Post by Juan Castrocafe on Nov 29, 2006 12:54:05 GMT -6
(CAVEAT)this is somewhat part of a skeptic writ I have been working on...I do separate skeptic and critic in that the skeptic wants to find out how it might actually work where the critic is just waiting for it not to work as that seems to be their expectative need...I fully feel myself a skeptic, not a critic...this, to me, is rather a harder stance than I usually let out in peaceful areas I am part of...I feel it is and has my fangs and I truly do not want to offend anyone, I am offering the material as something to deal with in both content and objective handling...however, I apologize if it has caused harm to any individuals as there were none identified or targeted in this writing...should this prove to be offensive, please don't kick me off..just remove it...
musings on circular reasoning, psychics and religious "experiences"
Begging the question or “circular reasoning” is an informal fallacy in that the basis for the justification of the argument is based on the validity from the validation itself. To overcome this, the issue of faith is offered as an argument stating that if you do not have faith, then, you cannot “get this” and of course once you have faith, the logic of what is being presented is superfluous.
For example. It is written that (god) exists; (god) inspired these writings and then, these are the written words of (god). Faith is the only excuse to accept this otherwise machinated delusion. Taking into account the instance of Sylvia Browne(a very well known "psychic" celebrity) it would go like this: Sylvia speaks to Francine and Raheim, Francine and Raheim are ascended souls who exist on a plane called the “other side”, this “other side” is where we originated from, no one has been aware of the “other side” because they have not had spiritual guides to tell them about it, because Francine and Raheim have told Sylvia about the “other side” what Sylvia says about the “other side” including the fact that it exists is true because she is getting her information from the “other side”.
An informal fallacy is false because one or more of its elements are based on falseness. This is in contrast to the formal fallacy which is false upon the complete face of its presentation. Both can be broadly categorized into the term “LIE”. Regardless of the part or whole falseness of such assumptions, there is a term defining people who, in the face of the evidence, adhere to the substantiation that what they believe in is true. These people are termed as “true believers” or more slangly, “deep rutted sheeple”. The very insistence to this “false belief seeming true” other than being a lie is also part of a process whereby the natural enthumesis of a person’s internal joy and happiness are substituted with a created dependence upon a process or situation called a lemma where the argument substantiates the argument. Leading to things like persecution complexes and many defenses including tearing down the nature of the person presenting the truth in an unbiased way rather than ever attempt to address the issues or elements of the logical reasoning as a basis of validating their belief. In such losing arguments, the individual takes a “high road” defense by stating more or less, “I am entitled to my opinion” whereby this defense then incriminates anyone attempting this “opinion” as an intrusion when in fact…there never was an intrusion at all. This is known also as the “true believer syndrome” which is the direct action of defending this false belief with some “inner truth” which if it were from the inner person, there would be no argument at all. It is also why that the whole benefit religion has given man is to first quell the fear that they are alone or insignificant but in the second phase of this affirmative conditioning, there must be a lie accepted that god or life itself is one way or another based upon something usually written and asserted as the truth, so then the whole basis of self identity is external to that “manufactured truth” and when confronted with a bias against that belief, the individual will display the darkest part of what religion creates in the human mind that modern science has termed “paranoid schizophrenia”.
The complete adherence to religion and its need to be validated through the person’s faith and defended is also known as the “rancid endomeme” of the individual or the tulpa which is an external thought form personality that the individual takes upon themselves as a substitute for their inner self. Beyond delusion that even the experience of a psychotic event brought on by a confrontation of the truth and its denial is even given more validation into the madness that would called “divine revelation”. No wonder then, people are talking to you because the nature of the human condition is to validate the state of being one has in the present moment and religion or speaking to spirits and angels would be a very believable way to alleviate the otherwise fear that “something is very wrong in Denmark and right here!!” and that nature, which is the true nature of the human being, is called darkness to the true believer and should anyone say that small inner voice of caution is a warning, they shun as a dark entity.
It is better to understand the nature of religion and how it changes the neural pathways of the mind to conform to some standard based upon a lie. Know that the basis for validation of this lie is to assert that this “standard” has always been and is and of itself a “self-proving” event or thing. Then, pass the woo woo party people a big bottle of champagne as they embark on their “mystic journey” on whatever ship they believe they are sailing, just don’t buy the book or get a ticket. The trip is more costly than the “first cost” might seem. In fact, I would liken it to crack addiction…but people can get themselves cleared of that far easier than being a “true believer”.
musings on circular reasoning, psychics and religious "experiences"
Begging the question or “circular reasoning” is an informal fallacy in that the basis for the justification of the argument is based on the validity from the validation itself. To overcome this, the issue of faith is offered as an argument stating that if you do not have faith, then, you cannot “get this” and of course once you have faith, the logic of what is being presented is superfluous.
For example. It is written that (god) exists; (god) inspired these writings and then, these are the written words of (god). Faith is the only excuse to accept this otherwise machinated delusion. Taking into account the instance of Sylvia Browne(a very well known "psychic" celebrity) it would go like this: Sylvia speaks to Francine and Raheim, Francine and Raheim are ascended souls who exist on a plane called the “other side”, this “other side” is where we originated from, no one has been aware of the “other side” because they have not had spiritual guides to tell them about it, because Francine and Raheim have told Sylvia about the “other side” what Sylvia says about the “other side” including the fact that it exists is true because she is getting her information from the “other side”.
An informal fallacy is false because one or more of its elements are based on falseness. This is in contrast to the formal fallacy which is false upon the complete face of its presentation. Both can be broadly categorized into the term “LIE”. Regardless of the part or whole falseness of such assumptions, there is a term defining people who, in the face of the evidence, adhere to the substantiation that what they believe in is true. These people are termed as “true believers” or more slangly, “deep rutted sheeple”. The very insistence to this “false belief seeming true” other than being a lie is also part of a process whereby the natural enthumesis of a person’s internal joy and happiness are substituted with a created dependence upon a process or situation called a lemma where the argument substantiates the argument. Leading to things like persecution complexes and many defenses including tearing down the nature of the person presenting the truth in an unbiased way rather than ever attempt to address the issues or elements of the logical reasoning as a basis of validating their belief. In such losing arguments, the individual takes a “high road” defense by stating more or less, “I am entitled to my opinion” whereby this defense then incriminates anyone attempting this “opinion” as an intrusion when in fact…there never was an intrusion at all. This is known also as the “true believer syndrome” which is the direct action of defending this false belief with some “inner truth” which if it were from the inner person, there would be no argument at all. It is also why that the whole benefit religion has given man is to first quell the fear that they are alone or insignificant but in the second phase of this affirmative conditioning, there must be a lie accepted that god or life itself is one way or another based upon something usually written and asserted as the truth, so then the whole basis of self identity is external to that “manufactured truth” and when confronted with a bias against that belief, the individual will display the darkest part of what religion creates in the human mind that modern science has termed “paranoid schizophrenia”.
The complete adherence to religion and its need to be validated through the person’s faith and defended is also known as the “rancid endomeme” of the individual or the tulpa which is an external thought form personality that the individual takes upon themselves as a substitute for their inner self. Beyond delusion that even the experience of a psychotic event brought on by a confrontation of the truth and its denial is even given more validation into the madness that would called “divine revelation”. No wonder then, people are talking to you because the nature of the human condition is to validate the state of being one has in the present moment and religion or speaking to spirits and angels would be a very believable way to alleviate the otherwise fear that “something is very wrong in Denmark and right here!!” and that nature, which is the true nature of the human being, is called darkness to the true believer and should anyone say that small inner voice of caution is a warning, they shun as a dark entity.
It is better to understand the nature of religion and how it changes the neural pathways of the mind to conform to some standard based upon a lie. Know that the basis for validation of this lie is to assert that this “standard” has always been and is and of itself a “self-proving” event or thing. Then, pass the woo woo party people a big bottle of champagne as they embark on their “mystic journey” on whatever ship they believe they are sailing, just don’t buy the book or get a ticket. The trip is more costly than the “first cost” might seem. In fact, I would liken it to crack addiction…but people can get themselves cleared of that far easier than being a “true believer”.
