Freud on Religion

[Israfil]

Originally posted by BlockHead

 

You can use the equations in Newtonian to prove Quantum Physics false.

 

Yeah.... 'cept that you got that backwards.

[RecordProducer]

I was like 12 years old when I already had the same thoughts about god and religion. They haven't changed since.

I am so happy that Freud, my favorite psychoanalyst, thinks in the same manner.

[moimeme]

Freud was a knob.

[whichwayisup]

Freud was a knob.

 

[RecordProducer]

Originally posted by moimeme

Freud was a knob.

 

Freud's theories have been taught on every university in the world. His researches and conclusions have scientific value.

Quasi-shrinks such as Scott Peck or John Gray have merely commercial value in the book market and their books are junk literature for uneducated masses.

[moimeme]

There are plenty of other reputable psychologists whose theories have emerged over the years. It's not a question of Freud vs Peck but of Freud vs Jung, Bandura, Skinner, Sternberg, Rogers, Erikson, Ellis, etc etc etc.

[Moose]

There are many reasons why I believe what I do. The main 2 reasons is this. If we are, "trousered apes", a product of evolution and survivors of, "natural selection"......tell me, why are there still apes? Why haven't they stayed among the pack that moved on and became intellegent humans?

 

Secondly, no human was around to witness the actual natural fabrication or even the creation of Earth, EXCEPT Christ Himself. He was there, Saw it all, and Told us so........noo arguements from me.

I was like 12 years old when I already had the same thoughts about god and religion. They haven't changed since.

I am so happy that Freud, my favorite psychoanalyst, thinks in the same manner.

Freud is merely a man without the infinite wisdom of God......so are we. It's soooo much easier for scientists to dimiss creationism, because if they didn't, they would then have to admit God's exsistance, and would have to follow His commandments and live the life we are told to live.......forget that, that's too hard. Even harder than spending a lifetime trying to convince the world we came from apes. Scientists can clone life.....but they will never, EVER be able to create life.

[Chris777]

Freud was just as "right" as he was wrong. I don't understand the clinging to a FEW of a persons words, that have the appearance of intelect, and wisdom, and then just blotting out all their other words and thoughts.

 

As people we are a combination of All our thoughts and beliefs, as was Freud.

A piecemeal of the so called "good" freud beliefs are no more valid than those that he had that were just flat out looney.

 

I am a christian, and I am probably going to get slammed for saying this, but too many people dismiss the person as a whole based on a Quote, or a snippet from some paper or speach, that sure may sound "good" or sound "correct" but then totally dismiss the other side of whom they quote. Martin luther is a prime example. He is touted by many as the "great Reformer" and a "superior theologian" yet the man stated some absolutely reprehensible things about the jews who would not convert to christianity, including violence. I believe the bible, With every fiber of my being, and therefore I cannot say i agree with the things that men say, no matter how well framed some of their quotes might be.

 

I used to want to be a scientist, until my conversion, and upon that i began to investigate its foundations, and at its root science is a derivation of philosophical logic, which in itself is (was) a primitive religion. And therefore I personally give it no weight.

 

I liken it to a 3 legged table covered with a table cloth, it may have one good leg that stands on a rock solid principle, and another good leg that stands on superior effort, but if the third leg stands on speculation, that can , and often times is wrong, it doesnt matter how elaborately beautiful and ornate the table cloth is, or what is stacked upon the tablecloth , it and everything on it will fall.

 

I do not even follow so called creation science, as it is just another deviation of logic, attempting to justify the bible, to those who won't believe it anyway.

 

Science is not merely a tool, it is a foundational belief of many, (religion)

 

a puzzle that is not fully assembles is still a puzzle , no matter how many GUESSES are made as to what it represents.

 

I tried to reconcile the two when i first believed, but in doing so I realized what science really was , trying to conform the world to ourselves. It may claim to have "solved" many questions, and problems, but does anyone honestly believe that it hasnt caused far worse problems than it can ever solve? or that its "benefits" outweigh its detriments?

 

In the end everything will turn out to be Right or Wrong

 

Science, man, and the Bible, They can not all be correct, and sooner or later everyone will choose what they end up believing, and placing their faith in....

 

Right or Wrong

[moimeme]

but does anyone honestly believe that it hasnt caused far worse problems than it can ever solve? or that its "benefits" outweigh its detriments?

 

Interesting, coming from someone who began a post by suggesting nobody's all good or all bad. Apparently, however, the same principle does not apply to science.

[XNemesisX]

I don't see how anyone can dog on Freud. He alone pretty much established psychology as a science. The other reputable psychologists, moi, all built their ideas off of Freud. Sure, some of his theories sound a little loony but give him some credit. He was brilliant. Other psychologists have revised his theories. I highly doubt psychology would be what it is today without Freud.

 

But anyway, I don't understand the Christians' obvious offense to the non-Christians POV. Do you feel threatened or are you scared someone might make you aware of the inconsistency in your religion?

 

I have learned that sometimes you cannot convince someone of anything even if you have proof right in front of you that goes against what they believe. They still won't believe it. A lof of Christians are embracing science, Moose and Confused, because it's obvious that there is proof for it. A lot of Christians are now accepting that even with the Big Bang and evolution, it doesn't necessarily disprove God but it does disprove some of the bible (if you take the bible literally).

 

Comparing the faith in religion to faith in science is ridiculous. It's like comparing apples to oranges. I don't even feel like writing a big post about this right now but it's just completely ridiculous to say that someone's faith in science is the same as religion. These are stories PEOPLE wrote a LOOONG time ago. How in the world can you even compare your religion to something that has been tested, retested, and proved. Religion is subjective, science is objective. You can't compare objective to subjective!

 

Christians are going to have to embrace science unless they want to stay in the dark ages. Just like Freud said, its unbelievable how people can still hold on to outdated beliefs. How are we going to move forward and become more modernized and evolved if we refuse to look at scientific evidence? You better be prepared to revise your belief systems.

 

Furthermore, how do you know that what you "hear" from God isn't just your own thoughts? What Freud says makes perfect sense. It could be your wishful thinking and your own thoughts and wishes being "God." Man's worst fear is their life being meaningless and humans also fear "nothingness." It's just too much for some people to handle. This is where religion comes in.

 

I'm half asleep right now so I hope this made sense. I will be writing more on this tomorrow.

[XNemesisX]

Until I see God with my own eyes and/or Jesus and hear him talk to me in person then I am not going to be so sure they exist. Heh, even then I would probably question my eyes and ears and wonder if I wasn't hallucinating.

 

I really just don't think God will punish anybody for not believing or for questioning things. I'm sure he wants us to be intelligent and not gullible believe-everything-they-hear mindless sheep. Where is the fun in that for him?

[moimeme]

I don't see how anyone can dog on Freud. He alone pretty much established psychology as a science.

 

Granted, and the ideas of defence mechanisms and other of his theories are certainly useful, but the whole theory about psychology being primarily about one's sexual issues is definitely not. He started out great, but then headed way off in the wrong direction. Analyzing personalities according to toilet training difficulties is just nuts LOL.

 

Certainly acknowledge the contributions he did make, but understand that others who have come since have made even more valuable contributions in many ways.

 

As for science and the Big Bang, again you find yourself arguing with fundamentalists. Non-fundie Christians are perfectly fine with accepting the Bible as allegory rather than as historical fact and accepting what science has to teach, however even Big Bangers (surely that's a porn website somewhere LOL) have to admit that the materials necessary to create the Big Bang had to come from someplace. Logical positivists, in their way, are as intractable about their belief in the ultimate rightness of their version of knowledge as are the fundies about their version of religion.

 

I find it amusing that people of each generation who claim that science is ultimate behave as though they have reached the epitome of all knowledge - despite the fact that every generation discovers new evidence to refute the 'definitive knowledge' of the generations before.

 

Put simply, it is entirely possible that that which we call 'psychic phenomena', 'religion', etc. are matters of physics and science as yet understood by us. Just as Galileo could not build and operate a rocket, so we cannot conceive of the information which will be discovered long after we're gone. And somewhere there, I am certain, will be a satisfactory explanation for all the phenomena for which we have no current answers. That we don't comprehend something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For all we know, Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who is the most accurate representation of the universe there is.

 

We still don't understand why aspirin works, yet we use it all the time. You could call that a matter of 'blind faith' as well, I suppose.

[MySugaree]

For all we know, Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who is the most accurate representation of the universe there is.

 

Anti-intellectualism is alive and well on LoveShack given the above, and many other, posts on this Thread. Sad times.

 

Well, at least these anti-science folks are MORAL!

[Moose]

You better be prepared to revise your belief systems.

I'm prepared to lay down my life before I revise my belief system.........

[BlockHead]

MySugaree

Anti-intellectualism...

This is the main charge floating around on this thread, and I think it is bunk.

 

How many people know why they believe in some scientific theories?

Who knows why he or she believes in the Big Bang?

Arguing that it is believable because it is “scientific” is just another example of circular reasoning and a display of “faith”.

[XNemesisX]

Does everything people say on here about why religious faith should not be compared to faith in science just go through one ear and out the other on here? I know a LOT of people have wrote a LOT about why exactly it can't be compared and it seems like it's just not registering with some people.

 

Omg I am getting so frustrated right now...

 

I give up.

[Moose]

Originally posted by XNemesisX

Does everything people say on here about why religious faith should not be compared to faith in science just go through one ear and out the other on here? I know a LOT of people have wrote a LOT about why exactly it can't be compared and it seems like it's just not registering with some people.

 

Omg I am getting so frustrated right now...

 

I give up.

They both require the same ingredient......FAITH......there's no difference......none......that's what isn't registering with you......geeeeezzzz. Science is used as an excuse for man to ignore God's commandments. That's the way I view it. And do that, you have to have the same faith in your science as we have in our God.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by BlockHead

In the case of Afghanistan, they are stealing premium sand.

 

OR high quality heroin.

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by Moose

There are many reasons why I believe what I do. The main 2 reasons is this. If we are, "trousered apes", a product of evolution and survivors of, "natural selection"......tell me, why are there still apes? Why haven't they stayed among the pack that moved on and became intellegent humans?

 

Your question reveals a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Humans and modern day primates simply descended from the same ancestor. One group went in one direction, the other went in another direction. It depends on the demands of the specific environment in which the off-shoot groups live.

 

How does creationism address the different sub species of humanoids, like neanderthals?

[XNemesisX]

Yeah but Moose, a lot more Christians are accepting science and they don't believe it disproves God. Do you think science disproves God? I just don't understand why you think that science necessarily disproves God or your religion. Why does it have to be one or the other?

[blind_otter]

Originally posted by XNemesisX

Yeah but Moose, a lot more Christians are accepting science and they don't believe it disproves God. Do you think science disproves God? I just don't understand why you think that science necessarily disproves God or your religion. Why does it have to be one or the other?

 

Word. Plenty of scientists believe in God...

[XNemesisX]

It may disprove the stories in the bible but not necessarily an intelligent designer. Then again, I may be biased because I am deist.

[XNemesisX]

Word. Plenty of scientists believe in God...

 

Exactly.

 

I just don't see why so many people are thinking that its one or the other? Or that science is evil. Please enlighten me on that Moose because I really don't understand why you are so scared of science and why you don't want to believe it.

 

How does creationism address the different sub species of humanoids, like neanderthals?

 

I'm sure what they will say next is that we just have faith that neanderthals existed and that they never really existed since it doesn't talk about them in the bible....

[XNemesisX]

I don't know if you talked about Einstein on this thread or another one on this board, but I forgot to point out to you that Einstein was NOT Christian he was a DEIST. I know you were asking questions about deism so I do want to leave some answers about it:

 

 

Is Deism a form of atheism? No. Atheism teaches that there is no God. Deism teaches there is a God. Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed" religions but does not reject God.

 

If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? Deism is, as stated above, based on nature and reason, not "revelation." All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi. All one needs in Deism is their own common sense and the creation to contemplate.

 

How do Deists view God? We view God as an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will. The following quote from Albert Einstein also offers a good Deistic description of God: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

 

Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh.

[Moose]

I really don't understand why you are so scared of science and why you don't want to believe it.

First off, I'm not, scared, of science. I'm quite the opposite. Scientist are using data, research, and their own feeble human minds to explain where life came from......which will never be understood, or discovered. It's a waste of time. I don't dismiss findings or even some theories that scientists have conjured up......science has been and will continue to be beneficial to man as a whole.....and just as destructive. BUT, when it comes down to the Life Giver, or where Life came from.....no scientist can provide an answer for it, and they never will. The only thing that I'm afraid of, is scientists convincing our future generations that there's no God. That's what I think is their the ultimate goal.

Humans and modern day primates simply descended from the same ancestor.

Give me a break. Where's your proof? You're half right......they did come from the same SOURCE.....God created them.