Gyroscopic Investing

curlew wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:
I think he was referring to a paranormal experience. Most people that would have that kind of thing conflate it with their culture's dominant religion, i.e. Christianity. OTOH, some do believe they've literally communicated with or seen "God" or "Jesus", so it would be hard to argue with them otherwise. A lot of what transpires in the paranormal depends on pre-existing belief memes since those are the filters that all of reallity is perceived through. For instance, all those creepy demonic entity possession documentaries seem to overwhelmingly only happen to Catholics, whether practicing or not.

No, I was referring to what I'm going through right now. http://hommelscitadel.com/spiritual-gui ... em-stupid/

Looks to me like you might be close to becoming a Christian. Having been there and done that I say go for it. In the grand scheme of things it might be a necessary step, just as it was for me.

Just please don't post anything telling me I'm going to hell because I don''t believe what you believe.

If I do (I doubt it), it's hard for me to imagine myself getting at all excited by Jesus, particularly his rebirth. That part of the mythos just has no appeal to me. I'm really enjoying all the Buddhist stuff I'm reading these days.

And no, I find evangelical Christianity of the "Jesus or eternal torture" styles to be insufferable, so I doubt I'm going to be pontificating on where anyone's souls are destined.

Pointedstick wrote:And no, I find evangelical Christianity of the "Jesus or eternal torture" styles to be insufferable, so I doubt I'm going to be pontificating on where anyone's souls are destined.

I suspect like rank-and-file Democrats or Republicans, some people are just born to be hardwired to certain religions. Nothing else really makes much sense to me. No doubt there will be hard-core followers waiting for the return of what they view as "Jesus" into the flesh. So my question is... were they born that way to expect that or was it just happenstance and lucking timing? (Don't worry, "Jesus" is not due to come back until the 22nd century but don't quote me on that, it's off the top of my head. And its seriously doubtful all but a minority of Christians will recognize the return anyway since they're all so full of shit).

You should check out the Dalai Lama also. They have a very interesting and insular culture and fascinating tests for detecting their continously reincarnated leader. I can't make much sense of what their whole point is.

MachineGhost wrote:We each create our own reality with our beliefs.

I don't understand how you can get after people for their "mysticism", and for believing in things that are unprovable, and then turn around and make assertions like this one.

Xan wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:We each create our own reality with our beliefs.

I don't understand how you can get after people for their "mysticism", and for believing in things that are unprovable, and then turn around and make assertions like this one.

Well obviously you don't agree with it because you're already a religious believer. So I guess it comes down to which ideal trumps which ideal from a framework for explaining reality. Religions are all about giving up your will and power to others based on nothing more than faith; OTOH, I'm just saying take self-responsibility for your shit. This isn't debatable in science because perceptions create reality and what filters perceptions? Beliefs. Cogito ergo sum.

So yeah it goes without saying I prefer to have faith in "assertions" that are in line with the scientific evidence. But that's just me.

MachineGhost wrote:

Xan wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:We each create our own reality with our beliefs.

I don't understand how you can get after people for their "mysticism", and for believing in things that are unprovable, and then turn around and make assertions like this one.

Well obviously you don't agree with it because you're already a religious believer. So I guess it comes down to which ideal trumps which ideal from a framework for explaining reality. Religions are all about giving up your will and power to others based on nothing more than faith; OTOH, I'm just saying take self-responsibility for your shit. This isn't debatable in science because perceptions create reality and what filters perceptions? Beliefs. Cogito ergo sum.

So yeah it goes without saying I prefer to have faith in "assertions" that are in line with the scientific evidence. But that's just me.

Rarely will someone admit that he believes himself to be his own god. Typically that gets denied. I sure am glad I have my God rather than myself!

Xan wrote:Rarely will someone admit that he believes himself to be his own god. Typically that gets denied. I sure am glad I have my God rather than myself!

Nice straw man there!

Xan wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Xan wrote: Rarely will someone admit that he believes himself to be his own god. Typically that gets denied. I sure am glad I have my God rather than myself!

Okay, I'll admit it. I'm my own god. What happens next? Does the real God stomp me to pieces like in a Monty Python skit or something? If so, he's an asshole. Why is he the only one who gets to think he is god? And if he's really that kind of God why haven't I been stomped to pieces yet? If I get killed in a car crash on my way to work tomorrow I'll have my wife let you all know and then you can all repent in sackcloth and ashes because the real god has finally spoken once and for all and given you his opinion about me. I'm sure it will send chills up and down your spines.

And if you don't think I'm talking about the real Biblical god, then read about Aaron's sons in the Bible. Aaron was appointed to be the high priest by Moses and God but his sons mixed up the wrong concoction of incense and fire came out from the Lord and turned them to crispy critters in his sight. Aaron was then told by Moses not to mourn for his sons but continue to do his duty and Aaron obeyed god (as opposed to telling him to go f**k himself like a real human being would do).

I think about that story every time I have to fill out a "ticket" at work, hoping I don't get it wrong.

interactive processing wrote:

Xan wrote:
Rarely will someone admit that he believes himself to be his own god. Typically that gets denied. I sure am glad I have my God rather than myself!

why does it have to be an either or choice? an anthropomorphized, separate from us, big sky daddy, or a (derogatory always implied) "you are your own god" you egotistical hell bound faithless fool?

what if the entire notion of a duality is what is false? what if you are actually just " a part of god " but only truly so when you give up the illusion of separation, and the big ego blinders, that the world is being seen through and distorted by, in both the "anthropomorphized big sky daddy", and the "you are your own god" options?....

I guess you could phrase it "I am a part of God", but I would phrase it "God is a part of me" (He came to me at my Baptism with his Word and water and continues to come to me with his Word, and wine and bread at the Lord's Table.) I agree with you that we see the world as distorted. To me a question is, what is the source of that distortion and why does it exist?

... Mountaineer

interactive processingt wrote:

Xan wrote:
Rarely will someone admit that he believes himself to be his own god. Typically that gets denied. I sure am glad I have my God rather than myself!

why does it have to be an either or choice? an anthropomorphized, separate from us, big sky daddy, or a (derogatory always implied) "you are your own god" you egotistical hell bound faithless fool?

what if the entire notion of a duality is what is false? what if you are actually just " a part of god " but only truly so when you give up the illusion of separation, and the big ego blinders, that the world is being seen through and distorted by, in both the "anthropomorphized big sky daddy", and the "you are your own god" options?....

I would say that ANY element of me being God is enough to throw the whole thing into "I am my own God" territory.

The true God is our help and our salvation when we know we are UNworthy.

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I guess you could phrase it "I am a part of God", but I would phrase it "God is a part of me" (He came to me at my Baptism with his Word and water and continues to come to me with his Word, and wine and bread at the Lord's Table.) I agree with you that we see the world as distorted. To me a question is, what is the source of that distortion and why does it exist?

... Mountaineer

"I am a part of God", but I would phrase it "God is a part of me" ... "I am a part of God" says you are a little bit of a larger thing, "God is a part of me" says that there is some part of you that isn't god or is separate from god, (entirely true for most) but the "what if" i am proposing is "what if" that is just an illusion? an incorrect perception of reality brought on by the ego. the perception and feeling of separation (ego) is the cause of separation...

What if the cause of separation is lack of faith in Jesus? What if faith in Jesus IS reality, and our perception of something other than that is due to ego, i.e. faith in ourself? To coin a phrase, "separation frustration causes desperation fixation".

... Mountaineer

This isn't blind faith: it's faith handed down from the very beginning. It's prophecies made and fulfilled. And primarily, it's the historical accounts of a dead man no longer being dead.

Faith in your own reason, now that is blindness.

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

interactive processing wrote: "I am a part of God", but I would phrase it "God is a part of me" ... "I am a part of God" says you are a little bit of a larger thing, "God is a part of me" says that there is some part of you that isn't god or is separate from god, (entirely true for most) but the "what if" i am proposing is "what if" that is just an illusion? an incorrect perception of reality brought on by the ego. the perception and feeling of separation (ego) is the cause of separation...

What if the cause of separation is lack of faith in Jesus? What if faith in Jesus IS reality, and our perception of something other than that is due to ego, i.e. faith in ourself? To coin a phrase, "separation frustration causes desperation fixation".

... Mountaineer

Because having faith doesn't change how you perceive or interact with the world around you, we are creatures of reason... for a reason. We live like blind men in a dark room full of sharp edged coffee tables wandering around constantly busting our shins against the furniture, having faith doesn't alter that.. its a quick fix for the bad feelings and sore shins, "Jesus died for me so it will all be OK when i die" (which is quite possibly true) but it is no less blind.... what i am suggesting doesn't require faith.. it requires a leap of faith. some guy named Jesus showed up and tried to convince the world that if you took a leap of faith and made the effort you could see the world through his eyes.. see it the way he saw it, live in it the way he lived in it and stop painfully smashing into the world around you.. (in harmony or as a "child of god" in Christian terminology)
the you must have blind faith in big sky daddy version of god that got interpreted into what he said, is just the same old angry primitive sky gods that people worshiped and begged to for mercy from before Jesus showed up, blind faith is blind, changing your perception of reality to one that actually works is both rational and spiritual..

interactive processing,

Interesting comments you have. Perhaps your last sentence is so, but that is a very utilitarian view, and very internally focused, and it requires a whole lot of blind faith to believe ... for me that is. I prefer to have my anchor firmly planted in someone that is external to my fragile, broken, flawed, mistake prone self; someone external whose promises are trustworthy. I just recently heard there are something on the order of a thousand prophecies in the Bible, and not one of them has yet proved to be incorrect; I've not delved into that deeply to verify the number, but it does give credance to the as of yet unfulfilled items being true (such as where I'm going when I die and what condition I'll be in). Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

On a side subject, you seem to have the same view of an angry God that some others do; angry, not just. An angry god like those other primitive gods that people thought required child sacrifice to appease (e.g. Pele or Molech). May I ask why you hold that view? How do you interpret the Scripture that says Jesus came to fulfill the Law? Do you think Christians are required by God to behave according to the 10 Commandments, or only Jews, or neither, or both?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:An angry god like those other primitive gods that people thought required child sacrifice to appease (e.g. Pele or Molech).

The modern god of reason requires child sacrifice too.

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: interactive processing,

Interesting comments you have. Perhaps your last sentence is so, but that is a very utilitarian view, and very internally focused, and it requires a whole lot of blind faith to believe ... for me that is. I prefer to have my anchor firmly planted in someone that is external to my fragile, broken, flawed, mistake prone self; someone external whose promises are trustworthy. I just recently heard there are something on the order of a thousand prophecies in the Bible, and not one of them has yet proved to be incorrect; I've not delved into that deeply to verify the number, but it does give credance to the as of yet unfulfilled items being true (such as where I'm going when I die and what condition I'll be in). Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

On a side subject, you seem to have the same view of an angry God that some others do; angry, not just. An angry god like those other primitive gods that people thought required child sacrifice to appease (e.g. Pele or Molech). May I ask why you hold that view? How do you interpret the Scripture that says Jesus came to fulfill the Law? Do you think Christians are required by God to behave according to the 10 Commandments, or only Jews, or neither, or both?

... Mountaineer

external and internal is a meaningless distinction, no matter how much faith you have on an external source it still gets perceived and acted on by the internal, fragile, broken, flawed, mistake prone self, your understanding cant escape from that part of who you are.... (except it can ) maybe that was the whole point of the fulfilling of prophecy and the dieing for our sins, the time and place he lived in only had external (and yes often angry) faith based gods then Jesus came along and yanked the rug out from under that, tried to teach the idea that you can see (how many times does that word appear in the teachings of Jesus?) unfortunately the idea of a relationship with an external god that requires faith as opposed to diligent and difficult transformation of ones relationship to and perception of the world, was just to ingrained, to political, and to wrapped up in being powerful to escape from.. and so we have the modern faith based church and its perpetual conflict with reason..

another interesting side note, quantum physics has begun to suggest (light being both wave and particles) that the observer is a part of the experiment, that there is a mathematically provable interconnectedness between the observer and the observed (non duality)

interactive processing,

Why do you think faith in Jesus is in conflict with reason? My presupposition: everything is a gift from God, including reason. What are the presuppositions that your worldview is based upon? And, if you would choose to do so, I really am interested in your answers to my previous questions. Also, how do you discount all the historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected? Then we can talk about the Schodinger's cat thought experiment. By the way, it is never too late to start.

... Mountaineer

Edit: What do you think of this post from a blog I read? It was written by a college professor:

However (you just knew there was a "however" coming), when it comes to "academic consensus/academic standards," I'm afraid there really is no such thing. I can only speak from my own experience as an academic in a university setting for more than two decades now. But that experience has confirmed that, even in the sciences (maybe, especially in the sciences), there is no consensus -- no consensus on what science is, or what a "scientific method" is, or which disciplines can properly count themselves as entitled to the sobriquet "science." We have two physicists on our faculty who were deeply influenced by Thomas Kuhn, and are publicly insistent that science is simply -- to use familiar language -- a "social construct" that never actually progresses toward truth about the natural world. I know two of our chemistry faculty and one biologist who, to varying degrees, accept Paul Feyerabend's portrayal of science as an elitist exercise devoted to sustaining the power of vile corporate interests. Many of those who teach in our College of Science and Mathematics were trained to accept a scientific methodology articulated by Karl Popper, in which no scientific theory can ever be verified, but only falsified, meaning we only have a transient hold, at best, on any scientific explanation of anything. Frankly, the history of the self-understanding of science and its practitioners in the twentieth, and twenty-first, centuries, is a mess. As far as I can tell, the only agreement among our science faculty is that they all belong to the science faculty. But none of them agrees on what that means for science itself. And, of course, the same uncertainty reigns within the social sciences, and certainly, within my philosophy department.

Although it is probably not important, perhaps I should add that I work pretty closely with these faculty -- I teach philosophy of science, and I'm an investigator on a couple of grants with them; some of these federal funding agencies require that an "ethicist" be included on their grants, but maybe that's primarily an indictment of the funding agencies.

In short, the notion of an "academic consensus," even in the sciences, is a myth.

I couldn't resist... if we're all part of "God" and "God" is within us and we're all made in "God's" image, then yes we are all little "Gods" too! That is logical, Captain!

I am actually curious now if there is a way to adopt a religion's dogma based solely on reason alone. I do not think it is possible. It would not pass the evidentiary tests that we demand in a court of law so long as it doesn't involve faith*. Anyone?

* For instance, if you had a good faith belief that you were not required to file income tax returns, then you cannot be convicted for willful failure to file as several court cases have shown. I'm actually in this camp based on my reading of the history, statutes and implementing regulations of the IRC, but when you weigh the worst case cost of proving such a good faith belief position in a Kangaroo tax court, there are much bigger fish to fry. Public policy will alway trump what you personally think the real rule of law (or lack of) is.

interactive processing" wrote:another interesting side note, quantum physics has begun to suggest (light being both wave and particles) that the observer is a part of the experiment, that there is a mathematically provable interconnectedness between the observer and the observed (non duality)

Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

I wish you luck, but you're not going to convince anyone walking around in the faith stupor no matter how many observiations of reality bitchslaps them on the face. They have completely bought into the bullshit, hook, line and sinker. They're 100% all in. They're not interested in factual non-confirmation. It is just how it is.

And why don't we all just be honest here? We only have these conversations, debates and wars because deep down inside we are insecure and scared that we've made the wrong choice about what to believe in for the afterlife. It is no different than the greed and fear emotional anguish when trying to invest the non-PP way.

For you quantum physics gurus. I thought the book was quite entertaining. Out there, but entertaining. Different, but entertaining. Much better than new age crystals, or weed, or peyote, or .........

https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics- ... B004YLRZK4

... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote:

interactive processing wrote:another interesting side note, quantum physics has begun to suggest (light being both wave and particles) that the observer is a part of the experiment, that there is a mathematically provable interconnectedness between the observer and the observed (non duality)

Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

I wish you luck, but you're not going to convince anyone walking around in the faith stupor no matter how many observiations of reality bitchslaps them on the face. They have completely bought into the bullshit, hook, line and sinker. They're 100% all in. They're not interested in factual non-confirmation. It is just how it is.

And why don't we all just be honest here? We only have these conversations, debates and wars because deep down inside we are insecure and scared that we've made the wrong choice about what to believe in for the afterlife. It is no different than the greed and fear emotional anguish when trying to invest the non-PP way.

You speak for self, grasshopper . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: You speak for self, grasshopper . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/

It's okay to be in denial. You're only as sick as your secrets.

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: You speak for self, grasshopper . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068093/

It's okay to be in denial. You're only as sick as your secrets.

... Mountaineer

interactive processing wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: interactive processing,

Why do you think faith in Jesus is in conflict with reason? My presupposition: everything is a gift from God, including reason. What are the presuppositions that your worldview is based upon? And, if you would choose to do so, I really am interested in your answers to my previous questions. Also, how do you discount all the historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected? Then we can talk about the Schodinger's cat thought experiment. By the way, it is never too late to start.


... Mountaineer

MachineGhost summed it up pretty well
Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

faith is just an "it makes me feel good guess" at best (a mostly harmless opiate of the masses) but it can leads down some pretty nasty roads (faith that Alla wants you to pile up dead infidels) and its just plain shoddy weak sauce thinking.. a leap of faith however is a impetus to movement, i cant know for sure that a state of harmony, enlightenment, Christ consciousness exists, but i can take a leap of faith and begin the process of finding it (without ever abandoning a facts- proof based world view)

i don't discount the evidence of resurrection , i have never seen any... whether it happened remains in the unknown category of things..

Mountaineer wrote: How do you interpret the Scripture that says Jesus came to fulfill the Law? Do you think Christians are required by God to behave according to the 10 Commandments, or only Jews, or neither, or both?

... Mountaineer

i am not sure what you mean by fulfill the law, as for the ten commandments i think both Jews and christens commit them selfs to those rules by being members don't they?

interactive processing wrote: MachineGhost summed it up pretty well
Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

Lets take the above deeper and talk about the proper framework for determining between the two. This seems quite timely [emphasis added]:

A. Objectivity: What Is It?

Smith’s theory of knowledge, which is based upon the epistemological work of Ayn Rand, is
essentially realist.8 Smith contends that physical objects, events, relationships, and ideas (including man-
made rules) really exist, and that each of these “existents” has a specific nature that is independent of
human beings’ “observations, attitudes, and beliefs about [their] nature.” 9 Human beings can gain
accurate knowledge of the nature of particular existents, but existents are what they are, regardless of
what we believe that they are. Thus, we need to develop a method of thinking that can “sift[] true beliefs
from untrue and valid inferences from invalid.” 10

The method of thinking Smith offers is objectivity. Objectivity is a mental discipline that consists
in pursuing “the actual nature of the specific object or phenomena in question,” relying solely on
“relevant evidence and logical inferences therefrom.” 11 Identifying the nature of existents entails
identifying their essential characteristics — the fundamental common denominators that distinguish them
from other existents.12 Objectivity is empirical — it relies upon observational evidence rather than
intuition or speculation.13 Objectivity is hierarchical — one cannot understand complex ideas like
“property” without understanding other ideas upon which they rest.14 Finally, objectivity is contextual —
what evidence is relevant to a given inquiry depends upon the purpose of the inquiry, and what one is
justified in believing about a particular object or phenomenon depends upon the facts of which one is
aware.15 If we discover that our “earlier knowledge was incomplete in certain respects,” 16 we must “alter
our conclusions, however objectively formed those conclusions were at the time they were first made.” 17

Smith takes time to address and dispel potential misconceptions concerning objectivity. First,
objectivity is an active process. Existents, be they physical objects or “high-level abstractions” like legal
concepts, do not simply reveal their nature to us — grasping their nature requires diligent, intellectually
engaged effort.18 Second, objectivity is not determined by consensus, even informed consensus.19
Whether a person has “ground[ed] their thinking in observation of reality” and “remain[ed] faithful to
what they observe through the conscientious use of logic” does not turn on who they are or who agrees
with them.20 Third, objectivity is not infallible. We can come to erroneous conclusions, despite our most
disciplined efforts to “get reality right.” 21 A conclusion that is objective is not necessarily correct. It is,
however, the product of a method that gives us the “firmest ground possible for our conclusions to hug
the facts.” 22 To assert that a conclusion is objective is to assert that “in the state of knowledge
at the relevant time,” the conclusion “most fully and accurately reflects the nature of the existents in
question and the relationships between them.” 23

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=2798715

This also seems relevant in general since a lot (all?) of religions are based on the threat of coercion from a "God" or "gods":

The initiation of physical force — or the threat of physical force — by others can thwart our
ability to think or act rationally. Smith offers the example of a voter who is threatened with violence if
they do not cast their ballot for a particular political candidate: “The fact that if I fail to vote for Pearson
my kneecaps will be shattered is not logical reason to concede that Pearson is the most qualified
candidate.” 35 Even if the voter resists the threat, its presence forces them to take into account and act upon
considerations that are not relevant to the question of which candidate is most qualified. As Smith puts it,
the “injection of force . . . introduces a different question for the person to answer,” namely, “should I
obey the coercer are not?” 36 When other people forcibly impose their will on us, they prevent us from
acting as our reason would otherwise dictate.

So just replace government, candidates, other people, etc. with "God", religion, etc. and its exactly the same. The brain doesn't distinguish between internal and external coercers (due to mirror neurons).

MachineGhost wrote:
Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

I wish you luck, but you're not going to convince anyone walking around in the faith stupor no matter how many observiations of reality bitchslaps them on the face. They have completely bought into the bullshit, hook, line and sinker. They're 100% all in. They're not interested in factual non-confirmation. It is just how it is.

And why don't we all just be honest here? We only have these conversations, debates and wars because deep down inside we are insecure and scared that we've made the wrong choice about what to believe in for the afterlife. It is no different than the greed and fear emotional anguish when trying to invest the non-PP way.

How about:

Faith = based on abundance of evidence
Facts = change with new information

I think the two terms may be far more closely related than you indicate in your first paragraph. For whatever reason, I'd really like to know why you have the blinders that you seem to have thoroughly fixed over your eyes, as I'm sure you would like to know the same thing you perceive about me. It would be an interesting subject to kick around over a beer or three. I would add a third item to your two equations:
Truth = reality whether it is currently perceived or not

Re. the second paragraph. Perhaps many are like that, probably a whole lot of people. I honestly think that I am very secure and not scared about the afterlife; hopefully I will still feel that way when I draw my last breath. I am motivated by the love, forgiveness and mercy Jesus expresses far more than being scared of hell, whatever that might be. I do understand that many only see a god of cruelty, vengance, and punishment - perhaps because they see that kind of god as a reflection of themselves, most people are basically that way when backed into a corner. Carrot and stick. I am more of a carrot guy, perhaps because I see myself as a tiny, tiny, reflection of God, however dimly that is on this side of the Last Day. Disclosure: I am an INTJ, there are not very many of us, and, I think people are far more complicated than a Myers-Briggs type indicator. The INTJ description does seem to fit me fairly well though.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: I'd really like to know why you have the blinders that you seem to have thoroughly fixed over your eyes, as I'm sure you would like to know the same thing you perceive about me.
... Mountaineer

As a Bible believing Christian I think you know very well why he has blinders over his eyes .... "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them." 2 Corinthians 4:4., "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil." John 3:19

In other words it's simply a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil and MachineGhost and I are on the wrong side.

If you don't believe that, then by all means please correct me.

As to why you have blinders on yours, I believe it is because you automatically discard any evidence to the contrary of what you believe so that you can continue to believe it.

interactive processing wrote:

curlew wrote: in the mind of a true believer who needs nothing more than their faith, i am probably also on the wrong side of the good evil split, but i just don't see that rationality and spirituality are incompatible, faith based religion and rationality sure, they are a bit like oil and water, but being rational doesn't requirer you to be an atheist... i think the ability to separate fact from fiction is a tremendous benefit when you are looking to improve the way you see and live in the world, to me it seems like relying on faith is definitely swimming in the shallow end of religious experience.

curlew wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: I'd really like to know why you have the blinders that you seem to have thoroughly fixed over your eyes, as I'm sure you would like to know the same thing you perceive about me.
... Mountaineer

As a Bible believing Christian I think you know very well why he has blinders over his eyes .... "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them." 2 Corinthians 4:4., "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil." John 3:19

In other words it's simply a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil and MachineGhost and I are on the wrong side.

If you don't believe that, then by all means please correct me.

As to why you have blinders on yours, I believe it is because you automatically discard any evidence to the contrary of what you believe so that you can continue to believe it.

I respect your right to your opinion on why I might have blinders, however that view is incompatible with an INTJ.
https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

Try again?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

curlew wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

As to why you have blinders on yours, I believe it is because you automatically discard any evidence to the contrary of what you believe so that you can continue to believe it.

I respect your right to your opinion on why I might have blinders, however that view is incompatible with an INTJ.
https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

Try again?

... Mountaineer

Okay,

INTJ Weaknesses

Arrogant – INTJs are perfectly capable of carrying their confidence too far, falsely believing that they've resolved all the pertinent issues of a matter and closing themselves off to the opinions of those they believe to be intellectually inferior.