KT,
Best if you don’t answer, but I wonder why he is like this? In his response to you he said you were generalising? This is clearly not a generalization, but an observation, it is based specifically upon what he’s stated. I would call this objective, and I think you are right.
Double post sorry.
Best if you don’t answer, but I wonder why he is like this? In his response to you he said you were generalising? This is clearly not a generalization, but an observation, it is based specifically upon what he’s stated. I would call this objective, and I think you are right.[/q, of course it was a set of generalizations. I used to get more specific with Prismatic, but found it frustrating and ultimately fruitless. IOW I would go into specific points AND keep after him on specific points. My sense was that I was dealing with a primarily closed mind, unless a new idea helped him refine his position or strengthened it. I also felt like he did not fully understand solid argumentation. Now my approach is mostly via third parties, occasionally directly interacting, but then not expecting that anything will every be conceded, so I do not pursue points. And yes, occasionally in relation to third parties I make general comments, intended as general comments. Third parties, such as yourself, are free to judge for themselves of course, as you have.
You suggest it’s best not to answer the issue of why is he like this. But I think the answer is one that has nothing to do with Prismatic in particular - though there would be that answer also. We all do this. We all avoid cognitive dissonance. We all compete rather than explore when our ideas are important to us or our sense of ourselves as smart or penetrating or wholly rational seems at stake. We all have biases and stakes in out positions and at some points, at least, will refuse to acknowledge a criticism due to emotional slippery slope fears. If I admit this, then perhaps the whole edifice will fall. And youth and inexperience can play a role. Also poor introspective abilities. If you don’t notice the full range of things a criticism raises in you, you don’t know why you are reacting the way you do.
Some people do this more often than others.
Prismatic,
It doesn’t seem that you did, my apologies. How did you obtain your perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind?
Not belief?
This is a diagnosis.
IMV, these examples are too far removed from the many effects of religious belief to be analogous.
I agree there are Christians who are only Christians by name, but I don’t understand how you inferred the rest of what you stated here. I don’t see how you can assess the state of someone’s subconscious, when the person is theoretical?
Que?
KT,
Maybe my radar is off? Your points don’t seem like generalising to me. You “generalise” good man 
.
It should be called Prismatic-Buddhism and Prismatic-Christianity because the word ‘proper’ suggests an orthodoxy which your versions do not have.
“Weightages” are clearly subjective and arbitrary, which is why they are not used in a philosophy argument.
Thanks. I meant it was generalizing in the sense of I could cited a specific appeal to authority of his, for example, or a bunch. I could have given specific examples of each general claim about his posting habits. Or I could have responded to a specific post and cited examples there. Of course, I have responded to specific posts and Phyllo has and you have, all of us making specific points.
and not the irony of saying that a former Christian’s views should be dismissed. Utterly odd. Here we have someone who has experienced the conscious and official beliefs in situ and then has rejected them. For example leaving Christianity should have brought up a huge fear of death. I would bet that if anything it brought up social fears and a fear of Hell.
Like anyone can take seriously putting numbers down from subconscious factors on people who have been dead for thousands of years.
Prismatic will not accept criticism or critiques of his arguements. He will always claim that there are no valid counters. Yet he appeals for counters, whilst believing that his arguements are sound. Its like inviting people to fish in an empty lake. (This, is a generalisation IMV).
With regards to giving up Christianity, I wasn’t suddenly afraid to die and go to hell. I just accepted that life ends and I’ll cease to exist. If the subconscious fear of death was as powerful as Prismatic believes, I doubt that I would of been able to give it up. If I end up in hell for being unable to believe somethimg, then God is nuts.
Prismatic,
Do we actually believe that this “perish” is suppose to mean that people believed that they would not die a physical death if they believed in Christ? Is this what John was teaching?
I think it is possible that what is meant by “perish” is that people will not be damned to hell for eternity if they would only believe in Christ. I think that “everlasting life” after death was the main focus and what they considered to be their just award in view of the perhaps miserable lives they may have been living.
Prismatic,
I think this is over-simplified… There are varying degrees of living that human-beings engage in. Not everyone “strives” to live. Also, if someone does strive to live, we cannot leap to the conclusion that they are doing so to avoid death. That is an assumption, certainly not a conclusion which takes many factors into consideration.
Firstly, imputed by what? IMV, the fear of death is in our conscious awareness, we just don’t think about it all of the time. There is obviously a relationship between the conscious and subconscious mind, but people avoid death by being consciously aware of what will kill them, so we could tenuously say that the subconscious is where information is stored, but we cannot claim that the information is constantly active, if you see what I’m saying. It’s dormant, until the threat of death comes to our awareness, but then I’m guessing. The fear of death could be in our conscious awareness, because we don’t know for sure what the capacity of the consciousness mind is, and what information is stored where (note my use of mind, not brain). I don’t know why you think you do? Certain claims relating to the subconscious are problematic to make, because it is not something we consciously experience, so obtaining empirical evidence is difficult, hence the theoretical nature of this area of investigation.
I don’t understand how you could know that? What are “indirect existential pains”? Didn’t we discuss that you should explain terms like this?
You need to explain what you mean by “indirect existential pains”. Also, this is a diagnosis.
This conclusion doesn’t necessary follow from the premises. What if John 3:16 doesn’t relieve “indirect existential pains” (whatever that is)? Are you claiming that all Christians aren’t afraid to die, because John 3:16 suppresses the subconscious fear of death? When I was a Christian I was very afraid to die, and I still had existential questions, how would you explain that? Or is the actual experience of a Christian not valid here?
KT,
This is again cliche, but I would sum up Prismatic in the following way… “Having intelligence is one thing, knowing how to use it is another.”
(I’ve had way too much caffeine today 
)
Were you a proper Christian? 
Phyllo,
the irony causes me to sit back … Not by Prismatic’s standards. But anyway, only on Sundays 
.
phyllo,
So then, I do not presume that what you are saying here is that everything that we see and value and love and experience does not actually exist, that the reality is that it is all illusion.
Perhaps buddhists like to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yes, this is true. At the same time, do we not recognize a slice of pumpkin pie as having its own properties or when we eat it, do we at the same time drag the rest of the pie along with it? lol That was a very poor example. Words just failed.
This is true. That is called a Self but I do not view it as an optical delusion. We are not the Borg. That same human being is also capable of sensing and feeling connected to everything in the universe perhaps more so because he realizes that he is not all alone like an island. He has himself. Why does it have to be just one way or the other?
It is true though that there are individuals who feel this way in a negative way. They are usually called narcissists or megalomaniacs and they have false selves. One comes to my mind. lol
The way I look at it, the individual who is a whole person, a whole self, who sees their self as also being a part of something, experiencing their inter-connectedness, but at the same time also as a unique individual who knows who they are, who is capable of both seeking their place in the world and knowing when they have found it – this is the kind of person who can reach out, who will widen their circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty, in their own unique way, spending their life as William James said, for something which will outlast it.
If someone is not fully “whole” in their own self, how would they have the “conscious awareness” to accomplish the things which need to be done in this world? What kind of a person would that be other than one who seeks a cause for the thrill of it, that experience soon fading away or the one who would allow their self to be used or abused in the name of some cause because they did not have a sense of their own true identity or “individuality”.
People who do not have a strong sense of “true” self are lead to lose the already waning self and identity which they have. This is why some are drawn to cults or to other unhealthy, negative symbiotic relationships.
Again, what is it about us which seems to want to deny what is clearly there or could be there? The despots of the world may just love the buddhist.
“Conscious awareness” is not required.
That assumes some static “true self” in there.
On the contrary. When the Buddhist eliminates cravings, desires and attachments, he/she cannot be controlled by a despot. Threats, punishments and rewards have no effect. The Buddhist has complete freedom of action.
It is not perceived knowledge of the subconscious mind.
It is a scientific fact, all humans has a mind comprising a conscious and unconscious part.
Note;
simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html
If you read the above article you will definitely agree with the demarcation.
You disagree with the above?
Yes, no belief and acceptance in their ‘heart’ of Christ/God as savior.
There are many Muslims and other refugees in the USA who superficially convert to Christianity because that will expedite them to be citizens.
Not my diagnosis.
The above reasons are commonly reported in testimonies by atheists who convert to Christianity, Islam and other theistic religion.
Even Christians who convert to Islam and vice versa will give similar reasons.
I have read of many testimonies from those who converted to Christianity or Islam, that they feel their mental burdens and pains are relieved immediately upon surrender and accepting Christ or Allah respectively as savior.
I have read of 100s of such testimonies. Suggest you read a significant number if you haven’t.
In the case of some who converted to Islam, the relief they get from being Muslim is so precious, they are willing to obey Allah to kill non-Muslims or even kill themselves to retain that relief in paradise.
I have given my argument the fundamental reason why people are driven to Christianity-proper is due to the compelling indirect impulses from the subconscious fear of death.
This is supported with evidences re the concept of death from the authorized texts of all the major religions.
Therefore one can make the inference from the effects to the cause based on the above evidences.