Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
EliPage

Why people believe?

352 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jmccr8
3 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

( Ok, I'm thinking I'm heading down a line of complete confusion. :o ) I guess, I'm trying to figure out what you mean in the middle of your post.

I'm not sure if this is what is confusing or not, to me religion, govt and most organizations have activities that are somewhat specific to them, like the pie of what is human has been allotted to each governing aspect of man. It's not like religion created being good to each other, that existed before religion and religion is dependent on the qualities that have been given to it. Religion  is a social evolutionary aspect of man's interactions not the instigator all the good and bad that can be expressed though man/mankind existed before religion. So I suppose in a sense religion conforms what exists into itself rather than create. I hope I answered the right question:)

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
17 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Though, what gets me, is everyday situations occur, and some die hard religious individual will say, 'God did it!' despite not knowing really how that could have occurred. *shrugs* 

That may be just as simple as they don't want to know anymore for whatever reason. Over the years I have met people who are comfortable with the easy answer and let it go at that because they don't have to invest themselves into an answer for themselves. This is not unique I see it with people at work and other venues of human exchanges, something gets messed up and rather than see if oneself is the cause or some other influence they just oh well the boss will take care of it. :lol:

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
21 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I'm not sure if this is what is confusing or not, to me religion, govt and most organizations have activities that are somewhat specific to them, like the pie of what is human has been allotted to each governing aspect of man. It's not like religion created being good to each other, that existed before religion and religion is dependent on the qualities that have been given to it. Religion  is a social evolutionary aspect of man's interactions not the instigator all the good and bad that can be expressed though man/mankind existed before religion. So I suppose in a sense religion conforms what exists into itself rather than create. I hope I answered the right question:)

jmccr8

Great point, My two cents is religion seems to be more of a reflection, retelling of what we as human's understand and value. Humans make it up, of course there are as many belief systems as their are people. Attachment and bonding is in our genes. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 3/12/2017 at 3:02 PM, eight bits said:

Our issue here, however, has been whether the Piraha practice their religion, not Everett's "former" religion. Scare quotes indicate that while Everett may no longer consciously subscribe to Evangelical Protestantism (to which he was a convert), he maintains a lot of its worldview and framing assumptions

Hi Eight Bits,

I have been thinking about this and tend to agree that there is an assumption of a religious nature of man and that those that practice a religion would view/observe another group from the position that they are familiar with and make associations. Whether those associations are accurate descriptions may come into question.

In other areas of human interactions and social settings I have had the opportunity to observe first hand, my inclination is to let things follow a path without influencing the path. This can be difficult at times because I am the unknown so if others are  aware of my observation they may not behave in the same manner and skew the information to some degree. If I have been accepted and in the position of an observer without leading or imposing a situation I have a fuller picture and how it relates to the group within the context of the group. These are not the types of situations where time can be rushed and an individual must be patient to see how one instance can make an effect and to what range of influence does it exert.

 If I was an observer to the Piraha given my view on human interactions and what god means to me I would very likely come to some different conclusions, this is not to say that the observations that have been made are wrong, only that the criteria used to make observations is different.

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
20 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Man, jmccr, did I ever welcome you here properly?!?

The fact that we can have such exchanges is welcome enough.There are several members here that I have been exposed to in the last few months that I enjoy yourself included.:D

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I guess, there really isn't an end to learning of it all, is there?

That is why life is interesting,learning is my god at work.:D

 

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

( I also want to say, you are one of those many posters here, who make my synapses dance. I like it when they dance!! :D

Thank you I hope your hubby doesn't mind :lol:

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

He is about to go on a  OS business trip         ;)      ;)         

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Stubbly

Quote

Now, if I'm understanding you correctly, it seems to boil down to the symbolism.

Yes. I think to understand any of this, the reader needs to step away from the literal, as beautifully crafted as many of the religious narratives are as "magical realism." But even as I say that, the symbol wouldn't be as powerful as it is if it weren't for the grit of the concrete reference.

For example, one of the problems in historical Jesus is that both sides  acknowledge that in the first centuries, there was a competition between ideas of Jesus as some kind of angelic being, versus some kind of flesh-and-blood being.

All the competitors agreed (so far as we can see) that there was "a" crucifixion. "A" crucifixion because there were different theories about whether the event was earthly or heavenly, real or some kind of illusion, Jesus or somebody else who died in his place, maybe an angel who pretended to die, maybe it wounded Jesus, but didn't really kill him, ...

Today, there is almost only one of those scenarios left standing: the real man nailed alive to a wooden frame and left to die there. That's not a depressing image because the story doesn't end there. But there is no point to the image at all except that it is concrete, no power in it if it's just a trick, or mistaken identity or whatever other alternatives might have been floated.

When a Big Idea meets its perfect Concrete Representation, then that's a powerful symbol, and it simply clobbers the human central nervous system. Which is also why you could have a world religion without any real man ever being nailed up. You only need the story of a real-in-the-story man being nailed up, or else its equaivalent. The story carries the message, whether it "really happened" or not, so long as it is concrete and matches the "real message."

Quote

So, my personal question of the day would be are those who study religions, some kind of religious, or they are in a different group separated by the actual religious?

You might want to look into the biography of Joseph Campbell, the mythologist. Few people have ever studied religions more than him. Was he religious himself? Not any religion that has a name (after childhood), but few devotees of named religions invest the effort Campbell did in developing his own personal spiritual stance.

Carl Jung or William Butler Yeats would be another two similar examples. A biased sample, since I admire all three, but "some kind of religious" describes them all.

William James would be in that league, as far as "student of religions" goes, but I don't know how "personally religious" he was. I should find out :) .

Jm

Quote

 If I was an observer to the Piraha given my view on human interactions and what god means to me I would very likely come to some different conclusions, this is not to say that the observations that have been made are wrong, only that the criteria used to make observations is different.

One of the things that comes up all over this site, whether it's relgion, or UFO's, or ghosts, ..., there is experience, and then there is the interpretation of experience. It is hugely difficult to separate out the two, and even trained people lapse. (Robert Heinlein's parable: Q. "What color is that house over there?" A. "This side is painted white.")

I have no conclusion to offer after that observation :) .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Beauty is not a criterion of truth.  Nor is the fact that some idea is appealing.  Nor that it is traditional or has many believers.  Nor that it is either ancient or modern.  Nor that we saw it with our own eyes or thought it up ourselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Frank

Quote

Beauty is not a criterion of truth.

No, but it is a criterion of worth. Non-unique and admissible. As such, it enjoys considerable real-world use as a search heuristic.

Quote

Nor that it is traditional or has many believers.

As a heurstic, that, too, has traditionally had many believers. So to speak.

Quote

Nor that it is either ancient or modern.

Being both has a certain charm, however.

Quote

Nor that we saw it with our own eyes or thought it up ourselves.

That depends on who "we" are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
16 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I'm not sure if this is what is confusing or not, to me religion, govt and most organizations have activities that are somewhat specific to them, like the pie of what is human has been allotted to each governing aspect of man. It's not like religion created being good to each other, that existed before religion and religion is dependent on the qualities that have been given to it. Religion  is a social evolutionary aspect of man's interactions not the instigator all the good and bad that can be expressed though man/mankind existed before religion. So I suppose in a sense religion conforms what exists into itself rather than create. I hope I answered the right question:)

I actually think you did! :D  :tu:  

And I agree with you, by my observation. Now, I wonder, if my belief feels it has started that, or it too conformed with it to exist in calm and serenity. :hmm:   

:D  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

That may be just as simple as they don't want to know anymore for whatever reason. Over the years I have met people who are comfortable with the easy answer and let it go at that because they don't have to invest themselves into an answer for themselves. This is not unique I see it with people at work and other venues of human exchanges, something gets messed up and rather than see if oneself is the cause or some other influence they just oh well the boss will take care of it. :lol:

Yup, that's how I feel with some who do this. Though, there have been a few (or more) who understand both sides of the fence of this, and yet reconcile it. I feel, I'm like that. *shrugs* 

I wonder though, for those who do this and their sake, that how much they are hurting themselves in the long run. 

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Great point, My two cents is religion seems to be more of a reflection, retelling of what we as human's understand and value. Humans make it up, of course there are as many belief systems as their are people. Attachment and bonding is in our genes. 

:tu: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Eight Bits,

I have been thinking about this and tend to agree that there is an assumption of a religious nature of man and that those that practice a religion would view/observe another group from the position that they are familiar with and make associations. Whether those associations are accurate descriptions may come into question.

In other areas of human interactions and social settings I have had the opportunity to observe first hand, my inclination is to let things follow a path without influencing the path. This can be difficult at times because I am the unknown so if others are  aware of my observation they may not behave in the same manner and skew the information to some degree. If I have been accepted and in the position of an observer without leading or imposing a situation I have a fuller picture and how it relates to the group within the context of the group. These are not the types of situations where time can be rushed and an individual must be patient to see how one instance can make an effect and to what range of influence does it exert.

 If I was an observer to the Piraha given my view on human interactions and what god means to me I would very likely come to some different conclusions, this is not to say that the observations that have been made are wrong, only that the criteria used to make observations is different.

jmccr8

I love this. I wonder if it resembles me. *shrugs* 

And there was a context you pointed out, about how one instance of behavior and it's effect ( and the speed it takes ) and wondering how there is a chain or domino effect. I have noticed how some particular religious individuals think that anyone's one little movement in life, effects everyone else. I wonder, if that is true to an extant, but not as a given to think you would want to control someone else's behavior cause it effects your own. 

I guess, it depends on how one wants to be self-absorbed in their world view or not. Or just realize that you have to be content that a big part of society ( and others ) is none of your business. 

If I got this correctly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
15 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

The fact that we can have such exchanges is welcome enough.There are several members here that I have been exposed to in the last few months that I enjoy yourself included.:D

Awww, shucks, thanks! :blush:  :D  

14 hours ago, jmccr8 said:
16 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I guess, there really isn't an end to learning of it all, is there?

That is why life is interesting,learning is my god at work.:D

 

Nicely put! :tu: 

 

14 hours ago, jmccr8 said:
16 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

( I also want to say, you are one of those many posters here, who make my synapses dance. I like it when they dance!! :D

Thank you I hope your hubby doesn't mind :lol:

;)  :lol: 

 

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

Yes. I think to understand any of this, the reader needs to step away from the literal, as beautifully crafted as many of the religious narratives are as "magical realism." But even as I say that, the symbol wouldn't be as powerful as it is if it weren't for the grit of the concrete reference.

For example, one of the problems in historical Jesus is that both sides  acknowledge that in the first centuries, there was a competition between ideas of Jesus as some kind of angelic being, versus some kind of flesh-and-blood being.

All the competitors agreed (so far as we can see) that there was "a" crucifixion. "A" crucifixion because there were different theories about whether the event was earthly or heavenly, real or some kind of illusion, Jesus or somebody else who died in his place, maybe an angel who pretended to die, maybe it wounded Jesus, but didn't really kill him, ...

Today, there is almost only one of those scenarios left standing: the real man nailed alive to a wooden frame and left to die there. That's not a depressing image because the story doesn't end there. But there is no point to the image at all except that it is concrete, no power in it if it's just a trick, or mistaken identity or whatever other alternatives might have been floated.

When a Big Idea meets its perfect Concrete Representation, then that's a powerful symbol, and it simply clobbers the human central nervous system. Which is also why you could have a world religion without any real man ever being nailed up. You only need the story of a real-in-the-story man being nailed up, or else its equaivalent. The story carries the message, whether it "really happened" or not, so long as it is concrete and matches the "real message."

I think the symbolism is what probably kept the various mainstream religions alive for so long. I agree with you. As knowledge and technology increases within time, yes, objective proof is desired. But I think that a lot need the symbolism to keep themselves still going. Plus, I think there are personal and subjective answers to those who practice it. 

I often reflect on the switch from objective proof ( or the idea of it ) to upholding subjective proof for one's self through out the years. I wonder how it will look like in the years to come. 

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

You might want to look into the biography of Joseph Campbell, the mythologist. Few people have ever studied religions more than him. Was he religious himself? Not any religion that has a name (after childhood), but few devotees of named religions invest the effort Campbell did in developing his own personal spiritual stance.

Carl Jung or William Butler Yeats would be another two similar examples. A biased sample, since I admire all three, but "some kind of religious" describes them all.

William James would be in that league, as far as "student of religions" goes, but I don't know how "personally religious" he was. I should find out :) .

 

I do feel that I have studies those in question, ( if I remember correctly, but yes more further study should done ) and I was always under the impression that I would see Campbell religious in nature, but yet the other two as not. But that is me and how I see them and the reasoning to their studies and findings. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
7 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Beauty is not a criterion of truth.  Nor is the fact that some idea is appealing.  Nor that it is traditional or has many believers.  Nor that it is either ancient or modern.  Nor that we saw it with our own eyes or thought it up ourselves.

If I'm understanding this correctly, I think it's the way I see some others see it. Frank, are you discussing that those who see beauty make it a conjecture that it can only be created by their god? 

Or, that the fact, there will be conjecture of the truth, within their affirmation that their world view? 

Is this a conjecture vs actual proof (truth)?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
12 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If I'm understanding this correctly, I think it's the way I see some others see it. Frank, are you discussing that those who see beauty make it a conjecture that it can only be created by their god? 

Or, that the fact, there will be conjecture of the truth, within their affirmation that their world view? 

Is this a conjecture vs actual proof (truth)?

 

Let me say it is not a conjecture nor a proof, but a set of premises on which rational thought is based.  There is a tendency that beauty is truth.  As a metaphor I can live with it -- there is a beauty in truth, but that would be a consequence, not evidence.  Some things (nowhere near as much as usually claimed) in the Bible or in the Q'uran are beautiful.  That does not make them true (nor false).  The two are independent.

Einstein is noted for his view that given two options, look at the most beautiful (translate "simple") first.  He had found it a good guide to make his investigations more efficient.  I think this was an illusion he suffered from because most scientists (real scientists, not romance science popularizers) don't generally remark or notice such a thing.  The thing is Einstein was a notable genius able to see things most don't, so he would naturally gravitate to look at true things first -- giving him the illusion when it was really his talent.

In fact nature is neither simple nor beautiful.  The beauty is in our heads -- we tend to find things that are conductive to our comfort and survival (nice weather, clean water) beautiful, but looked at closely nature is cruel and ugly and very, very complicated.  We can make abstractions (especially mathematics) that are simple and beautiful; nature is never more than a crude approximation.  When things in nature seem simple, it is because we don't know -- we are observing it from too far away.  

This is now already too long a message, so I will not comment on the other aspects of my assertion unless someone has objections or questions.  The summation is that truth is only approximate, never simple, and that it is beautiful or appealing or any of those other things is never evidence of truth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
13 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

:tu: 

Religion is so complicated a subject I think it is useless to try to focus it down to just one cause or one function.  What we call religion is so different in various parts of the world (compare Chinese philosophical traditions to bloody Christianity and Islam).  In one place it is an attempt in a pre-scientific world to figure things out, in another it is a way of maintaining power and preventing such attempts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Frank

Quote

but a set of premises on which rational thought is based.

Yes, and among the premises in the most effective systems of rational thought is to  accept that in order to be rational, one will have to search actively for the true and the useful. Nobody is going to reveal what's true or what's useful to you; you have to go out and look for it.

It is a fact that typical search spaces for both truth and usefulness are often vast, while resources, including search time, are limited. Therefore, a rational manager of uncertain reasoning will use heurisitics. By definition, heuristics are principles of search that experience shows to be effective guides to reduce the size of search spaces.

It is irrelevant that a heuristic doesn't necessarily work, and doesn't "always" work. That's what heuristic means.

So, what is beautiful might not be true, and might not be useful, either. That last sentence is true. It is also no rational reason to avoid aesthetic considerations while trying to reduce search spaces. The threshhold question is whether aesthetic assessment ever identifies truth-rich or usefulness-rich subspaces in which to search.

Apparently so for some people's aesthetic sense; you mentioned Einstein, so I take the point to be settled between us. If so, then the question then changes to when and how to use beauty as a guide to search, not whether ever to use it.

Speaking of Einstein, however

Quote

look at the most beautiful (translate "simple") first.

Those are two different ideas, and each has its own distinctive set of associated heuristics. More generally, Einstein strikes me as a fairly bright guy. I'd be reluctant to take one of his maxims and rewrite it, and even more reluctant to call my redaction a "translation." Maybe that's just me.

Quote

The beauty is in our heads

As are the sense of finding contingent truth and of finding usefulness. Your point?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
8 hours ago, Frank Merton said:

Let me say it is not a conjecture nor a proof, but a set of premises on which rational thought is based.  There is a tendency that beauty is truth.  As a metaphor I can live with it -- there is a beauty in truth, but that would be a consequence, not evidence.  Some things (nowhere near as much as usually claimed) in the Bible or in the Q'uran are beautiful.  That does not make them true (nor false).  The two are independent.

Einstein is noted for his view that given two options, look at the most beautiful (translate "simple") first.  He had found it a good guide to make his investigations more efficient.  I think this was an illusion he suffered from because most scientists (real scientists, not romance science popularizers) don't generally remark or notice such a thing.  The thing is Einstein was a notable genius able to see things most don't, so he would naturally gravitate to look at true things first -- giving him the illusion when it was really his talent.

In fact nature is neither simple nor beautiful.  The beauty is in our heads -- we tend to find things that are conductive to our comfort and survival (nice weather, clean water) beautiful, but looked at closely nature is cruel and ugly and very, very complicated.  We can make abstractions (especially mathematics) that are simple and beautiful; nature is never more than a crude approximation.  When things in nature seem simple, it is because we don't know -- we are observing it from too far away.  

This is now already too long a message, so I will not comment on the other aspects of my assertion unless someone has objections or questions.  The summation is that truth is only approximate, never simple, and that it is beautiful or appealing or any of those other things is never evidence of truth.

Let me apologize to you for misunderstanding you. Also, to thank you for replying to me. :yes:  :) 

I guess, I jumped the gun in assuming you meant that about beauty, because of discussions I have had with individuals everywhere who argue that beautiful things 'must' be created by God. In which, that is conjecture. And yes, I agree that it is a lot more complicated, and that in the end, beauty is more complicated, and definitely more subjective than objective. ( I also had to do a quick search on Einstein on that, I didn't realize he meant that from what I remember him. In which it shows, I hadn't studied him enough. :o ) 

Frankly, I think it will always be subconscious to some to go for the beautiful first, and not realize it might not be the answer. This reminds me of my cooking class in high school, where my group was tasked to make bread pudding, and another group next to us were tasked to make chocolate pudding. ( bear in mind, I usually love chocolate pudding ) When the dishes were made, and we each had to taste the others, I cringed when it came to ours, because it really didn't look like a tempting dish, and the chocolate pudding looked really good. Come to try the chocolate, and we all, in the class went 'blech'. Turned out our bread pudding was very tasty. Who knew?!?! 

So, I wonder, despite the extreme complications of this all, ( that I agree with you on this ) do we all need instructions on how to express things differently? And is it the better way in educating the masses? 

If, I'm getting this correctly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
21 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:
On 3/13/2017 at 7:21 PM, Sherapy said:

Great point, My two cents is religion seems to be more of a reflection, retelling of what we as human's understand and value. Humans make it up, of course there are as many belief systems as their are people. Attachment and bonding is in our genes. 

:tu: 

 

8 hours ago, Frank Merton said:
21 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

:tu: 

Religion is so complicated a subject I think it is useless to try to focus it down to just one cause or one function.  What we call religion is so different in various parts of the world (compare Chinese philosophical traditions to bloody Christianity and Islam).  In one place it is an attempt in a pre-scientific world to figure things out, in another it is a way of maintaining power and preventing such attempts.

So, if I'm correct and you are furthering the conversation to my reply to Sheri, one cannot fully label various religious labels and points? 

You know, I think this point here ( no matter how intermixed and multi-leveled it is ) should be expressed. Well, at least to point out, no one at all has the answer and burden of one religion or the answer of a lack of one. ( Well, in a sense, non-religious have their points of logic, and yes, logic is the right there correct way of looking at the world objectively. ) Anyways, I wish this could be expressed to the varying individuals and groups who feel compelled to preach and expect others to listen in an obligated way. 

It's just not that simple. There have been so many prosetylizers who have been struck speechless, ( in my observational experience ) by questions, that they can't answer. For me to think this, it's because it is not that simple and it's subjective, and they should realize that. 

For beauty, and peace, and the positive feelings one enjoys from their faith path or such, it works for them, but not necessarily for others. 

I think the simple answer is, that it's not simple. And that should be expressed simply to say it's not simple. :o 

Wait! What?! :w00t: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 11/03/2017 at 4:44 PM, jmccr8 said:

Walker,

communicating ideas has been around far longer than the ability to speak, just for a moment think about it Knapping stone, controlled fire, just to mention two functions that have to be learned. Just because they were primitive and lacked the function of speech to me is no detriment it shows a great deal about intellect and the ability to express ideas in given environments.

jmccr8

Uh no.  Both those things came well AFTER the first human speech and language of mind  Not sure again what you are getting at. Language of mind and physical speech are both evolved properties which  co evolve along  with self aware consciousness.

You cant form an idea without language of the mind and you cant express it to another without  spoken language  Without language no concepts abstract thoughts or symbolic representations are possible.

 Before language only imitation could be used to learn or teach . Of course a dog can learn 400 words and even understand quite complex commands, but it still has no language of its own. It is TRAINED to recognise and respond to sounds, Not words. .    Thus i can tell a dog to jump up on the green couch, get the red ball and put it in the small bucket, But it cant tell me to do the same thing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 12/03/2017 at 3:57 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Alrighty!! Let's get some things cleared up. Shall we? :D  ;)    :rolleyes: 

Your mind is your province?!?!  Is this a little verbal two step to show something of your ability to write? To me, it's a :no: and a bit of reaching here. Actually to me, it looks like you're reaching quite a bit here. And why state to obvious, like you're the first to tell me something about myself? In which, I knew a long time ago. 

I really do think, you have a little problem in understanding what area of debate and discussion, where one needs to get information for themselves, and when and where one needs to provide it when they want to make a claim. I do understand immensely about teachers coaching students into finding information for themselves. But a teacher also teaches, how else they teach to give one to find answers for themselves. Plus, a teacher needs to make sure the answers are correct, so they can see how a researched information will be the one for the student. You can't, as a teacher, expect them to find the answers ( when it's necessary ) and not let them know if it's correct or not. 

And here's something I would think you knew, but I may have to remind you about. I do not feel that you are here as a teacher, but as a recipient in a discussion forum. You get that? You are not my teacher, or anyone else's. You are here, and when you feel that you make statements that you want others to believe, then you do the work, you get the right information to prove it, so you know we believe you. Let me remind you again, you are not my teacher here, but a fellow message board poster on the same level as me. What I learn or don't learn, is not up to you. I wonder if you can feel it's understanding, that I don't see you as informative. 

One more time, you are not my teacher. Yes, we learn here, but that is when we find the poster who imparts knowledge has done the work for it. 

So, know, it's not your responsibility for me to come to my knowledge. I cannot believe you would have the audacity to even assume that. 

But, like I said, I don't have to believe you, so you have to come by your knowledge by your research so I can see that you are right. What your responsibility is, to make sure you do not defame, misrepresent, and such in your claims. If I did believe you, because you said so, and something happens, (because you gave misrepresented information) then it's on you for giving such that is false. The correct sources backing claims helps you to be believed, and not get you into trouble. ( You know, I don't know how many times, and different ways I could say this for you finally realize the ramifications of your outlook and your statements. ) 

It's probably a good thing I have already have come to the multiple conclusions not to believe you, so I don't get hurt. ;) 

So, did you get that? A teacher teaches students to get info and then tells them if it's correct. I am not your student, and you are not my teacher, just a fellow poster. 

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with you there. BUT, your reasoning to say I deliberately become ignorant, doesn't make sense to which you replied with it to a post of mine. Here's your original post, in which you posted the said claim,......

You put the 'deliberate ignorance' claim to me not believing you. Not to shutting you out and your points. I see the claims, I just feel by backed up understanding and my own research, to see that I have no reason to believe. I didn't prevent myself from reading what you wrote, I just didn't take it as truth. That is probably what I call, 'deliberate point of view self-understanding.' ;)   You put a statement onto something that means different in actually meaning. 

So, hence, another reasoning that I don't see you as imparting something that I can take seriously. 

 

Wow, :o  I think you're reaching again. :no: You know, it maybe me choosing alternative data or choosing to interpret date in a different way, but lets look at this in the objective/subjective thinking. I am not making statements of what I use, and if I did, then I made sure I got the right research, and/or finding multiple sources that have the same pattern that would show you how your date maybe not correct or your info is from a bias source. But if it's provided, the source is still my subjective contribution of how I don't believe you. I guess it's on you to see how you cannot expect me to believe you, based on what I subjectively show, with what I consider objective information. And how do I know, you're choosing alternative data? And based from what I researched, it's look like to me, it seems like biased alternative data. I'm not saying that I'm claiming your data is wrong, or that mine is definitely correct, but only that I have come to my subjective reasoning, that I think you're wrong. 

Now, let's go back to this part of your post: 

First, as I have always said, you cannot choose feelings and emotions, you have them based on experience. It's like getting your self hyped up on something false, and then having to keep you going to keep up the false emotion and feeling and that's hard works. I know, that what I believe is because I have seen my own evidence to believe it. What I choose or to want, is the by product of what I experience. 

And I really do not understand why you think you are the only one imparting the information of what I want to know and how I get that. I knew that years ago. Again, you are just stating the obvious. 

When are you going to realize, you are not suppose to be someone who is trying to take responsibility of me, my understanding, and my behavior, but someone who wants to be credible by doing what they need to do to get there?

It's as simple as that. Really. ........................................ *sigh*   :no:  

it s simple. YOUR mind makes choices and decisions for you not mine 

 Thus it is YOUR responsibility for you to inform yourself about any claim I make if you wish to DISPUTE it . I just put the claim out there and will defend it But i dont have to prove it to you and indeed no one can prove anything to a person who chooses not to believe 

I AM a teacher  have been since my younger brother was born and will be until the day i die  but as i already said how you perceive me is your choice not mine.  I chose the right to see myself as a teacher NOT you. You only have the right to chose how YOU see me.

I wont tell you anything which will hurt you and a lot which will benefit you. But again, only you can accept this or act on it, so there s no way i can hurt you anyway. You are a free willed individual and YOU are responsible for checking anything i say before acting on it  Not me.

 You should not act on subjective opinion but upon objective factually ascertained truth i absolutely agree  

Eating burnt meat (charcoaled)  increases your risk of cancer enough to be measurable That is an objective truth  Look it up for yourself then decide how seriously you want to take it.  I have responsibility to you (as a teacher of things ) to inform you of this But oyu have a responsibility to check it before acting on it.

 If you go to church every week (any church will do) OR have a belief in a  higher power you are statistically likely to live longer and healthier than if you do not. Get the combination right ad this can be a DECADE of longer life and a LOT better health  You are also likely to live longer if you have a dog are married or have children.    What puzzles me are the people who accept that owning a dog increases longevity but  believe that simply  going to church regularly  could not possibly have the same effect.

Scientifically despite what you  BELIEVE you are wrong about the nature of human emotions  It is now known that emotions are intellectual constructs which we learn from  birth not simple biological responses over which we have no control.  Thus the y can be unlearned.

we are now learning that even pain is not a physical thing but a conceptual constructed  "state of mind"   and can be largely eliminated by mental discipline and some mental practices   You can live wihtout any extreme of emotion  (and could if you wanted to learn to live without even minor fear or anger or hate or envy or loneliness)   However it is best to retain some small part of these as warning systems,  but not to let them EVER control how you think or behave.  Your mind should be in control of itself at all times 

I am not responsible for you. I am responsible for Me.

i have to act to do what is right as a responsible human being That includes warning you and everyone else i communicate with (In a place like this)  about potential dangers, or ways to improve themselves   YOU have the responsibility of responding a s a responsible human being. You are not a child and  i only have a duty not to hurt you. Because you are an adult i don't have a duty to protect you from yourself, beyond informing  you of dangers.   I appreciate that many humans do not recognise their responsibilities towards other human beings  I appreciate that some might even resent the idea. That doesn't negate my responsibility  to them. .  . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 12/03/2017 at 4:22 PM, Horta said:

For anyone with an interest and who doesn't have an agenda, what do you make of Everett’s claims? He laments that even the academics regularly fail to understand his linguistic claims, so amateurs looking at his non-religion claims certainly shares that possibility.

It seems he gives some compelling reasons to doubt the notion of “universality” not only as it applies to language. To accept that he is simply making a superficial comparison to his previous faith might also require the belief that he is a moron, which seems unlikely and there is plenty of evidence indicating he means exactly what he says. One possible problem though, is the possibility that his own loss of faith coincided with his observations and he could have romanticised it. Not saying he did though.

It seems they are not only a godless culture, but a culture without any concept of god. No creator, no creation myths nor rituals for the benefit of the invisible overlord. No afterlife mythology to make them feel better, no souls flitting off anywhere, we kick the bucket and that’s about it.

They have no belief in spirits at all, the way we think of them. As Everett explains below. The second quote would be difficult to disagree with. There are almost certainly other biological forms out there.

 

 

It seems as he looked into the “spirits” further, it became obvious they were no such thing. They are basically various people and creatures, that they ascribe various characteristics to. An example he gives is if they see a real white person in the jungle, they have the belief that this person “has no blood”. Though even if they were seeing imaginary beings everywhere, people claim experiences with aliens, bigfoot, dogman and so on regularly, it wouldn’t make it a religion at all.

The “possession” episodes also seem very misunderstood. It would seem utterly incongruent with their lack of belief in any such “spirits” or “souls” required for such a thing, or for “channelling”. They are far more like some “alter ego” of the person. He gives some comical accounts where he asks the person what they are doing only to get a “Oh I look like thiat Piraha, but I’m not him, he isn’t here”. Then when he later asks the person what they were doing they say “Oh was there a “spirit” here last night? I don’t know, I wasn't here”.

Seems a strong element of native styled entertainment, with drama and fiction involved, not wholly unlike what we would give out academy awards for being good at. Have heard interviews where he likens it to “play acting”, yet there is another aspect to it that he doesn’t yet understand. From about 16 mins in the link is fascinating.

 

Seems very possible, if his observations are faithful, that they are a non religious culture. The problem there of course is that nearly everyone will have different opinion of what constitutes a religion, which happens even among various academics.

 

There isn't any evidence for your interpretation The piraha see the spirits as real.

This seems so ridiculous to us,  so we interpret it a s them  being funny, but as in MANY primitive cultures, this is actually what they believe.

The spirits take real physical form and can hurt you.  From the Sumerian to the Australian aboriginal, humans have seen the physical and spiritual worlds as equally real and strongly interconnected   In Europe in the middle ages people would not step inside a fairy ring of mushrooms or enter a dense forest, for fear of spirits, dryads and other nature forms    That is the relationship the piraha have with nature and how the y interpret it . We know this from the work of other researchers with the same people.  We dont recognise such primitive beliefs a s religion only because we a re so used to the modern form of religion. But when people have beliefs which motivate and control their behaviours then  they have a religion  Druidism was a religion Shamanism is a religion paganism is a religion The piraha's religion predates even those forms, and is probably not recorded only because it existed in prehistoric societies.

Everett misinterprets the nature of religion, perhaps deliberately due to his own need to prove a point  or perhaps because, as a past practicing  christian he only saw religion in that classical form. 

Ps in a non literate society story telling and play acting is very serious. it is how beliefs traditions  and ideas are transmitted and passed down. It is NOT entertainment but education and incredibly significant.  so drama is  very important part of that process. Accpet their word tha they believ in real powerful spirits, and suddenly possession and channeling make sense, also. Every society has a tradition of spirit possession in some form because every society has a tradition that the natural environment is filled with the non physical or spiritual as well as the physical 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just_Seeking

Better question why redicule believers if the belief doesn't harm anyone? Maybe the thought of a infectious idea that doesn't conform to your reality is illogical?  Maybe this will turn into a back and forth of what if's or even better a bold thought out statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.