https://www.facebook.com/RussellBrand/videos/10155411532683177/

God and the Jungian concept of the "Self" are one and the same.

A generic belief in a divine parent-like creator is not stupid. It may not be based on facts, but it's no worse than any other wishful thinking.

I think what's stupid is believing in specific details about a god, i.e. what (s)he looks like, acts like, her/his relationship with human beings, how "my god can beat up your god", etc.

I shouldn’t encourage you koriwhore, but what the hell:

“Does that mean that what we see is dependent on our religious beliefs? Yes! And what we don’t see, as well! You might object, “But i’m An atheist.” No, you’re *not* (and if you want to understand this, perhaps the greatest novel ever written, in which the main character, Raskilnikov, decides to take his atheism with true seriousness, commits what he has rationalized as a benevolent murder, and pays the price). You’re simply not an atheist in your actions, and it is your actions that most accurately reflect your deepest beliefs —those that are implicit, embedded in your being, underneath your conscious apprehensions and articulable attitudes and surface-level self-knowledge. You can only find out what you actually believe (rather than what you think you believe) by watching how you act. You simply don’t know what you believe, before that. You are too complex to understand yourself.”

—Jordan Peterson—
—12 Rules Of Life—

"You’re simply not an atheist in your actions, and it is your actions that most accurately reflect your deepest beliefs —those that are implicit, embedded in your being, underneath your conscious apprehensions and articulable attitudes and surface-level self-knowledge. You can only find out what you actually believe (rather than what you think you believe) by watching how you act. You simply don’t know what you believe, before that. You are too complex to understand yourself."

COMMENT: As I see it, one's inner beliefs, motivations, moral sense, etc. are complicated structures within a worldview, very often conflicted. Our actions are *not* simply the rote product of an unconscious, algorithmic weighing process by whatever brain states that instantiate these structures, and related ones. As human beings, and conscious moral agents, we choose our actions based upon our conscious weighing of these conflicting belief structures, often adjusting them in the process. Our moral actions do not reflect who we really are, or what our "real" beliefs are, they represent deliberate choices under difficult and often conflicting moral commitments. Sometimes we act in opposition to one or more of our inner beliefs, which creates stress. But also, we frequently and consciousness suppress one moral dictate for another that is deemed to be more appropriate for the given circumstances.

Call me old-fashioned, but I will take old-time freewill over psychobabble any day!

Obviously none of this is as you frame it, all or nothing.

That our unconscious influences us unawares does not preclude 'free will'. And yes, we are not only what we do but we are also what we think and feel. In other words, you exercising your 'free will' to denigrate psychology as "babble" does not negate the fact that your unconscious has influence over you in ways you do not understand (and it seems, do not wish to understand).

I freely will myself to include a quote from Jung, just to pique you a little:

"Although our civilized consciousness has separated itself from the instincts, the instincts have not disappeared; they merely lost their contact with consciousness. They are thus forced to assert themselves in an indirect way, through what Janet called automatisms. These take the form of symptoms in the case of a neurosis or, in normal cases, of incidents of various kinds, like unaccountable moods, unexpected forgetfulness, mistakes in speech, and so on. Such manifestations show very clearly the *autonomy* of archetypes. It is easy to believe that one is master in one's own house, but, as long as we are unable to control our emotions and moods, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factors insinuate themselves into our arrangements and decisions, we are certainly not the masters. On the contrary, we have so much reason for uncertainty that it will be better to look twice at what we are doing."

--Carl Jung--
--The Undiscovered Self--

Deny this, set yourself up as absolute master of your own house, and I guess you are that one of kind conqueror:

"If one man conquer in a battle a thousand times a thousand men, and if another conquer himself, he is the greatest of the conquerors."

--The Dhammapada--

I had no idea your meditation had taken you so far...

Cheers,

Human

(By the way, just to make things clear, I am reading Peterson out of obligation, not pleasure.)

"That our unconscious influences us unawares does not preclude 'free will'. And yes, we are not only what we do but we are also what we think and feel. In other words, you exercising your 'free will' to denigrate psychology as "babble" does not negate the fact that your unconscious has influence over you in ways you do not understand (and it seems, do not wish to understand)."

COMMENT: "Do not understand" I can take, but "Do not wish to understand?" Then why have I read so much psychology? I use the term "psychobabble" in particular cases when I think it fits, not as a judgement of psychology per se. True, I have a problem with theoretical psychology, but clinical psychology works, including cognitive therapy, which supports my insistence on freewill; but also supports your point, i.e. that we often do not have a firm grasp as to who we are, and what is influencing our thoughts and behavior. So, I won't argue your point.
_____________________________________

I freely will myself to include a quote from Jung, just to pique you a little:

"Although our civilized consciousness has separated itself from the instincts, the instincts have not disappeared; they merely lost their contact with consciousness. They are thus forced to assert themselves in an indirect way, through what Janet called automatisms. These take the form of symptoms in the case of a neurosis or, in normal cases, of incidents of various kinds, like unaccountable moods, unexpected forgetfulness, mistakes in speech, and so on. Such manifestations show very clearly the *autonomy* of archetypes. It is easy to believe that one is master in one's own house, but, as long as we are unable to control our emotions and moods, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factors insinuate themselves into our arrangements and decisions, we are certainly not the masters. On the contrary, we have so much reason for uncertainty that it will be better to look twice at what we are doing."

--Carl Jung--
--The Undiscovered Self--

COMMENT: More psychobabble. Sorry. I do not have a problem with stating the mere fact that we are to some extent influenced by unconscious thoughts and feelings. But inventing concepts and then generating unsupportable metaphysical explanations is not helpful to any understanding. It only adds even more mystery to something that is already mysterious without help from psychology.
_____________________________________________________

"Deny this, set yourself up as absolute master of your own house, and I guess you are that one of kind conqueror:

COMMENT: Hogwash. (If I may use a scientific term) I do not need psychology, or its bogus "theories" to tell me that my conscious self is to some extent complex and mysterious. The next thing they will tell me is that it is all because of my relationship with my mother.
______________________________________________________

"If one man conquer in a battle a thousand times a thousand men, and if another conquer himself, he is the greatest of the conquerors."

--The Dhammapada--

COMMENT: I am glad you added this. This is poetic; a matter for thought and reflection, without psychological theory imposing itself upon us.
________________________________________________________

I had no idea your meditation had taken you so far...

COMMENT: I will take that as a personal insult, not worthy of a response.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: I will take that as a personal insult,
> not worthy of a response.

Or, you could will yourself to see it more as
the gentle poke of a long time friend.

Yo momma mean to you when youze a wee boy, Henry?

That too, was a gentle poke.

(By the way, Jung was and Peterson is a clinical
psychologist, with patients and everything, for whatever
you think that is worth. ---I always love in this genre
of writing how "I once had a patient who..." always comes in
to back up a phenomena explained, just in the nick of time.)

Why in the world does anyone listen to that man?

He's nothing but chaos and noise and rehearsed lines he likely stays up nights writing. No substance.

CateS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why in the world does anyone listen to that man?
>
>
> He's nothing but chaos and noise and rehearsed
> lines he likely stays up nights writing. No
> substance.

Which man?

Just the nonexistent ones.

Cpete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just the nonexistent ones.


That's the thing.
How do you distinguish between the 'nonexistent ones' and the 'existent ones'?
What if I said God is the Great Attractor?
Or God is the God Particle, minus the particle?
Or God is Mother Nature?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cpete Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just the nonexistent ones.
>
>
> That's the thing.
> How do you distinguish between the 'nonexistent
> ones' and the 'existent ones'?
> What if I said God is the Great Attractor?
> Or God is the God Particle, minus the particle?
> Or God is Mother Nature

What if you did? You'd be pantheist. Go ahead. Be one.

we're just sick of hearing about your pet delusion endlessly. Give it a rest already. It has nothing to do with recovering from Mormonism.

What if?
https://youtu.be/AY-2einPmd4
Attractor
Higgs
Nature



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2018 11:42PM by Cpete.

I of course, do not think it is stupid to believe in God.

However, I think the more important belief/knowledge is what you believe 'we' are and our relationship to God.

I am not talking about the temporary 'human' suit we are wearing!

If you understand who/what 'we' are and our relationship to 'God' then you understand a lot about God!

If you understand neither ------ it is ok, you are not alone!

I don't think it is useful to call people stupid, just because of a difference in belief.

I think the more pertinent question with belief in God or religion is whether the belief is helping the person to live a better life or not.

The dark side of religion has cost so many people their lives and caused so much harm that it should not be underestimated. And that line comes from a retired Protestant Bishop, not an atheist.

State atheist governments killed more people than Hitler in the last century.

When the radical end of atheism realizes it can't get everybody to follow their ideals, they have a tendency to use force. That is where the atheism of Richard Dawkins will lead if unchecked.

Is it stupid to believe that for which there is no evidence ?

It is stupid to leave a cult and become a fanatic of a different variety, and to follow a number of bad new role models.

give example

Some exmos have never released themselves from their missions. The badge might have changed, but still...

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it stupid to believe that for which there is no
> evidence ?
What's the evidence for "Dark Mattet/Energy"?
Astro Physicists believe it accounts for 96% of the universe, otherwise their math is off by 96%. Is that evidence of something? Or is the mere absence of 96% of the cosmos, enough to justify belief in something, rather than nothing?
Personally I think Dark Matter could just be the Great Attractor (Yin) and Dark Energy could just be the God Particle (Yang) and together they balance out to where the immutable laws of nature (Tao) create the conditions where E=mc^2 and m=E/c^2
"Yes I believe in God, if by the word God you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws of Nature." Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 04:50PM by koriwhore.

There is no evidence o of dark matter. There are underlying evidences that give their support to something that some theories call dark matter. To invest it as belief seems foolsih when it could turn out to not exist at all. That's the thing with science. It's provisional. The confidence interval for dark matter is currently low , though forecast to improve?

What does that have to do with belief?

Or the psuedomath you use to create false equivalencies? Oh that's all about belief. Right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 06:07PM by dogblogger.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

I'm not following?

Read it again. My tablet hiccuped while writing and posted empty. I edited the post while you were reading.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no evidence o of dark matter. There are
> underlying evidences that give their support to
> something that some theories call dark matter. To
> invest it as belief seems foolsih when it could
> turn out to not exist at all. That's the thing
> with science. It's provisional. The confidence
> interval for dark matter is currently low , though
> forecast to improve?
>
> What does that have to do with belief?
>
> Or the psuedomath you use to create false
> equivalencies? Oh that's all about belief. Right.

It's not psuedo math to say that Dark Matter/energy is a fudge factor to account for the 95% of the universe that's missing from our standard model of cosmology, according to NASA,

"What Is Dark Energy?
More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the universe."

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

What's that got to do with belief?
Like Joseph Cambel said, "Belief is the way men have always formed connections with the Cosmos which is otherwise far too vast, hostile and mysterious for us to form a personal connection with it."

Like Sagan said, "An Atheist would have to know a lot more about the Cosmos than me."

Which is basically the reason I don't call myself an atheist. I don't know near as much about the Cosmos as the guy who wrote the book on it. My beliefs align 99% with Einstein's, the 1% being that I think god (nature) does play dice with the universe.

I'w with Neil deGrasse Tyson 99.99% of the time.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/04/neil_degrasse_tyson_explains_why_hes_uncomfortable_being_labeled_an_atheist.html

What's the appeal with Russell Brand? Not funny, not good looking, can't act, can't sing, needs constant attention (like Stephen Fry)... the only good thing about the man is he kicked drugs... taking life advice from that mess though? No thanks.

It's clear someone out there hasn't read Jung...