I just got through with a major ordeal. The Dawkies laid out a slander campaign trying to destroy my reputation because I've had some very effective arguments they could not answer. They laid about several things but it began with this one character "troxel" who was angry because I bested him ni verbal combat. he tried a couple of vendettas that didn't work then he hit upon a minor discrepancy. IN an article the writers says "the unspiriutalized person is the sick soul." Me means by that that the old Freudian notion that reilgion is sickness is wrong and has been overturned, religion is good becuase it conveys spiritual truth, the unspirtial person is the sick one." I said "unbeliever" is the sick soul. the Dawkies thought I meant "non Christians." So they said I took it out of context. I meant pretty much what the guy in the article meant, I mean the kind of believer in spiritual reality like the author of the article was advocating. The stage set over that issue all of them viyed to prove that I don't understand the article, when it is exactly what I've been saying for years. They do't know what I say because they don't listen.
The article in question is "Psychology, Psycho analysis and Religious Faith," by Jorge W.F. Amaro.
Troxel tried to blow i up into a larger issue saying that I take everything out of context.
Originally Posted by troxel
(1) you have no valid reason for claiming I abuse anything.
(2) the major researcher who invented the m scale read my book when it comes out it will have his statment on it saying it's good. So you have no basis for that calim since the major guy who the studies says i understand them and got them right.
(3) you have not read a single one so you don't have anything to compere it to.
(4) no one else here has read one either but me.I see what's wrong with it.You don't understaned the article. you don't understand what was by the terms so there's no way you can know that my use of them was wrong.I just focused on one example and I am simply amazed that you cannot see what was wrong with it. It is though you are missing awareness of what is a common academic standard - you don't misrepresent your sources.
you are fling in the face of obvious quotes because you don't know the background you don't know theology. So typical. So man times a little arrogant ignorant hooligan who think he knows it all because he knows very little.like you not understanding what it's about? you would include all atheists as spiritual when most of them are diametrically opposed to everything in the article that is spiritual.It also provides a great demonstration how you fail to measure up to what Amaro would qualify as a spiritualized person.
you know you are wrong you don't don't understand stop the pretense. You have not disproved my interpretation. you a't. I will contact Amaro and he will tell you himself don't don't' get it.
Simple question that you have yet to answer. Are atheists and materialists within the category of unbeliever?
I did answer it. you are too dense to think about my answer. you don't understand my answer. you don't know what the article is about so you don't understand the answer.
In Amaro's conception of the world categories of materialist and theist and atheist are all wrong, all irrelevant. To him atheist and theist are just metaphors, god is a metaphor. The one for him who is not spiritual (how many times did I point this without quotes? at least four) the non spiritual is the one who thinks the metaphor is a problem or a pathology and that being religions is bad.
Proof: If that's not the case then why is he talking about Eliade and Jung and all that stuff? The statement "the nonspiritual person sis the sick soul" you don't even get the significance of it.
It's significant because Freud thought that religious people are sick. Religion is a result mental problems. The point of the article is to say Frued si wrong the religious person is not sick, the sick person is the unspectacular one who can't open to the possibilities of reality. those possibilities are defend in terms of Jung and Elaide which otherwise he has no reaosn o talk about them.
the vast majority of atheists don't accept those things. When he says atheists are included in spiritual he's not obviously n ot saying all atheists, he's excluding one's like Freud and those who would reject the metaphors of religion. Otherwise it makes no sense to speak of the sick soul. He is saying "no not the religious person who is sick its' the person is not open the possibilities.
that includes most of the atheist on carm.that proves to me that you don't understand the meaning of any of the terms that you are throwing about. you don't understand the point of the article.Where? Where does he exclude reductionists? Please provide the quote where he excludes reductionists.
His provided definition does not exclude reductionists - that is yet another distortion by you.
of course a reductionist would fall into the category of those who reject the Jung and Eliade thing as "new age" and "unproved" and. He says several things about scinece that show, (I told you to look at my signature that is such a quote) that applies to the reductionists.
you just don't understand the ramifications of the article because you don't understand the history of ideas involved the labels he uses.you think that theology and history of ideas are things I can't know ou have a sad school coming. this stuff is exactly what I know. The things in that article are right up my alley.l This is my "line of country." ' This is what I studied. I've spent 30 years studying it. Stupid to say I can't it this is what I do know. I may not know much else but I do this stuff.On and on. Will you stop assuming you know things that you can't. But let me restate:
hey don't look now this is exactly what people learn in theology school and in history of ideas. It's called Intellectuality and I spent my life on it.
Yes I think wishing or fantasizing about torture, killing or great harm on another individual is wrong if not evil - a sign of a sick soul.
That is his understanding of what the article says. Yet the author doesn't say it and it makes all the talk about Freud seem unintelligible and without purpose.The point of the article is to say Freud is old hat, his views on religion as neurotic and sick are wrong, the sick soul is the one who can't think past the literal and undersatnd he metaphor of higher power.
If that's not it would not make any kind of sense for him to talk so much about "omnipotence." I wonder if Trox actually read the article? I would bet he just found a few buzz words and read a passage or two with words like "atheist" in them. He has really bothered to figure out what the article is about.
notice that in this last post he dismisses he idea that I can know about the issues because and the history of the ideas, as though it's never occurred to him that schools and disciplines have histories that can b studies and that ideas one supports have logical connections and ramifications that can be studied and anticipated.
Some who doesn't mess with an intellectual life doesn't understand doing that.
It wold make no sense for him to spend so much time talking about Jung and Eliade if they were not his models for spirituality. They tie in that way based upon what he says about them.In discussing them he uses the capital B for "Being." Eliade was a friend of Tillich, and Tillich got a lot of his latter ideas from Eliade. Of course he was also very familiar with Jung.
Therefore, the kind of thing Tillich is doing is right in there with Amaro and his concerns, because he was clearly a Jungian and and Eliade fan. Tillich's main struggle was against reductionsm and it's a safe bet that the reductionist is the sick soul for Amaro. That would totally in keeping with the things he says about scinece.
this is what Amaro says:
"Religious faith and religion offer the idea of absolute, of a total and finished truth that has not been achieved by science since ancient times. "
(1) that's the kind of stuff that you guys poo poo all the time when I bring it up and that you call "new age." It's not new age but I've seen atheists on CARM call it that.
(2) That's what Tillich was saying. That quote I just quoted could come right out of Paul Tillch.
so it's obvious for Amaro the unspiritualizaed person might be a reduction but he would deferentially be the kind of person who can't accept religious truth as metaphor for a transcendent reality.
"We know that even in physics the theories are relative and questionable as to their universal reach, such as the laws of gravitation and the quanta, which have not been integrated in a single theory for macro and microcosm. --"
that might single to us that a reductionist would not be happy with this guy. IN fact Mat has stated in response to that very quote that I don't know anything about scinece.
I think this proves pretty well that I was totally vindicated to change the terms in the quote form "unspirtiualied" to "unbeliever." In fact I didn't do it I refereed to the quote that way. I also did that by accident. I didn't intent to change the term I slitted. I guess it's just that what I think it means came through. I still stand by that interpretation.
there's o way a rational person can think I took it out of context.
atheist slanderers have created a mythology about me, with no evidence and no reason and not one of them reading a single study, they have just made up that I take everything out of context any time I quote stuff that's obviously a lie. I just proved its a falsehood here.
no 21 (in the thread)
looking for knowledge
(that's a screen name)
Yes I admit I did not read it and i won't lie about it. I did not read it because I know that I am not good enough to understand nor criticize anyone in that subject. However, I am very sure Trox & Hermit & the rest had read it thoroughly. because: (answer this honestly)I doubt that any of them read it. But they quickly formed a ridicule gauntlett with about 20 of them coming one after another going "he always takes stuff out of context," "He's so dishonest." I disproved their position on ever single issue they wont acknowledge one issue.
From the Amaro article.
The unspirituialized, and the Dawkie
Religious faith and religion offer the idea of absolute, of a total and finished truth that has not been achieved by science since ancient times. We know that even in physics the theories are relative and questionable as to their universal reach, such as the laws of gravitation and the quanta, which have not been integrated in a single theory for macro and microcosm.
Water can be found in different states, such as solid, liquid and gaseous, but from a chemical point of view it shows a non-variant, that is, in every state it is still made by two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.
Philosophy, anthropology, mythology, sociology, psychology, psychoanalysis and related fields can produce different and specific concepts that nevertheless show hidden non-variants, which may contribute for more inclusive truths.
Reality and absolute truth are perceived in different ways according to the beliefs of the several schools of thoughts. The empiricists understand we can capture truth by means of our senses; the intuitionists that intuition would be that tool; while idealists trust reason; those belonging to the historical dialectic materialism group believe in the research methods of their theory; the religious believers accept faith and revelation; and so on. Every group has its own tool of omnipotent power.
Still, we can notice a non-variant in all those methods to grasp legitimate truth and reality, which is the idea of an omnipotent power. This non-variant is the omnipotence function elaborated by each of the theories developed by different philosophers.
Is that what reductionists believe? Isn't that an idea your average reductionist would puke if he heard it? Do carm atheists believe that? how many times have atheists on carm called that "new age" in a derisive way when I've advocated it?
How many atheists here believe in omnipotent power?
Archetypes are universal elements pertaining to the faculties of imagination and creativity. They have no specific content and have been inherited since ancestral times.
Religion is the – voluntary or involuntary – relationship between the person and the absolute and most powerful value, be it positive or negative. This overpowering psychic factor is named God.
so clearly reductionists would be an example of a kind of thinker he would call unspritiuailzed,a nd so would the carm atheist. the dawkie.
the paper was published in 98 before the 2004 surge of "new Atheism" he's not including the new atheist fundie thing it. There's no reason to think that. when he says "atheist" are included in spiritualist me means Buddhists or Marxists or people who mediate he's not talking about Harris and Dawkins.
he goes on with several statements about scinece and it's short comings.
Here's a good one:
The supernatural and the sacredness result from an elaboration on the function of omnipotence by the mind and can be found both in atheist and religious people. It is an existential function in humankind and the uses each one makes of it will be the measure for one's understanding.
How many times a day do CARM atheists ridicule the supernatural? He clearly accepts that term as meaningful,. how many of you do? come on now be honest. It's true he says you can find it in both (that is nothing new for me, Abraham Maslow said that I knew that before 98 before my first post on CARM). he clearly does not mean either all atheists or all religious people.
are you guys content to accept that view and say "ok I'll believe in the supernatural now as long as atheists can be included?" sure we'll see in the coming the weeks if any of you can live with that because i'm not going to let it go.
I am right on this issue, the unspiritual is the unbeliever, not in conventional sense of institution but in the sense of the thing the metaphor points to.