Wishful pareidolia

[nobspeople]

When asked 'where's god?' many times, you're told 'just look around - he's everywhere!'
This seems to be a form of pareidolia.
When I look around, I see a tree, a pond, grass, grey sky (rain's coming today). I hear some birds singing and the blowing of a bit of wind.
I don't see anything that resembles a deity that sent his son/self/son to sacrifice himself (to whom?, but that's another topic) either walking around, standing, sitting, dancing... whatever.
But when I was a christian, I did see god in the trees, pond, on and on and on.
Why is it different now?

Maybe I've seen the truth that the christian god - the one people claims speaks to them, protects them, saves them - is nothing more than a personification of want? And seeing this god in the trees, clouds, lives of others was nothing but wishful pareidolia on my part?

For discussion:
Is god nothing more than wishful pareidolia based of one's wants and desires? Or does god hide itself when a believer stops believing?
Or is it something else altogether?

[nobspeople]

And seeing this god in the trees, clouds, lives of others was nothing but wishful pareidolia on my part?

Perhaps, but then how can you be more confident that when you now see only the physical things, with nothing behind them, that this is not its own form of wishful thinking? The desire not to see God can be at least as strong as the desire to see Him.

Exactly. Which is why I saw them then, but not now (unless, of course, I want to).
It's like when you in an old house and someone suggests it's haunted. Then, you start to feel 'creeped out'.
As with all things god, it's all about perception, desire and wishes.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Jemima in post #8]

Facial recognition, which we all seem to take for granted, is programmed in us...failure to recognize faces is a disorder of the brain.

I watched a truly fascinating documentary a long time ago about this. It touched on why people find babies and baby animals 'cute', how their faces are structured to promote (my words) the 'ahhh!' factor and the like. It was quite interesting.

If you were to see an amazingly designed piece of architecture, would you not admire the mind of the one who used his creative abilities in such a way as to construct his project first on paper, and them move it to become reality by taking the necessary steps to bring it about....perhaps in a way that is impossible for you or I?

People are weird and strange. I tend not to think about them too much (as your provided example) and enjoy what they create. I find humanity, by in large, distasteful more so than one may expect. Thus, I tend to focus on the creation and not the creator. Would I admire the mind... not much more than 'better than I could do'.

Perhaps you have fallen victim to "the god of this world"? (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)...whom Paul described as one who could "blind the minds" of those who don't "believe".

Anything's possible. That said, I never put too much emphasis on what a dead man (Paul, in this case) claimed. I saw no proof he spoke for god in any way outside of 'the bible says so'. Which, to me, never held water even when I was a christian.

Since the apostolic period, God has not done that....there is no need.

Maybe. Though there are those (some on this very site) that would disagree. So we're left with:

Or maybe it was something else entirely.....something you have not considered?

Contrary to popular belief of some on here, I'm quite open minded. I've considered (and still consider) a lot of things. That said, there's always other things I unconsciously or unknowingly haven't considered. Which is why, many times in my posts, I try to always add 'Or something else?'

One has to ask if you really were a "believer" in the first place?

One can ask many things. And no matter what (in this case) I say, there will always be those that doubt. That's their issue.

If you do some solid research, I believe that you will find 90% of what is taught in the churches, is not even close to what Jesus taught.

Which was one of the issues I had within the churches I've been a part of. This is one big reason why I left the faith entirely.

Truth unites people...it does not divide them.

I would say it's the belief in the truth that unites. There are those that can choose not to believe that 1+1=2. At least, based on their claims and actions.

[Jemima]

Imagination is, of course, a wonderful thing.

Do you not have one? Does it not also play a role in your belief system?

But one has to be able to tell imagination from reality.

I couldn't agree more. But what is reality to one person is poppycock to another.....so please define reality as it pertains to human thinking in general.
My reality is clearly not yours...so what is it that makes us strongly accept or reject a God concept?

There are ways of finding out which is which, or which is more likely, and it is just too easy to blame anything you don't agree with on Satan addling our minds. It is, after all, the Bible -believers who have seen Belief after Belief proven wrong.

It is that very thing that made me leave the church....what they taught was absolute hogwash IMO. What they practiced was pure hypocrisy. But proving the church wrong in its beliefs, does not remove God since they never represented him in the first place. He has had nothing to do with them from the beginning of their departure into apostasy.

And the fact is that the cloud -cover theory goes the way of the Satan -salted fossils in credibility.

I won't pretend to understand what you just said.....but lets just say that humans are spiritual creatures in contrast to the animal kingdom. Animals do not really have the same level of imagination as we humans do.
We have a spiritual capacity that has been demonstrated all through our history....it is what separates us from them. Only we have the capacity to comprehend the concept of past, present and future. Animals live in the present, and they have the capacity to learn from past experience, but none of them demonstrate the ability to foresee the potential outcome of their actions in the future...only we can do that, which makes us very accountable.

Truth..it would be nice if it unites.

I believe that we are living proof that it does. In all nations JW's believe the same things, and are united in their worship of the same God.
All of our beliefs come from a trusted textbook....just the same as your beliefs come from your trusted textbooks. What creates the trust though?

There's an old South Welsh saying I just made up 'There are many religions; there is only one science.' So it is rationality and verified evidence that unites, not religion.

'Rationally verified evidence' that has interpretation that is upheld by the majority, but can change from one day to the next, is not exactly reliable or rational to my way of thinking.
Of what value is a truth that can promote a whole way of looking at something, but then tomorrow with more research or a new discovery, can change everything that was previously promoted as scientific truth and replace it with something else? How reliable is the science, really? Not reliable enough to stake my life on.

The mental inventions of the mind do not unite, they reflect individual ideas which is ok, until one insists on Faith (if not on Received Dogma) that only theirs is the correct one, and everyone else is in Darkness, influenced by the devil and unable to Interpret the Bible correctly.

There is only one way to find out who has the truth and who hasn't...isn't there? I am patient.....what about you?
I believe that God has his own time and way of dealing with flawed humanity....one of those the Bible says, is to leave the unbelievers to drown in their own delusions.

If your intellect points you in an opposite direction to mine, how do we really know who is promoting an inconvenient truth as opposed to an appealing lie?

If there is a God, we will all know soon enough.....

[TRANSPONDER]

Imagination is, of course, a wonderful thing.

Do you not have one? Does it not also play a role in your belief system?

Of course. Have you never seen Colombo enacting the crime scene in his head and seeing that something doesn't work?

But one has to be able to tell imagination from reality.

I couldn't agree more. But what is reality to one person is poppycock to another.....so please define reality as it pertains to human thinking in general.
My reality is clearly not yours...so what is it that makes us strongly accept or reject a God concept?

Two questions there. Reality is what is so in fact, never mind what humans think. Well, I'd like to say that rational evaluation of the theistic claims is what made me reject god -claims (in varying degrees, according to what the claims were). It was more complicated than that, but it was what I was doing knowingly from the 90's onwards.

There are ways of finding out which is which, or which is more likely, and it is just too easy to blame anything you don't agree with on Satan addling our minds. It is, after all, the Bible -believers who have seen Belief after Belief proven wrong.

It is that very thing that made me leave the church....what they taught was absolute hogwash IMO. What they practiced was pure hypocrisy. But proving the church wrong in its beliefs, does not remove God since they never represented him in the first place. He has had nothing to do with them from the beginning of their departure into apostasy. [/quote]

Well, there's the thing. If you saw that the Christianity taught didn't match your evidential databse (the Bible as you read it) Christianity doesn't match mine - logic and scientfically -validated evidence. The thing is that logic and evidence calls the Bible (as it is read) into question.

And the fact is that the cloud -cover theory goes the way of the Satan -salted fossils in credibility.

I won't pretend to understand what you just said.....but lets just say that humans are spiritual creatures in contrast to the animal kingdom. Animals do not really have the same level of imagination as we humans do.
We have a spiritual capacity that has been demonstrated all through our history....it is what separates us from them. Only we have the capacity to comprehend the concept of past, present and future. Animals live in the present, and they have the capacity to learn from past experience, but none of them demonstrate the ability to foresee the potential outcome of their actions in the future...only we can do that, which makes us very accountable. [/quote]
You didn't argue the cloud -cover theory and a 'day' being the age of the universe divided into 7? Perhaps I was thinking of someone else.
Spiritual and imagination is really to talk of human consciousness as compared with animal. It is a a different order, true, and yet the consciousness of dogs, for instance is of an equally greater order more than the 'consciousness' of a bee or lizard. And just as the instinctive reactions of a bee or Lizard gives a clue to the social mentality of dogs (they dream, worship and have a place in the society), the individual identity of dogs gives a clue to human self -awareness. I don't mind the term 'spiritual' being applied to that, but it can be used (or misused) to try to smuggle in a theistic or supernatural element

Truth..it would be nice if it unites.

I believe that we are living proof that it does. In all nations JW's believe the same things, and are united in their worship of the same God.
All of our beliefs come from a trusted textbook....just the same as your beliefs come from your trusted textbooks. What creates the trust though?[/quote]

It is no credit to an organized Group (there are various) that is taught to believe this or that doctrine, and you will know better than I what happens if you disagree with your group's mentors). And -again -I see that you equate 'science' with 'a trusted textbook' the contents of which we materialists have to accept without question. And yet you said yopurself that it is always changing its' mind. The textbooks get updated. The Bible remains the same. That is not a strength but an inherent weakness because is gets further and further away from the validated 'reality'. Just one example is that some try to fit cosmology and evolution into the framework of genesis, and others try to dismiss evolution entirely. Though few or none deny the universe in favour of the Babylonian snow -dome universe.

There's an old South Welsh saying I just made up 'There are many religions; there is only one science.' So it is rationality and verified evidence that unites, not religion.

'Rationally verified evidence' that has interpretation that is upheld by the majority, but can change from one day to the next, is not exactly reliable or rational to my way of thinking.
Of what value is a truth that can promote a whole way of looking at something, but then tomorrow with more research or a new discovery, can change everything that was previously promoted as scientific truth and replace it with something else? How reliable is the science, really? Not reliable enough to stake my life on.[/quote]

I believe I have explained before that being willing to consider new evidence and change the mind accordingly is a strength, not a weakness. The weakness or flaw rather is to hold to a belief and refuse to change it even in the face of compelling evidence. And yet, piling up of verified data (with rethinks along the way) does lead to scientific laws and theories and none of those have been overturned (despite the efforts of Theist denialist to do so) but rather refined and added to by new evidence. Quantum mechanics turned physics on its' head, but the laws of Relativity and Newton, indeed, are as valid as they ever were. Or on a historical example, the Bronze age collapse happened, even if debate still goes on as to what caused it.

The mental inventions of the mind do not unite, they reflect individual ideas which is ok, until one insists on Faith (if not on Received Dogma) that only theirs is the correct one, and everyone else is in Darkness, influenced by the devil and unable to Interpret the Bible correctly.

There is only one way to find out who has the truth and who hasn't...isn't there? I am patient.....what about you?
I believe that God has his own time and way of dealing with flawed humanity....one of those the Bible says, is to leave the unbelievers to drown in their own delusions. [/quote]

The only way to find out the truth (as our history and experience has shown is through research and reasoned assessment of the evidence. Religious guesswork has been shown wrong time and again. I aim to preach to the world the gospel of ..ahh gospel unreliability. I am Very patient. I have to be.

If your intellect points you in an opposite direction to mine, how do we really know who is promoting an inconvenient truth as opposed to an appealing lie?

If there is a God, we will all know soon enough.....

Again, evidence and reason (not just mine, but everyone arguing it out) is what so far has done it. Dogmatic faith -based denial has (grudgingly) had to give way. And if there was a god, we should all know for sure, if we mattered to this god at all, and we'd all agree on it, as you and the particular group of believers you belong to is only one of many religions.

But there is only one science. It is a global discipline.

(I think that's all tidied up, spelling and 'quote'. Let's risk it and hit 'send').

[brunumb]

(I think that's all tidied up, spelling and 'quote'. Let's risk it and hit 'send').

Sorry, but it's all over the place TRANSPONDER. For example stuff that belongs to Jemima appears as yours. I think it is due to incomplete commands such as missing [ or ] at the ends of quote or /quote. You can tell because they appear as part of normal text instead of 'commands'.

[Jemima]

(I think that's all tidied up, spelling and 'quote'. Let's risk it and hit 'send').

Sorry, but it's all over the place TRANSPONDER. For example stuff that belongs to Jemima appears as yours. I think it is due to incomplete commands such as missing [ or ] at the ends of quote or /quote. You can tell because they appear as part of normal text instead of 'commands'.

Hmmmm I was wondering about that too. This site includes way too much of previous conversations....it can get a bit confusing. Better to just respond to what was said in the last post IMO. No confusion then.

Anyone else get lost in the dialogue?

[brunumb]

This site includes way too much of previous conversations....it can get a bit confusing.

It's not too hard to click on the quote button (top right) and when the whole post comes up just edit out any stuff that you don't want appearing in your reply.

I usually copy the top line which begins [quote=........ and then paste it at the start of every section I want to specifically respond to separately. Then, I copy and paste the end quote command* after each of those sections. A judiciously placed <enter> after all of those pastes ensures good separation. Then I go back and type my responses in between. A quick preview to check that all's well, and bingo.

Can I take this opportunity to remind some posters that clicking on the reply button top right of a post will ensure that readers will know which particular post is being replied to. The one at the bottom left is more for general, non-specific comments.

* [ forward slash quote] If I type it with the / it mucks everything up.