mrjonno wrote:The story of jesus makes no sense even if you accept the supernatural shit.

It does if you just rewrite the entire thing from scratch to make it conform to your sensibility: see Platko's posts for how he thinks that works.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

John Platko wrote:To be sure, there's an art to milking the Bible for all it's worth. But to be honest, I wouldn't think it worth the effort if it wasn't for the story about the life of Jesus- there's a lot to be milked out of that one that relates to human behavior and human ideas. I think the whole human condition can be explored by investigating that story.

Why not just read the Jefferson Bible? It comes with all the magic and divinely sanctioned murder removed.

We have a bit better understanding of psychology today than TJ had so I think we can make sense, and educated guesses, out of much of what he cut out. But the basic idea of what I'm saying and what he did is the same.

Depending on your standards, you might be left with just the cover.

Griz_ wrote:John,

I think I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. I had a VERY heavy dose of Catholicism and your line of thinking actually sounds a lot like mine at one time while I was trying to make sense of the nonsense. But after many years of seeking I eventually arrived at atheism. I know that many here don't understand your thought process at all. I disagree with you, but in a way I do understand it as I've had similar experience. You and I likely would have agreed on many things, at one time.

I believe you still refer to yourself as a Catholic, so given that I'm curious about where you stand on transubstantiation.

I think the whole Mass is very much geared up so that Holy Communion can produce results like this:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MLzT4CeBT6I

And just as peeking behind the curtain didn't spoil the experience for Natalie, it doesn't spoil it for me. However, I am disappointed that the church talks about things like this in a way that leaves most people with the wrong impression of what could, and is, happening.

Unfortunately, "This video is not available in your country"

John Platko wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

John Platko wrote:To be sure, there's an art to milking the Bible for all it's worth. But to be honest, I wouldn't think it worth the effort if it wasn't for the story about the life of Jesus- there's a lot to be milked out of that one that relates to human behavior and human ideas. I think the whole human condition can be explored by investigating that story.

Why not just read the Jefferson Bible? It comes with all the magic and divinely sanctioned murder removed.

We have a bit better understanding of psychology today than TJ had so I think we can make sense, and educated guesses, out of much of what he cut out. But the basic idea of what I'm saying and what he did is the same.

Why waste your time wading through the cesspool of divinely ordained hatred, rape, slavery and inhumanity to find a few nuggets of wisdom about how to be nice to one another, when someone has already done the hard work to cut out the chaff?

The Bible as a single body of work is a complete fucking contradiction in morality which is why it has been used so often to justify doing horrible things to other people while still touting the virtues of JC. Why do Christians still insist on keeping this turd uncut and in one piece?

John Platko wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:One thing that can be challenged scientifically is the previous Pope's claim that the soul is put into the evolved pieces of human meat by god. The non-magical soul [the personality or identity of the person] CAN be investigated by science, and can be explained by science. Thus a Pope or religious person does not have to invoke god as a cause for the material soul [ie mortal], and indeed, if he does, he does not accept the science of evolution-specifically-the part where evolutionary forces and current environments can give personality to a social ape such as ourselves. Of course the [claimed] supernatural/religious aspect of the soul is not subject to science unless we include an over-active imagination of the religious mind as a psychological phenomenon.

Active imagination is at the heart of religious psychological phenomenon.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_imagination

Jung was insistent that some form of participation in active imagination was essential: 'You yourself must enter into the process with your personal reactions...as if the drama being enacted before your eyes were real'.[11]

Please note John, that I said OVER-ACTIVE imagination. Human imagination is essential for many aspects of life. In arts, in the sciences, and in faiths. However, giving the products of an active imagination status as reality is going to far. And Jung was an idiot. Imagination alone can only posit possible worlds, they don't define worlds. Harry Potter does not become real just because J.K. Rowling dreamed him up, although her characters are far more credible than most found in the Bible or Quoran.

But I think my basic point stands. If "holy" folks want to invoke god for human traits like personality, then they are automatically rejecting evolution and methodological naturalism. Which system of thought best describes the mortal soul? Is science both necessary and sufficient for the task? There is every reason to think so. Science already explains the "meat" of human beings very well, and is well on the way to explaining the non-magical soul. [As there is no evidence for the magical soul science's inability to explain it is moot!].
Religion fails at the "meat" stage, as indeed theologians like the Pope recognize that evolution does explain human "meat" very well. So at the "meat" level all is well. What they do not recognize is that the meat explains the non-magical soul. They insist the soul is magical, and god injects it. Ergo, they are creationist. They accept some science stuff, but hugely cherry-pick. AT least YECs are more consistent-they reject all of the science of evolution.

John Platko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Seconded.

I too would love to know how that works. My normally perfectly adequate reading comprehension, which seems to work consistently when applied to any other book I've encountered, always seems to let me down when it comes to the bible. Not one believer has been able to explain how it works when I've asked before but they can all apparently do it.

Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

But I thought the moral of that particularly vile story was to demonstrate that Abraham's loyalty to god was so absolute that it came above the love he had for his only son and to introduce the notion of the sacrificial lamb because god likes the smell of BBQ. That it is a vile and repugnant way to test the loyalty of one of your followers is obvious. Surely its also totally unnecessary for a god who knows our hearts etc or can he be fooled by a good poker player? Did Abraham just bluff god knowing that god was a big softy really?

I'm thinking you completely missed the point of this story. To me the rather obvious moral of the story is: don't let your fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things, as Abe almost did, because while the Self within him saved the day at the last moment it could have ended in tragedy.

Whoa there!!!!!
What in the blue blazes of fuck??? God told Abraham, the cornerstone of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to sacrifice his son. Its there plain and simple. Just as Abraham was about to do it, God called off the loyalty test, whatever version you're reading. What you seem to to have managed to glean from that is that Abraham was suffering from some sort of God inspired psychotic episode which nearly led to him carrying out an act of infanticidal manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility but was saved from this by a moment of clarity.
Now, I am an atheist and I work in psychiatry. I can see where this interpretation comes from very easily but that is not the intended message or it would have been written differently surely. I'm very used to psychotic people trying to rationalise delusional beliefs as reasonable positions but their intention is not to communicate the interpretation I make of their tale but to make me accept their version of events at face value, just as in the bible with the Abraham/Isaac encounter. The message being portrayed is not that Abraham really needs to keep taking his meds or bad shit can happen, which may or may not be true, it is that his loyalty and obedience to god transcends the love a father has for his only son. Abraham is shown as an example of virtue by being willing to kill his son to please god, not revered as a dangerous psychotic guy to be closely supervised if he goes near the cutlery drawer.
Perhaps this is a classic example of the reading comprehension issues between believers. Some of you can make the words say things that aren't apparent to the rest of us.

Reread John's response and pay attention to the capitalization of the word "Self". I'm not sure he believes in God as a separate entity in the traditional sense that we we tend to think of a God. To be honest, I'm not sure he is a Catholic at all.

I'm sure he will speak for himself and I do not want to attempt to speak for him. So let's wait for his response. I think I've been where he is. Or at least in the general vicinity. I hope that doesn't come off as condescending, it's not meant to be.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agreed! I certainly didn't say that.

John Platko wrote:

I'm thinking you completely missed the point of this story. To me the rather obvious moral of the story is: don't let your fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things, as Abe almost did, because while the Self within him saved the day at the last moment it could have ended in tragedy.

You in fact said precisely that, you can tell because I copied and pasted it directly from what you said.

But again, this is the pattern throughout the thread. Obfuscation appears to be your desired outcome.

fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things

!=

don't let your fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things

Sigh .....

Now, I know you're taking the piss. Goodbye.

I can't imagine why you would say that. I was simply pointing out that the two phrases do not mean the same thing. You misrepresented what I said and I corrected that misrepresentation. No urine involved.

Griz_ wrote:Unfortunately, "This video is not available in your country"

Oh that's too bad.

It is a clip from a Derren Brown TV show where he demonstrates how religious experience of "God" i.e. a great feeling of unconditional love and such can be induced in a person by performing a ritual designed to do that. He selects an atheist and brings her into a church setting and then talks to her a bit about her life and family, his questions cause her to be in touch with strong family emotions, especially about her father. He taps his fingers and moves his hands in various ways which are part of his ritual. Then he leaves her alone for bit and voilà, she experiences such strong feelings of unconditional love and goodness which she seems to realize must be God. Later, back on the show with an audience around Derren explains to her what he did, however they both agree that what she experienced was real and in her. And she was glad to be able to experience what she experienced.

I think the Mass, culminating with Holy Communion is very much like the ritual Derren Brown demonstrated. It's designed to elicit similar feelings, connecting them to the image of Jesus which in turn is connected to/is God and feeling of great love and such. As Derren and Natalie, the woman in the video, demonstrate, these kinds of rituals can actually can work and do that sort of thing.

By the way, Derren Brown has another video were he demonstrates with a different woman how imagined helpers, that you think are there helping you but aren't, can make your life better.

Very good videos that get to the heart of religious experience, they pull aside the curtain, and show what's really going on. I've noticed many atheists are rather fond of them too.

John Platko wrote:Very good videos that get to the heart of religious experience, they pull aside the curtain, and show what's really going on. I've noticed many atheists are rather fond of them too.

Does that surprise you?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

John Platko wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

John Platko wrote:To be sure, there's an art to milking the Bible for all it's worth. But to be honest, I wouldn't think it worth the effort if it wasn't for the story about the life of Jesus- there's a lot to be milked out of that one that relates to human behavior and human ideas. I think the whole human condition can be explored by investigating that story.

Why not just read the Jefferson Bible? It comes with all the magic and divinely sanctioned murder removed.

We have a bit better understanding of psychology today than TJ had so I think we can make sense, and educated guesses, out of much of what he cut out. But the basic idea of what I'm saying and what he did is the same.

Why waste your time wading through the cesspool of divinely ordained hatred, rape, slavery and inhumanity to find a few nuggets of wisdom about how to be nice to one another, when someone has already done the hard work to cut out the chaff?

The Bible as a single body of work is a complete fucking contradiction in morality which is why it has been used so often to justify doing horrible things to other people while still touting the virtues of JC. Why do Christians still insist on keeping this turd uncut and in one piece?

Why? I've found that many Christians are not overly fond of, or even capable of, dealing with the truth. However given that, perhaps it's best they are not physically deciding what parts of the Bible are worth keeping.

John Platko wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

I agree that your god is a figment of your imagination but as you seem to acknowledge this, why continue to believe in it?

For the efficiency of my mental process, especially involving areas concerning morality and psychology. I seem to recall writing a paper about that some time ago, now where did I put that - hmmm it must be around here somewhere.

I'm not sure that I agree with you that being deliberately wrong aids efficiency of your mental process. Surely aiming for not being wrong at all would be better at achieving that goal?

It's not about being deliberately wrong. More like being randomly wrong which causes branches to knew idea spaces where new good ideas can be mined. And being able to locate previously mined areas discovered by great religious thinkers so that I can better understand and explore the space they have mapped out.

Uh huh. Sounds legit.

By which, of course, I mean it sounds like bollocks, if you don't mind me saying. Who are you trying to fool?

I don't think that your process bears any similarity to science, it surprises me that you do. There is nothing of science in any of the imagined gods in the world.

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

If what you did was scientific, then you would get the same results as everyone else. What I think you may be doing is fabricating a flimsy, made-in-china crappy knock-off, a bit like how ID sort of pretends to be science but isn't.

I wouldn't want to give the impression that religion = science. But some scientific practices are useful to religious practice. When you're imagining stuff it's good not to loose sight of reality.

I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about, I fear you may have already lost sight of reality.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:One thing that can be challenged scientifically is the previous Pope's claim that the soul is put into the evolved pieces of human meat by god. The non-magical soul [the personality or identity of the person] CAN be investigated by science, and can be explained by science. Thus a Pope or religious person does not have to invoke god as a cause for the material soul [ie mortal], and indeed, if he does, he does not accept the science of evolution-specifically-the part where evolutionary forces and current environments can give personality to a social ape such as ourselves. Of course the [claimed] supernatural/religious aspect of the soul is not subject to science unless we include an over-active imagination of the religious mind as a psychological phenomenon.

Active imagination is at the heart of religious psychological phenomenon.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_imagination

Jung was insistent that some form of participation in active imagination was essential: 'You yourself must enter into the process with your personal reactions...as if the drama being enacted before your eyes were real'.[11]

Please note John, that I said OVER-ACTIVE imagination.

But who is to decide what is OVER the line of helpful active imagination and goes into unhelpful areas?

I think we can all agree that when you imagine your dog telling you to kill people, and you go ahead and do it, you're over the line. But then there's that area where you're creeping up on the line, sometimes getting splashed by a bit of crazy stuff as you misstep a bit over the line. I mean, it's a very fine line- and it moves with time as people collectively alter their view of reality.

Human imagination is essential for many aspects of life. In arts, in the sciences, and in faiths. However, giving the products of an active imagination status as reality is going to far. And Jung was an idiot. Imagination alone can only posit possible worlds, they don't define worlds.

Imagination can surely create inner worlds in inner reality- which is what Jung was talking about.

Harry Potter does not become real just because J.K. Rowling dreamed him up, although her characters are far more credible than most found in the Bible or Quoran.

But I think my basic point stands. If "holy" folks want to invoke god for human traits like personality, then they are automatically rejecting evolution and methodological naturalism. Which system of thought best describes the mortal soul? Is science both necessary and sufficient for the task?

Science is not sufficient for the task that religion is designed to tackle. Science can tell us a lot about our physical and even mental processes, but it doesn't shed much light on things like: what is love, what does it mean to love, what is good, etc..

There is every reason to think so. Science already explains the "meat" of human beings very well, and is well on the way to explaining the non-magical soul. [As there is no evidence for the magical soul science's inability to explain it is moot!].
Religion fails at the "meat" stage, as indeed theologians like the Pope recognize that evolution does explain human "meat" very well. So at the "meat" level all is well. What they do not recognize is that the meat explains the non-magical soul. They insist the soul is magical, and god injects it. Ergo, they are creationist. They accept some science stuff, but hugely cherry-pick. AT least YECs are more consistent-they reject all of the science of evolution.

It's hard for me to be sure exactly what you mean by all that but from the general sense I get of it I think I agree.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:





You in fact said precisely that, you can tell because I copied and pasted it directly from what you said.

But again, this is the pattern throughout the thread. Obfuscation appears to be your desired outcome.

fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things

!=

don't let your fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things

Sigh .....

Now, I know you're taking the piss. Goodbye.

I can't imagine why you would say that. I was simply pointing out that the two phrases do not mean the same thing. You misrepresented what I said and I corrected that misrepresentation. No urine involved.

Hair-splitting nonsense - there's no functional difference at all: quite the contrary for your claim to have any meaning, my wording must necessarily be true. For a proscription against allowing fantasies about god to cause people to do harmful things, it necessitates that fantasies about God can cause you to do harmful things. Your claim genetically requires my wording of it to be true, even if you're unable to see it, or just engaging in willful obfuscation as it appears you have done throughout this entire thread. Not only does it not misrepresent you, it is inherent to what you claimed. Of course, had you really meant it, then you wouldn't have challenged what I said, and we would have actually been able to pin something down. But fortunately, you moved the topic now onto semantics instead, so we can all look the other way while you pocket the rabbit.

Thanks for the explanation regarding the video. That is along the lines of what I imagined. My personal view is that I would rather see the truth of things. I think that regarding the Mass, many don't really want to know the truth and are comforted in their delusion. The idea that their closely held life-long beliefs could be wrong are frightening to them. Much like the placebo effect which is often a very real thing and often does have a positive result, but in the big picture are we not better off knowing the reality and moving knowledge forward rather that accepting illusions? I see religion the same way. Once the veil had been lifted in that video did the girl not see what was really happening and then not have the same, or perhaps even a more profound sense of wonder and awe about the human brain and the realization of how little we truly know about how it works?

I find reality much more satisfying than magic because reality raises more questions whereas the belief in magic is a dead end.

Science is not sufficient for the task that religion is designed to tackle.

Fatuous guff.

Religion is not 'designed' to do anything. It's a collection of traditional beliefs collated into a body of cultural customs. It is not a 'way of thinking', it is not a discipline, it is not concrete - it's an abstract noun representing an entire class of mutually incompatible social phenomena.

However, it does seem to make some believers think they're doing something useful.

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

But I thought the moral of that particularly vile story was to demonstrate that Abraham's loyalty to god was so absolute that it came above the love he had for his only son and to introduce the notion of the sacrificial lamb because god likes the smell of BBQ. That it is a vile and repugnant way to test the loyalty of one of your followers is obvious. Surely its also totally unnecessary for a god who knows our hearts etc or can he be fooled by a good poker player? Did Abraham just bluff god knowing that god was a big softy really?

I'm thinking you completely missed the point of this story. To me the rather obvious moral of the story is: don't let your fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things, as Abe almost did, because while the Self within him saved the day at the last moment it could have ended in tragedy.

Whoa there!!!!!
What in the blue blazes of fuck??? God told Abraham, the cornerstone of Judaism, Christianity and Islam to sacrifice his son. Its there plain and simple. Just as Abraham was about to do it, God called off the loyalty test, whatever version you're reading. What you seem to to have managed to glean from that is that Abraham was suffering from some sort of God inspired psychotic episode which nearly led to him carrying out an act of infanticidal manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility but was saved from this by a moment of clarity.
Now, I am an atheist and I work in psychiatry. I can see where this interpretation comes from very easily but that is not the intended message or it would have been written differently surely. I'm very used to psychotic people trying to rationalise delusional beliefs as reasonable positions but their intention is not to communicate the interpretation I make of their tale but to make me accept their version of events at face value, just as in the bible with the Abraham/Isaac encounter. The message being portrayed is not that Abraham really needs to keep taking his meds or bad shit can happen, which may or may not be true, it is that his loyalty and obedience to god transcends the love a father has for his only son. Abraham is shown as an example of virtue by being willing to kill his son to please god, not revered as a dangerous psychotic guy to be closely supervised if he goes near the cutlery drawer.
Perhaps this is a classic example of the reading comprehension issues between believers. Some of you can make the words say things that aren't apparent to the rest of us.

Hmmmm. Interesting, very interesting.

I'll cut to the chase and go right to the smell test.

On the one hand we have

A) Your claim that the moral (message) Christians (and perhaps Muslims) are to take from the Abraham story is:

is that his loyalty and obedience to god transcends the love a father has for his only son. Abraham is shown as an example of virtue by being willing to kill his son to please god, not revered as a dangerous psychotic guy to be closely supervised if he goes near the cutlery drawer.

Now let's imagine Christians actually believe that interpretation of the story, as you seem to think we must.

Imagine I'm taking my trash out in the morning and I noticed my neighbor packing his car for a trip, I say, "Good morning, Dave, are you going on a trip" (I know he's obviously going on a trip but I'd probably ask anyway), and he says, "Yea John, it's kind of a sad trip, I was praying to God last night and he said I had to kill my son". Being a good Christian too, I ask, "Dave, are you sure God really said you should kill your son?" Dave says, "Yes, I could hardly believe it myself so I asked three or four times, I've definitely got to do it, I mean, I love my son but pleasing God is more important so, I got to do it." Being a good Christian too, and not wanting to interfere with God's wishes, I wish Dave well and go about my day hoping that, like God did with Abraham, he changes his mind and just wants he sees that Dave is really ready to kill his son for him.

On the other hand we have

B) My claim that the good moral to take away from the story is:

don't let your fantasies about God cause you to do harmful things, as Abe almost did, because while the Self within him saved the day at the last moment it could have ended in tragedy.

Now Imagine I'm taking my trash out in the morning and I noticed my neighbor packing his car for a trip, I say, "Good morning, Dave, are you going on a trip", and he says, "Yea John, it's kind of a sad trip, I was praying to God last night and he said I had to kill my son". Being a good Christian too, I ask, "Dave, are you sure God really said you should kill your son?" Dave says, "Yes, I could hardly believe it myself so I asked three or four times, I've definitely got to do it, I mean, I love my son but pleasing God is more important so, I got to do it." Being a good Christian, and remembering from the story of Abraham that letting your fantasies about what you think God said to you can lead to tragedy, I invite Dave in for coffee while I try to talk him down, signaling my wife to be prepared to, or to, call for help depending on just how scared Dave is making me feel.

Monkeyboy I've been around all kinds of Christians throughout my life and I've never met any that would come even remotely close to doing A), which they should if you're correct about the moral they are being taught and taking away from the Abraham story. Rather, they would all, and I mean all, do some variation of B). So I'm thinking, the moral that's really being taught and internalized must be a lot closer to the one I suggest than the one you suggest.

(I will note though, that not all Christians and Muslims have mastered the skill of not letting their fantasies about God lead to tragedy.)

Griz_ wrote:Reread John's response and pay attention to the capitalization of the word "Self". I'm not sure he believes in God as a separate entity in the traditional sense that we we tend to think of a God. To be honest, I'm not sure he is a Catholic at all.

I'm Catholic, it's a fact, just like it's a fact that I'm an American.

It is true that the capital S in Self was significant. I was referring to Jung's use of the word, at least as some interpret it. I'll add, while I like much of what I know about Jung's ideas, I'm not a Jungian. I'm just a Catholic Christian.

I'm sure he will speak for himself and I do not want to attempt to speak for him. So let's wait for his response. I think I've been where he is. Or at least in the general vicinity. I hope that doesn't come off as condescending, it's not meant to be.