Well Arda, we could just go on insulting each other, but I don’t see much point in that. “What the hell makes me think you haven’t” heard of those things is that you never mentioned them. You say you “offered support” to your assertions, but I don’t see it. It’s possible it’s there and I’m missing it, but I’m getting tired of attempting to clarify. If that bothers you, you might want to ask yourself why you came here? This is a scientific inquiry discussion. SoulPancake.com would be more your style.
I tried to clarify and you ignored most of what I wrote, picking out the parts that seemed problematic out of context and creating a caricature of me who brought nothing to the table. I’m sorry that my ideas weren’t well-formed enough for you, but it felt to me like you were dismissing them because they weren’t academic papers. And you accused me of “wasting my time”. Is there anything I could do short of dropping gods and professing atheism that would change your mind about how I make use of my time?
SoulPancake is okay on YouTube, and the book is a mixture of meh and hm.
You’ll probably take that as an insult too, although I don’t know why. You bounce from saying “people aren’t told to seek out such experiences” to “I’m not alone in wanting that.” I agree with the latter and I hope you find other fellow seekers.
Yeah, been there, don’t want to go back. I like rational people much better, except for, well…
But in “rationalist circles”, yes, you will find that gods and science don’t mix well.
That’s a shame, because there’s plenty of scientific evidence that suggests this whole god thing is something that people in psychological sciences, in particular, should pay attention to! Kind of like other important personal matters—sexual orientation for instance.
I’ll just throw it out there one last time for kicks: Does nobody else find it flooring that most primal peoples, of whom we’re aware, were/are polytheists who directly experienced their gods? Does this not say *anything* to *anyone*?
What good is data when people don’t care?
You could investigate phenomenon of the mind but if you want people to understand “that there are possibly infinite valid perceptions of divinity, because whether or not any perception of divinity is valid is a personal matter.” That’s not science. Nor are statements like “That is up to everyone to discover and decide for themselves.” I’m not against people deciding for themselves, it’s just the opposite of science.
And that’s why I’ve been “wasting my time”?
So, frankly, what *is* the right answer to the god question? I think there is a right answer given what we know about the nature of people’s minds, and the natures of the gods they worship, and frankly I think that divinity being a personal matter *is* the right answer. Because who can really make that assertion for anyone else? Honestly?
And with that, let’s start taking some data on people and their gods, to see what personal answers get people where. Let’s blow the lid off this once and for all!
Does that stoke anyone’s interest?
I can’t find it, but I thought I read on your polygnostic site that you accept that some people can connect to the divine while others might experience it to a lesser degree. This is the most troublesome aspect I found of polygnosticism as it sets up a potential structure of those who are in the know and those who aren’t. Correct me if I’m misread that. Or maybe I made it up since I can’t find a quote.
What I was trying to say was: the only one who has any right to be called “in the know” on a personal matter like one’s own gods is oneself. There’s no heirarchy there.
I should mention that I still sometimes attend the churches I used to frequent. They have less of a problem with me than you do.
Yeah and other atheists I know have less of a problem with me than you do. So….
You may want to figure out a way to incorporate atheism into your poly-system.
If people don’t perceive divinity that’s their thing! That’s their choice! Easy, find your own gods or find no gods! is what I like to say.
The “guidance” exercise you suggested would be closer to what I do when I read a good fiction book or any other form of storytelling, I find myself in the story. I can do that with the gospels as well. I don’t see any advantage to tacking on the aspect of the possibility of something greater. Which doesn’t mean that I’ve dismissed something greater, because that would be unscientific.
Cool, so that’s something I can relate to… Check the long post before this.
If you have been treated as ass-backward, I empathize. I haven’t always been in the “in” crowd either, but I won’t go into that. Coming here and getting angry with me isn’t going to help with that.
I’m angry because you seem very… honestly? Dogmatic. You’re a very forceful thinker, but you’re also a safe thinker. You’d rather throw accepted answers out than have to go out on a limb and see where someone is coming from. You’d rather note the incompleteness of ideas than entertain the possibility that there might be something there. And you do this in the name of, I don’t know, great justice? Maybe?
But it’s all stuff I’ve heard before, and it’s all stuff I had to move away from in order to find answers for myself that were actually worth a hoot—for me. I had to do a lot of thinking to break from that kind of safe thinking, and I’ll never regret doing so…
I don’t think we’re going to see eye to eye, and that’s the way things go I guess. I don’t know that I’ll be around much more because I think I got what I wanted from this thread. I have a better idea of what I have to do next, and I don’t know that I’m going to find much more help here.