Identity, individuality

[iBrian]

The subject of not believing reminds me very much of Krishamurti, who the Theosophists dressed up to be the Second Coming, only for him to repudiate the need for any form of spiritual authority:

Jiddu Krishnamurti

www.interfaith.org

To be honest, though, Monty Python showed it more deliberately and perhaps definitively.

The key point is from 1 min 30 seconds:

 

[we6jbo]

Evidence, science.
Well, frauds, scammers are always there in all religions. Claims without evidence.
Very few in science because theories are repeatedly checked, also against new information available nearly every day.
List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia, List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, List of people who have been considered deities - Wikipedia, List of people claimed to be immortal in myth and legend - Wikipedia, Predictions and claims for the Second Coming - Wikipedia, List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia, Messiah complex - Wikipedia, God complex - Wikipedia, Jerusalem syndrome - Wikipedia, Religious delusion - Wikipedia, Religion and schizophrenia - Wikipedia.

These lists I believe to be true based on what I’ve heard from some of the people that I follow. I believe there are at least two types of people who follow religions, and this is based on what I understand. There is the person who looks into a religion from the historical POV, and then there is the person who practices the religion.

The individual that I follow looks at the historical view of the Abrahamic religions and presents his content from things such as archaeological finds and stories that may corroborate events. While I am personally interested in and invested in this, I look at it more from a threat-based approach. So, things that could add risk to an individual or risk the continuation of humanity.

I come from examining pyramid schemes and some of the stuff that certain U.S. groups, not affiliated with Christianity, tried to do in order to get money out of people and make people feel mentally trapped or pressured to keep participating. But you do bring up a good point about the various people who claimed to be these figures, such as various Jesus claims, etc.

 

[we6jbo]

The subject of not believing reminds me very much of Krishamurti, who the Theosophists dressed up to be the Second Coming, only for him to repudiate the need for any form of spiritual authority:

Jiddu Krishnamurti

www.interfaith.org

To be honest, though, Monty Python showed it more deliberately and perhaps definitively.

The key point is from 1 min 30 seconds:

If I were to pinpoint these events to the moment they were happening, it would be difficult for me to understand why they were happening or what the true meaning or purpose of them was. They have evolved from things that were happening at the time into how we interpret them to this day.

The one thing I do know is that the times these people were showing up in were harsh. It would have been difficult if I time traveled back to those times to really understand why people were being nailed to crosses, or why all of the other techniques going on throughout those times, before those times, and after those times were being applied. So it is difficult for me to understand what messiahs were truly saying or why they were acting the way they were.

But should people follow them? I think that depends. Should we follow them today? I think it also depends on the individual. My concept of following depends on my personal beliefs because I have seen groups that use religion and religious-like practices to harm other people. A religion that tells people that they need to work for nearly no pay in the modern age, or sometime between the 1960s and 2026, would be a concern to me.

I do not know exactly what was going on when Life of Brian was made, but that video clip seems to speak to some real issues. Since then, what I have noticed is a mix. But for me to truly have faith in something, I cannot flex or bend backward to fit within someone else’s constrained view of the universe. What I believe would need to fit honestly with their mold. Otherwise, I would not be acting truthfully toward those people or myself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, this kind of argument proves nothing, really.
I could list pseudoscience theories, doesn't invalidate science, any more than bogus claimants invalidates religion.

Pseudoscience theories are not science. They exist in blogs and pseudo-academic internet sites:

https://www.researchgate.net/

"Access 160+ million publication pages and connect with 25+ million researchers. Join for free and gain visibility by uploading your research."

 

[Aupmanyav]

But you do bring up a good point about the various people who claimed to be these figures, such as various Jesus claims, etc.

There is no evidence that Zoroaster talked to Ahur Mazda, that Moses was given two stones by YHWH, that Jesus was of virgin birth or that he resurrected, that Muhammad and Husayn Ali Nuri or their likes (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahamadiyyas) were chosen by Allah as his messengers or Mahdi (Messiah).

 

[we6jbo]

There is no evidence that Zoroaster talked to Ahur Mazda, that Moses was given two stones by YHWH, that Jesus was of virgin birth or that he resurrected, that Muhammad and Husayn Ali Nuri or their likes (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahamadiyyas) were chosen by Allah as his messengers or Mahdi (Messiah).

I believe you. There is likely no evidence that Moses was given two stones by YHWH. However, Moses is also considered legendary by some people. I would consider Moses legendary. That does not mean Moses did not exist or that the events did not happen. It means there are likely truths in the stories, but the stories about Moses may not have happened exactly as they are told.

I rely on Mark Baker for my information about the Bible. His video talks about Moses here:

I would not rely on some Wikipedia sources exactly. The claim about religion and schizophrenia is probably exaggerated at best, but I would lean more toward it being made up. Unfortunately, the field of psychology can sometimes do this, and I think that may be why I was warned about blindly believing in science, because even science can be misused or overstated. If anything, religion can be seen as a test of how willing humans are to believe ideas when the person presenting them makes those ideas seem credible and true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think that may be why I was warned about blindly believing in science, because even science can be misused or overstated.

Yes, many who have not done their search on what science knows and what it does not know, may make exaggerated claims. Even while posting my messages, I make a search to find how far what I am saying is truth.

 

[Thomas]

The subject of not believing reminds me very much of Krishamurti, who the Theosophists dressed up to be the Second Coming, only for him to repudiate the need for any form of spiritual authority:

I do not argue with that, but that does not actually invalidate a belief in that which we call 'God', rather, it points to the nature of humanity.

That people can be wrong does not mean they are never right ...

 

[Thomas]

... I cannot flex or bend backward to fit within someone else’s constrained view of the universe...

That phrase caught my eye. From my perspective, the empiricist view of the cosmos is the most constrained view one can have.

 

[Thomas]

Pseudoscience theories are not science.

And likewise, pseudoreligiosity is not religion, so that line of criticism fails.

Interestingly, I cam across the term "Pathological science"

Research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions."

In his 2002 book Undead Science, sociology and anthropology Professor Bart Simon lists it among practices that are falsely perceived or presented to be science, "categories ... such as ... pseudoscience, amateur science, deviant or fraudulent science, bad science, junk science, pathological science, cargo cult science, and voodoo science."

Pathological science, as defined by Langmuir, is a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method, unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation (see the observer-expectancy effect and cognitive bias).

So 'science' as a discipline is never failsafe nor foolproof, hence peer review, evidential proofs when such are available, and so forth.

The same ideas cane be applied in other spheres, 'Pathological religion', for example, and one could write a book Undead Religion, listing ideas or that are falsely perceived or presented to be religion, "categories ... such as ... pseudoreligion, amateur religion, deviant or fraudulent religion, bad religion, junk religion, cargo cults, and tv evangelists..."

All very entertaining, but no more invalidating religious beliefs as such, any more than science is invalidated by the same errors and falsehoods.

 

[Thomas]

However, Moses is also considered legendary by some people. I would consider Moses legendary. That does not mean Moses did not exist or that the events did not happen. It means there are likely truths in the stories, but the stories about Moses may not have happened exactly as they are told.

That's how I read it.

I would not rely on some Wikipedia sources exactly.

I apply that rule moreso to YouTube. I always check the credentials of the person presenting materials.

Like @Aupmanyav's comment about Researchgate above, YouTube materials do not necessarily conform to the peer-review process.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The same ideas cane be applied in other spheres, 'Pathological religion', ..

I agree with you. And that is why 'Advaita Hinduism', as I see it, has no God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, redemption or ever-lasting life.
Once one is gone, one is finally and completely gone (Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasamagate).

 

[Thomas]

I agree with you. And that is why 'Advaita Hinduism', as I see it, has no God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, redemption or ever-lasting life.
Once one is gone, one is finally and completely gone (Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasamagate).

And I agree with you, as Christian apophaticism says much the same thing. The 'other shore' is the Ground that Eckhart speaks of ...

There is a commentary here – One River Zen – that says:
"Mahayana expresses this as the Three Kāyas — Dharmakāya (reality: emptiness), Sambhogakāya (wisdom/compassion shining), Nirmāṇakāya (appearance in this world). The Heart Sutra moves in all three — not as separate realms but facets of one reality."

There is a translation here, by Thich Nhat Hanh – Plumvillage.org – which opens:
"Avalokiteshvara
while practicing deeply with
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore,"

And ends
"Therefore let us proclaim
a mantra to praise
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore:

Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasaṃgate, bodhi svāhā,
Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasaṃgate, bodhi svāhā,
Gate, gate, pāragate, pārasaṃgate, bodhi svāhā!"

That last phrase, generally translated as:
"Gone, gone, gone over, gone fully over. Awakened! So be it!"

I suppose we could discuss the implications of this mantra until the cows come home, and not exhaust it.

 

[we6jbo]

That's how I read it.


I apply that rule moreso to YouTube. I always check the credentials of the person presenting materials.

Like @Aupmanyav's comment about Researchgate above, YouTube materials do not necessarily conform to the peer-review process.

I agree that YouTube videos do not automatically carry the same weight as peer-reviewed articles. I would not rely on something just because it is on YouTube. My point is more specific than that. I am using Matt Baker / UsefulCharts as a credentialed educational source for a historical-method claim about Moses, not as peer review and not as proof of a supernatural claim.

I am also taking the idea that Moses is “more of a legendary figure than a historical one” directly from Matt Baker himself at about 17:43 in the video. When I say Moses is legendary, I do not mean Moses definitely did not exist. I mean the Moses tradition may contain historical memory, theology, oral tradition, and later literary development rather than being a simple modern biography.

On the other hand, Wikipedia articles use other sources, and sometimes the article wording can go beyond what the cited source actually proves. The article I am looking at specifically is “Religion and schizophrenia.” It says that religious experiences often involve auditory or visual phenomena and that these may be similar to hallucinations and delusions in schizophrenia.

My concern is that the source being cited, The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered, is mainly a retrospective neuropsychiatric analysis of specific figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul. It is not the same thing as proving that ordinary religious experience should be compared with schizophrenia. The Wikipedia wording is talking broadly about religious experience, but the source is looking at specific religious figures and asking whether their reported experiences resemble psychotic-spectrum symptoms.

Also, symptom overlap is not diagnosis. Auditory or visual experiences can occur in many different contexts, including grief, sleep deprivation, trauma, substances, neurological conditions, mood disorders, psychosis, or intense religious settings. If we treated one overlapping symptom as enough for a diagnosis, then we would be mixing together many different conditions that have different causes and criteria.

For schizophrenia, there has to be a broader diagnostic pattern, including duration, impairment, and exclusion of other causes. So someone having an intense emotional or religious experience in church does not automatically meet criteria for schizophrenia.

So my point is not that YouTube is more reliable than peer review. My point is that Wikipedia can overgeneralize a source, and a careful historical claim about Moses being legendary is different from a psychiatric claim that religion and schizophrenia are basically the same thing.