it in a different context.

You've taken that house that was divided, and claimed it isn't so that it CAN stand. You've taken those two masters and called them ONE master....

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Lilitu

 

intolerance masquerading as reason. how charming. i'm sure when you "exposed" her deeply held beliefs to be "delusions" you felt a lot better knowing there'd be one more person in the world just like you.

No. I'd be happy if she were just herself which is why I exposed her to her own "reflection" as it were.

Ah! Perfect punctuation of the originating research. You created your friend in your own image. How do you know what "herself" is, if not for your deciding that for her. Somehow you have decided that "herself" is not someone who talks about Jesus. Perhaps, "you" don't talk about Jesus but your friend is most "herself" when doing so.

Perhaps, you ought to hold a mirror up to "yourself" and expose your own reflection sometime?

I induced in her a state of hyperarousal.

So you manipulated her into a response? Is this how you treat "friends" whose "self" is disagreeable to yours? You "induce them into a state of hyperarousal" versus asking them to sit down and have a crucial conversation about what subjects you feel uncomfortable with?

This is what the world of Christianity looks forward to if we leave the nest, so to speak? If condescension and high school experimentation is what awaits us in the secular world I would not be surprised that we all stayed blissfully ignorant. At least we wouldn't feel patronized.

The so-called fight/flight response. She took flight. Another might have responded by fighting - becoming angry, making baseless accusations,hurling insults, attempts at demoralizing or dehumanizing the perceived threat or with violent action. You know. getting preachy.

No, I believe that there is a great difference between "preachy" and "angry" that a supposed friend could find no other way to elaborate a point outside of deception.

You can be sure of what I think and feel? That's amazing! My own lover is not so insightful.

This is not surprising if the demonstration you enacted upon your Christian friend is any indication of a pattern.

Some of my girlfriends like to talk shoes and I could care less. Some talk about their boyfriends and I could care less. I assure you hearing about who had sex with who is as boring to me as hearing about Jesus is to you, but I forebear it because I love my friends. I don't try to change them into mini-mes just because I feel women should rise about stereotypes. If they are comfortable and happy then who am I to judge or try to change them.

That is the point of the article. We feel we wield this power to create because there is some trigger (perhaps a God gene) that makes us believe that we can do this. You can and ought to change your friend into someone you feel is less a drone. Because your brain is telling you that you are correct you do not see that you would be stealing from her one aspect of who she is, and therefore turning her into someone you would have her be..."herself".

Originally posted by Lilitu

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Lilitu

 

intolerance masquerading as reason. how charming. i'm sure when you "exposed" her deeply held beliefs to be "delusions" you felt a lot better knowing there'd be one more person in the world just like you.

No. I'd be happy if she were just herself which is why I exposed her to her own "reflection" as it were. I induced in her a state of hyperarousal. The so-called fight/flight response. She took flight. Another might have responded by fighting - becoming angry, making baseless accusations,hurling insults, attempts at demoralizing or dehumanizing the perceived threat or with violent action. You know. getting preachy.

This story you are telling has nothing to do with (a) one's personal faith in a god (do you really think you proved something to her? Do you think she thought Jesus was physically in the room?), or (b) The possible existence of a supreme god, or (c) the study presented by the OP.

...But, going back to your story:
Perhaps as soon as your neighbor started going on and on about Jesus, you could have simply told her that you were not a believer and that you don't want to have conversations about it.

I live near a seminary college for Baptists. We often get young "missionaries" from the college knocking at our door. I simply tell them truthfully and politely that I am not a Christian, and that I don't really care to talk about Jesus. They are very polite back to me, say a cheerful goodbye, and leave. There is no need to belittle anyone (on either side).

I think if I acted snarky towards these missionaries, they probably would have had the same "fight or flight" feeling that your neighbor had. The "fight or flight" from your neighbor was not caused by your feelings about Jesus, but rather caused by the WAY you expressed those feelings to her.

...i.e., she "took flight" because you were nasty to her, not because you think you shook her faith.

[edit on 12/3/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by tallcool1


You said it.

I was really losing faith that ATS still holds intelligent, rational, open minded investigators.

Thanks for actually getting what I was intending to say.

It's about time.

Originally posted by GideonHM
...I was really losing faith that ATS still holds intelligent, rational, open minded investigators...

Yes, I agree that many people on ATS don't debate properly

For example, I don't understand why when debating religious questions on ATS, a common retort from one "non-believer" to a comment from a "believer" is "that comment isn't very Christian of you". When someone uses that line as a comeback, it always seems to me that they are trying to hide behind it.

In reality, who cares how "Christian" a certain comment is when trying to debate? There are many debates going on in many different ATS forums. Nobody in those other debates ever says "that comment isn't very Christian of you", so why is that used all of the time on this forum?.

That is simply an ad hominem attack against the debater, not a valid logical argument against the debater's position.

I agree that ALL SIDES of this issue have people that are guilty of ad hominem attacks...that's not a productive way to have an intelligent debate on ATS.

Originally posted by emsed1
I think I can clear this up.

I just talked to God and He said that science doesn't exist!

It doesn't exist, nor does anything else. None of this is real.

Next time you talk to God try asking something useful?

Maybe?

We all see what happens when scientists get together and make up a story based on "research and facts."

Give us a break already. Scientists for the most part have no clue as to what is or is not... They have theories but their facts are either assumptions or outright lies as we have seen with Climate-Gate...

Good luck with your crusade "reasonable." Sounds like you would fit right in with the Proven Liars of Global Warming Theory...