Physician heal thyself?

Be careful of assumptions I always say. I am well aware of the level of knowledge we are born with ... it was just a little play with words is all. That being said, I came from a very dysfunctional family, never knew my natural father (still don’t care) and never cared for my drunken step father (until much later in life). I had little confidence in my natural co-dependent mother either (ditto). Yea, I was full of doubts from a very young age (be it not zero). Then the RCC latched onto me and attempted to transform me to their way of thinking but … I was already fed up with lies, deceits and misinformation mixed with a tad of the truth just to complicate things … but for a child, I was quite adapt at knowing (feeling???) the differences. As far as 'mother’s milk' is concerned I wouldn't know because she apparently has 'inverted nipples’ (whatever that is) so I was also deprived in that area too it seems. There are seemingly many paths to adulthood but they all involve brainwashing just because there is no other reasonable way, IMO. But if one is going to claim to be a responsible adult, they have to be able to at least distinguish between the rational and the irrational and learn to deal with the real world.

I'm having trouble figuring out they way you speak (no offense intended), so bear with me.

I'm not sure I really buy fully into this premise.  Certainly, those preconceived ideas can cause problems with communication, but I doubt that is the crux of what you are looking to discuss.

re: the overall topic - let me try to reiterate what I think you are saying.  You believe that religion (other things as well) can and often does cause individuals to choose not to seek the truth (or knowledg perhaps?).  EG let's say I dogmatically believe that God is a tree in my backyard and that I'm 100% sure of it.  Now, you know my claim to be a complete falsehood; however, I believe it.  At some point I had an experience that proved to me that God is a tree in my backyard.  As a result of that experience, I have decided without a doubt that my views are correct and have ceased my search for God.  So, as I reached a conclusion (albeit an incorrect one), I am no longer asking the same questions. 

But that said, let's say I'm actually correct and that God is a truly a tree in my backyard.  Once I've arrived at this "truth," to continue searching for God (having found God) doesn't make a lot of sense.  Or to put it another way - if my car keys were missing and I found them, it would be quite silly to continue looking for my car keys.

 

Nicely balanced comments for a change.  Thanks.  If I can summarize the previous...

"Life is short-follow your heart, keep searching with a truly open mind and don't sweat the small stuff and what others think so much--you'll barely have time to make educated guesses of your own."

Pretty much but still lacking something, hum... I can only envision such mental barriers as a protection factor … so the next question would be ‘protection from what?’ I see no reason why any sentient creature could have serious problems with bettering the old personal database. The only thing that comes to mind here is they are protecting themselves from the truth or at least what the truth could reveal or unravel. The perfect state of denial cannot be bridged by anything but a re-self-examination because it is impervious to all external stimuli.

Hypotheticals ... love em or hate them but one has to be careful of the ridiculous is all. My first pragmatic impression to the 'tree god' would be for me to cut the tree down and see what happens next (imagine that conversation %&%#). But in trying to keep with the spirit of this, I think it will ultimately lead to religion and its dogmatic practice. As to knowing or just believing one knows god ... what does that have to do with learning anything else or something you already know better? If all we had to do was deal with god or in my case without, things should proceed well between us. The real problem we could face is if we (or one of us) make the one (so far) difference between us BE the deciding factor in our dealings … then we would just be two fools trying to fool each other … foolishly.

Oh I'm sure my back yard tree god would lead to some sort of religious or dogmatic practice.  I mean, odds are I'd tell someone about it.  Then it becomes a question of why the tree god revealed himself to me.  What was the purpose and so on. 

Anyway, I don't deal with people based on their religious affiliation or some other generalization.  I deal with them and relate to them as individuals.  As such, its not so limiting if I have a friend that is of any religion or an atheist or what have you.

With regards to religion or politics, etc, I don't have much respect for people that come across as talking heads.  Eg folks that just recite ad nauseum things they've heard others say.  I certainly believe that if you follow any religion, the reason for doing so shouldn't be something as simple as "my parents did and I do as a result."  Certainly, there are more than a few folks that were brought up in the church this way, for instance, but when you reach a certain age, I'd hope questions like "why and I here" and "why do I go to church all the time" and so are asked.  And then, after searching, be able to answer questions like that. 

Anyway, I'm not sure if there is much of a hang up here, though.  Based on your background, boobzTwo, what really motivates the OP?  I think, if asked, we'd all say that we prefer to do our own thinking.  Not that we all do all of the time, ofc, and that we can't lean on those who have come before us.  I'm just wondering if something in particular has you frustrated about folks not being able to "think out of [a] box."

Yea I guess there is I just haven't put my finger on it. My (OP) was selfishly intended to get me away from religion for a bit as that is not high up on my likable list of topics. I guess I am afflicted with some sadomasochistic tendencies, my best excuse hahaha. But over the past year, I have learned how to actually identify myself in much broader real world terms than just another atheist (my starting point). Now I am quite comfortable with my views albeit I would change much of what I expressed and especially my delivery had I the chance to start anew ... but I don't.

 

I don't think this is the only result that could take place. It really doesn't even depend on you or your 'tree' beliefs. It might even be nice for everyone to have their own tree god to pall with. But when an intruder comes to you (or any of us with our trees) and tells us individually and collectively that we are all wrong because of their belief in a one god fits all perspective, well that is not going to bode any good will or rapport. And this doesn’t even take into consideration the ‘proof’ (for lack of a better word) for this foreign belief. The problem really has nothing to do with believing in god (or not) … but is does have everything to do with believing in god in just the right way. I lose all my logical input at this point is all?

 

I think you hit the nail on the head there.  I'd wager a lot of the problem is in how the information is conveyed.  Consider if I created a new post called "pacov - witness of the tree god."  Within the op, I expound on divinity of the tree god, provide my own testimony about said tree god, and then begin to call all other religions false.  Now, folks will either think me crazy and pick on me a bit or they will likely be offended and defend their beliefs.  Or take it the other way.  I start a post called there is no god and go into detail as why I might believe that to be true.  Some will surely jump on the bandwagon in support; others will strongly disagree.  This too, will raise ire, and likely result in a few parties "internet yelling" at each other.  The only thing usually gained by things like this is getting a knowledge of who around holds such and such belief.  Beyond that, I doubt much knowledge is transferred.

Anyway, even if you have an open mind, if the information being conveyed is done in an offensive way, folks aren't all that likely to respond positively or accept the "knowledge."  However, if an idea is controversial to you or something that you wouldn't normally be inclined to believe (or even discuss), developing rapport and perhaps empathy makes the difference. 

Looks real good on paper but not overly realistic I think, all things considered. On a personal level (where we like to communicate) this should work well enough in theory assuming at least some common ground and experience. But when dealing with organizations be they religious or otherwise it is never that simple. Rapport is seldom even welcome and all empathy is only internally expressed. Where is there even wiggle room for say the RCC to waffle on anything they have professed to be the true word of their god for a thousand years?  Same to be said for any religion that relies entirely on their own interpretation of all things and bars all others for no apparent real reason I can discern.  It all boils down to this: when dealing with a rock … only a fool would expect anything other than the continued inability to change anything rockish … ever.

My biggest stumbling block here is the "there really isn't any truth" perspective.

You can argue philosophically on that from a million different angles for an eternity but it also is a convenient dodge psychologically and emotionally when confronted with something you really don't want to know or think about--basically, it's the very "barrier to truth" that prompted this post.

The person who wants a compromise here but not abandon their option to dodge an issue will often demonstrate their more open philosophy along the line of, "Well...ok...let's agree there can be "truths" for conversations sake but they must include only x,y,z and can never include a,b,c.".

Which puts you right back at the barrier again--just more "rationally" justified.

We either can either share common perceptions of reality as humans--which means we can perceive some things as truths--or we all are crazy, locked totally in a world of our own imagining  but its' completely disingenuous to wash our hands and say, "What is truth?" as an out for anything one can't visualize as an individual and that another feels they may have some perception or understanding of.

You missed the point entirely David. It is not so much that there is no truth to be told ... it just varies due to the complexities of living in a real world where we are NOT in absolute control of much besides ourselves. From a religious perspective, truth is implicated and administered as the word of god and that is fine if it suits ones purposes, but try and administer that ‘truth’ to someone else of some different heritage … well have fun with that one. Take ‘thou shall not kill’; First of all the words themselves are wrong and should state ‘thou shall not murder’ as killing is acceptable to religious folk as well as most of the rest of us (Buddhists???). Guess there will always be exceptions. With that being said, can you make no argument or envision no situation where murder can be acceptable and even necessary?

I was watching Stargate Universe and in one episode there was a crash where a man was pinned under an immovable object, was in excruciating pain and was dying … almost there too. But the survivors couldn’t stay (you know how that works) … well what are you going to do when he begs you not to leave him to die alone. Two things come to mind here: Give him a weapon and allow him to end his own life (suicide) … pain will break the theological barrier and allow him to do this … but what about the soul you guys are so concerned about. This doesn’t seem to be a theologically acceptable solution. Option two would be to murder him (the option taken) and allow him passage wherever that takes him … but at least it grants him an escape from the pain and suffering … also theologically unacceptable. What would you do under similar circumstances? From a theological standpoint, both the murder and/or the suicide are unacceptable even though they are the only two viable options available. Want to make it even worse (not hard to do) … say the dying person was your mother or your husband. Absolute truth just doesn’t interface well with our species because we are too adapt at discovering exceptions to the rules simply because we must in order to survive. He was smothered in case you were interested …

To minimize further dancing around ... why don't you take a stab at describing 'absolute truth' instead of just using the terms like they have been defined in any real usable manner … and see how many holes I can punch in your definition. First problem though would be to define ‘truth’ on its own merits so it should be a while before you get to the ‘absolute’ part.

Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common usage, it also means constancy or sincerity in action or character. The direct opposite of truth is falsehood, which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings. However, language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered "theories". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)

Why do you write things like this. If there is even a small doubt as to your (someone else's) honesty ... end of conversation ... I know mine is intact. I do not see Lula as a dishonest person ... I view her to be intellectually dishonest because of her denial of the realities all around us, especially when they do not even threaten her beliefs.

Which is why it has no earthly meaning??? Absolutes are little more than a denial of our infallible humanity where we are not even allowed to make a choice for ourselves.

Nobody said there were no absolutes ... there are plenty as long as we remain in the real world. I thought we were talking about 'absolute truth' is all ... and that doesn't exist on earth. We are just tied up with our inferior language so we play these word games to no good end.