Jump to content


Photo

Fjuri And Mike Start A Worldview From Scratch


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 January 2014 - 12:19 PM

Fjuri said 

I think a human being also created the idea of a God (theism).

I agree. I also agree that I created you in my mind. The point is why would I create the idea that you don't exist? I concede that you have the ability to un-create what I create. However, I do not believe that you need to do that for any special reason. As I have said before, I mean you no harm. I promised myself and you that I would not create anything that would harm you. So, what's the purpose of you attempting to un-create my God?

I belief we are part of evolution. Any action we take will affect the future (for most actions in a very small way). I understand evolution as nothing more then statistical observation (combined with some biological mechanics). Statistics I do understand. As with all statistics, the global outcome is unable to say anything about an individual's goals or actions. So I feel no need to 'enforce' or 'fight' evolution because of it.

You say you are a part of evolution but disagree that evolution is greater than you. I challenge you to create from scratch a single cell. If you can't do that, then evolution is greater than you and controls you.

Look at the statement that Jesus made, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Jesus is sending us a coded message. He is demonstrating what I call a 'thought pattern." See if you can observe the core idea being the same in these following statements.
1. "The environment exists for the benefit of people and not people for the benefit of the environment."
2. "Matter was made for the benefit of people and not people for the benefit of matter."
3. We control matter, it does not control us.
4 "I upset myself over what he said but, he did not upset me."
5. "It can't do anything to me but, I can do something to it."
6. "People are not disturbed by things but the views they take up things."
7. Ideas exist for our benefit and not us for the benefit of ideas.

Idolatry is the belief that "it" can do something to us.

Do you see the pattern that Jesus established in his statement? It is a control factor. We control it or our response to it, It does not control us.

"All that is necessary for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Another name for what you are describing is fatalism. Inertia has very little effect on anything. However I doubt if you could claim that what Martin Luther King did had little effect on the future. And then there was the terrorists that ran t planes inot The World Trade Center Towers.   I do not believe in fatalism. I believe that what I do can have a big effect on the future.

While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will be up to, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant. So says the statistician.
- Sir A. C. Doyle

This sort of logic is one of the reasons why I hold to the idea that we are individuals. I do not agree with Mr. Doyle's conclusion. First of all there is no such thing as an average person because we are  all totally unique. So, saying that there is an average person is ridiculous. His  two ideas contradict each other and therefore are a candidate for   my "I am not saying what I am saying"  award. we are beings not statistics. 

I do not have a belief in a creator God. The minister is aware of this.

Oh, I would disagree. You believe in a creator called evolution. Moreover, you are also a creator that needs to realize that your internal reality does not an external reality make-- something some of us call humility and lack of arrogance.

A lot of my morals and values coincide with those of the catholic church. It will also be easier to teach these to my children (when I have them) when making use of an established setting.

Cool. No need to reinvent the wheel?





 
 
 
 
.



#62 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 03 January 2014 - 02:29 AM

I agree. I also agree that I created you in my mind. The point is why would I create the idea that you don't exist? I concede that you have the ability to un-create what I create. However, I do not believe that you need to do that for any special reason. As I have said before, I mean you no harm. I promised myself and you that I would not create anything that would harm you. So, what's the purpose of you attempting to un-create my God?

In what way am I attempting to un-create your God?

 

You say you are a part of evolution but disagree that evolution is greater than you. I challenge you to create from scratch a single cell. If you can't do that, then evolution is greater than you and controls you.

You seem to have made a unnecessary connection between the concept of control and the concept of 'greater than'.

Evolution can do things I can't. It created beings from single cell organisms with cognitive senses.

I can do things evolution cant. I can make decisions.

Who is greater?

 

Look at the statement that Jesus made, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Jesus is sending us a coded message. He is demonstrating what I call a 'thought pattern." See if you can observe the core idea being the same in these following statements.
1. "The environment exists for the benefit of people and not people for the benefit of the environment."
2. "Matter was made for the benefit of people and not people for the benefit of matter."
3. We control matter, it does not control us.
4 "I upset myself over what he said but, he did not upset me."
5. "It can't do anything to me but, I can do something to it."
6. "People are not disturbed by things but the views they take up things."
7. Ideas exist for our benefit and not us for the benefit of ideas.

Idolatry is the belief that "it" can do something to us.

Do you see the pattern that Jesus established in his statement? It is a control factor. We control it or our response to it, It does not control us.

You are making a new definition of greater then here. We can control or response to evolution, it does not control us. Even if we are unable to create organisms from scratch.

 

"All that is necessary for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Another name for what you are describing is fatalism. Inertia has very little effect on anything. However I doubt if you could claim that what Martin Luther King did had little effect on the future. And then there was the terrorists that ran t planes inot The World Trade Center Towers.   I do not believe in fatalism. I believe that what I do can have a big effect on the future.

Yet the decision where I get my bread does not make the world go around. I said "Any action we take will affect the future" and added for correctness that most of our actions only affect it in a small way. How do you get from that that I would say that our actions are useless?

 

This sort of logic is one of the reasons why I hold to the idea that we are individuals. I do not agree with Mr. Doyle's conclusion. First of all there is no such thing as an average person because we are  all totally unique. So, saying that there is an average person is ridiculous. His  two ideas contradict each other and therefore are a candidate for   my "I am not saying what I am saying"  award. we are beings not statistics. 

He did not claim there is an average person. He also calls everyone unique. He talks about the apparent paradox. We can both be a being and a statistic.

 

Oh, I would disagree. You believe in a creator called evolution. Moreover, you are also a creator that needs to realize that your internal reality does not an external reality make-- something some of us call humility and lack of arrogance.

Cool. No need to reinvent the wheel?

I do not believe in a creator called evolution. Evolution is not a being.
We are back to calling atheists arrogant? Have we come full circle?



#63 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 January 2014 - 03:40 PM

Fjuri said:

In what way am I attempting to un-create your God?

by telling me that there is no God. You seem to want me to agree with that by calling you an atheist. To me to try to believe yes and no at the same time causes cognitive dissonance. To keep peace in my mind I call you an alleged atheist. Are you saying you find that compromise offensive?

You seem to have made a unnecessary connection between the concept of control and the concept of 'greater than'.
Evolution can do things I can't. It created beings from single cell organisms with cognitive senses.
I can do things evolution cant. I can make decisions.
Who is greater?

I would say you are greater. I also would consider me confirming your atheism a connection that does not have to be made. I decided not to make it.

You are making a new definition of greater then here. We can control or response to evolution, it does not control us. Even if we are unable to create organisms from scratch.

You are simply restating what I said.

He did not claim there is an average person. He also calls everyone unique. He talks about the apparent paradox. We can both be a being and a statistic.

You are doing the same thing that I was guilty of. You are connecting two different things together. I am not a statistic nor do I believe you are. Furthermore, there is no average individual. The terms contradict each other. An intelligent being has drawn some conclusions that he didn't have to do. Guess what? I decided not to draw the same conclusions.

I do not believe in a creator called evolution. Evolution is not a being. We are back to calling atheists arrogant? Have we come full circle?

If  an  atheists could exist, I would call them arrogant. I see you as a human being that is telling himself there is no God. Yes, I do believe that that is a silly thing to tell oneself with no evidence. That's why I  compromise and call you an alleged atheist. It means the same thing as agnostic. If you wish, I give you my permission to call me an alleged theist. Once again I remind you I do not have the power to change your view of who can or can't exist. However I do have the ability to determine whether I believe that you have said power. I don't believe you have that power.
 



#64 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 03 January 2014 - 03:58 PM

by telling me that there is no God. You seem to want me to agree with that by calling you an atheist. To me to try to believe yes and no at the same time causes cognitive dissonance. To keep peace in my mind I call you an alleged atheist. Are you saying you find that compromise offensive?

So it is not a compromise between you and me, but a defensive mechanism for protecting yourself. When we resort to the 5 stages of grief:

1- denial
2- anger
3- bargaining
4- depression
5- acceptance

You seem to be in stage 1, denial.

 

I would say you are greater. I also would consider me confirming your atheism a connection that does not have to be made. I decided not to make it.

I understand you now, see above.

 

You are doing the same thing that I was guilty of. You are connecting two different things together. I am not a statistic nor do I believe you are.

We are statistics. We are more then that of course, but it is one of the many things we are. :)

 

Furthermore, there is no average individual. The terms contradict each other. An intelligent being has drawn some conclusions that he didn't have to do. Guess what? I decided not to draw the same conclusions.

I find it odd that you as a psychologist did not go through intensive statistic courses, in Belgium, statistics are an important part of psychology teaching.

 

If  an  atheists could exist, I would call them arrogant.

You are stating an atheist can't exist. And then you call them arrogant because under your definition they make a statement about who can't exist. LOL :)

 

I see you as a human being that is telling himself there is no God. Yes, I do believe that that is a silly thing to tell oneself with no evidence. That's why I  compromise and call you an alleged atheist. It means the same thing as agnostic. If you wish, I give you my permission to call me an alleged theist.

You already gave me that permission, and in my head you are already an alleged Christian. :)


 



#65 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 January 2014 - 06:17 PM

Fjuri said:
 

1- denial
2- anger
3- bargaining
4- depression
5- acceptance
You seem to be in stage 1, denial

You seem to be confusing two different schools of psychology. The one you are speaking of reminds me of Freudian psychoanalytical psychology. I am more of a cognitive therapist. I am not a psychiatrist either. A psychiatrist can prescribe drugs for emotional disturbance caused by say depletion of neural transmitters such as dopamine or serotonin. Zoloft is a, a common serotonin uptake inhibitor. It is alleged that depletion of this neural transmitter commonly causes depression. If I determine someone has a chemical imbalance I will referred them to a psychiatrist or a medical doctor. I do not believe you have such a conduction.
The cognitive psychology I practice is tempered by Christianity. The Bible calls it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You seem to be gorging yourself on it.

The premise of cognitive psychology is that, "people are disturbed not by things but the views they take of things." It was not nakedness that embarrassed Adamand and Eve but their change in views of nakedness. The Bible confirms this premise because there is no goodness or evilness external to the human mind. It's all in the way we look at things. The Bible talks about idolatry. I'm sure you realize that the children of Israel created a golden calf and then worshiped it claiming it had powers that he didn't have. That's what I mean when I talk about us having dominion over the environment. You can pray to all the golden calf's in the world but they will not answer you. Your mental well-being is determined by your internal dialogue--the conversation you have with yourself from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep. You call it atheism. But your philosophical statements can easily be changed and that's what I try and do as a therapist. I said "try" on purpose because all my clients run their own minds.

I am looking at your list. Firstly I totally disagree with the hierarchy of my so called defense mechanism. These ideas are straight out of Freud . This is what I would tell my client to do. Where you have number five, that would be what I would tell my client to do first . 1.) Accept often obnoxious reality. I would hope they would follow my example and skip one through four. If we quickly accept reality, there is no need for anger or the other emotions you list. I like cognitive therapy because it cuts through all the garbage. It is a clear concise way to circumvent emotional disturbance and consequent poor behavior.



#66 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:43 PM

Here is a link to the short versuin of the famous NOVACO Anger Inventory. It is self
scoring so you can maintain you privacy. I use it to help me help my clients. http://www.marriagec...lty/anger2.html

#67 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:23 AM

Do I seem angry to you? Remember this is a forum in which messages are conveyed in a language that is not my own. If you think the tone of my messages are angry, please let me know.

I was amazed both you and Adam though I said I would leave the forum when I said that the experiment was over from my end. It does not do to continue on a track with a companion who says "I'm rubber and you're glue." regardless of how poetic it is stated. The effort should have come from both sides.

 

The cognitive psychology I practice is tempered by Christianity. The Bible calls it the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You seem to be gorging yourself on it.

Please explain this further, I do not understand.

 

Also, I still have no answer why you didn't keep your end of the agreement and went for "christian agnostic" rather then "agnostic".



#68 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 January 2014 - 12:45 PM

Fjuri said

Do I seem angry to you? Remember this is a forum in which messages are conveyed in a language that is not my own. If you think the tone of my messages are angry, please let me know.
I was amazed both you anre equalsd Adam though I said I would leave the forum when I said that the experiment was over from my end. It does not do to continue on a track with a companion who says "I'm rubber and you're glue." regardless of how poetic it is stated. The effort should have come from both sides.

At times, yes. Anger is an emotion is triggered by cognition mostly. When one's internal view of reality disagrees with external reality, the emotion anger is created by the mind. It can, if not excessive, motivate  and fencourage modification of future reality by modifications of cause.. If that is not done, a particular cause will keep initiating its undesireable effect.. I sometimes call an undesireable effect obnoious reality. In my mind I have replaced "anger" with appropriate concern. The YHerkes-Dodson psychological law states that over concern is as bad as under concern.

You could for, example, cause yourself to be "angry " at me because I keep referring to you as an "alleged atheist." You could create the idea (a cause for producing an effect) that I don't respect you and that I don't think we are equals.

I have observed that most of the time people are talking and writing they are talking to themselves and telling themselves several untruthes (denying realty-lying to themselves). Ultimately they want their listeners to "confirm" what they say as "the truth." The lies people tell themselves are  what causes their emotional disturbance (their tree or worldview) not what is said to them..

Depending on how strongly your view of external reality is denied by your beliefs, you could create intense anger. . Many people  often believe that your anger will upset them. Thus the stage is set for people to neurotically interact with other people who believe you upset them. I am trying to persuade you that only you can upset you by your conflicts with external reality. Not many people realize what I am trying to teach you.

Take the test and see how you score and if you are not satisfied with the result I can show you some tips to calm youself down.

If I can be brutally honest about why I compromised and called myself a Christian Agnostic? It was because I was "playing" to two audiences. I learned this from Jesus who did it to at times to avoid neurotic interactions with the Phrasees before "His time." . Moreover, it would be easy to misunderstand my motive. I wanted to show you I think we are equals without my fellow Christians thinking I abadoned the faith. Jesus said He would leave the 99 to go after the one that went astray. I realized that sending a conflicting messagge would cause some to question my motive and perhaps destroy trust but, I risked that. Forunately I think most figured out what I was doing.

Most people do not undersrtand the process of taking to themselves the knowledge of good an evil. The tree is symbolic of a worldview, religion or philosophy of life. It is our worldview that is the cause of conflict with ourselves and others. There are 7 billion worldviews on the planet earth.

Most people don't know what is meant by the symbol of a tree mentioned in the Bible. So they are constantly blaming external stimuli. This is a mis-diagnosis, "'It' made me mad" "You upset me!" Etc.



#69 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:31 PM

I am learning/understanding some of your psychology teaching. I did the test, and if I would tell you the result you would not belief it, or you would belief I have fooled myself. ;)

 

When we circle back to our agreement, you compromised within a compromised. We, you and I, had an agreement. You broke it because you wanted to compromise with a third party. If you do this without informing me, how will you and I conduct our agreements in the future? How will I be able to trust you in the future?



#70 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:22 PM

We are all individuals. I would not be surprised. I really didn't mean to deceive you. However trust is something you have to create. It is faith based. It is easy to destroy and difficult to create. I have a trust problems with you over your inability to compromise over your alleged atheism. The idea is that if you are "demanding" in one area of your mental life, you will be demanding in other areas.

 

The only thing we can do about the past is accept it and minimize it's negative effect which is usually, "Much ado about nothing." "What will "it" matter 300 years frpm now (this is called :"distancing."

 

What harm (when you think about it)  has actually been done to you? It's all imagined.  80  percent of our thinking is pure fiction and  alleged "horrors" based on our ability to exaggerate.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users