(February 12, 2012 at 9:04 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'd go so far as to guess that the vast majority of people do at times exhibit symptoms of some disorder or another, without meeting clinical criteria (and in most cases, not even coming close). This doesn't mean that people who do meet the criteria aren't disordered.

Well, I certainly agree with that.

In fact, in the case of schizophrenia (merely imagining things to the point where they appear lucidly real), if this mental phenomenon could be mastered to the point where it could be called upon only when a person wishes to do so, then could that even be called a "disorder"?

If you have full control over it, and can call upon it at will, and potentially even call only 'spiritual archetypes that you are attempting to call', then should that be considered to be a 'disorder' or a 'skill'?

I mean, even if these hallucinations are being manufactured by the brain, shouldn't it still be considered a 'skill' to be able to induce their creation willfully?

And would there be anything wrong with this?

I mean people are often encouraged to use their imagination, and surely just about everyone daydreams, not to mention dreaming at night.

So if they could summon up characters who they could actually converse with shouldn't that be considered to be a cerebral 'skill'.

In fact, if our minds are capable of such feats shouldn't we all be interested in learning how to tap into this potential resource, if only for the purpose of entertainment?

I think it would be cool to be able to conjure up in my mind characters who are so convincingly real that I could actually have a 'chat' with them and feel as though I have just had a conversation with a totally separate being.

I personally think that would be super cool.

I'd love to be able to do that. I mean, assuming that I could control when it happens and control some aspect of the characters that I'm summoning up.

Right now I can imagine in my mind such characters. Surely everyone can. But bringing them to life to the point where they actually appear to have a mind of their own in terms of a conversation would be pretty interesting I think.

~~~~

Actually I used to think that if I could imagine such a seemingly independent character that would be "proof" of a separate spirit. But now I m not so sure. It could still just be an illusion even though it seems to be real. Such a character would need to be even more convincing by actually telling me something I don't already know, and couldn't have possibly known prior to being told.

But if that were to happen that would be impressive!

(February 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm)Abracadabra Wrote:

(February 12, 2012 at 9:04 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'd go so far as to guess that the vast majority of people do at times exhibit symptoms of some disorder or another, without meeting clinical criteria (and in most cases, not even coming close). This doesn't mean that people who do meet the criteria aren't disordered.

Well, I certainly agree with that.

In fact, in the case of schizophrenia (merely imagining things to the point where they appear lucidly real), if this mental phenomenon could be mastered to the point where it could be called upon only when a person wishes to do so, then could that even be called a "disorder"?

It likely wouldn't be considered schizophrenia, if it were possible at all. There's a lot more to schizophrenia than delusions. To be clear, I'm not one of those that consider delusional thinking alone to be enough to diagnose a mental disorder.

(February 12, 2012 at 9:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It likely wouldn't be considered schizophrenia, if it were possible at all. There's a lot more to schizophrenia than delusions. To be clear, I'm not one of those that consider delusional thinking alone to be enough to diagnose a mental disorder.

Well, we seem to agree on quite a bit. I don't consider delusional thinking alone to be a mental disorder either. In fact, if it has a positive affect on someone it's probably a blessing more than a disorder.

I also agree that it wouldn't be considered to be schizophrenia if a person could control their lucid visions. You say, "if it were possible at all", but there are books written on how to invoke 'spirits' using these types of psychological 'thought-forms'. So evidently the authors of these books seem to be convinced that they can do it. Maybe they can?

Of course, they are writing these from the vantage point of believing that they are actually calling up "real spirits".

In other words, they see these 'thought-forms' as being mere vessels that external spirits use as a means of communicating with you.

That may or may not be true. Maybe they are just having controlled schizophrenic hallucinations?

Some of these authors tell you to challenge these spirits to prove themselves to you by telling you things that you cannot possibly otherwise know.

Well, it does seem to me that if they passed that test, that would confirm that they are indeed 'external spirits' just communing with you via these imagined psychic thought-forms.

I haven't been able to conjure one up that has been convincing enough to actually have a conversation with yet. But if I ever do, I'm definitely going to be asking it to prove it's independence by telling me something that I couldn't possibly otherwise know.

But like I say, first things first. I can't even get to the stage where I'm actually talking to an illusion much less asking it to prove its independence to me.

(February 12, 2012 at 10:14 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: I also agree that it wouldn't be considered to be schizophrenia if a person could control their lucid visions. You say, "if it were possible at all", but there are books written on how to invoke 'spirits' using these types of psychological 'thought-forms'. So evidently the authors of these books seem to be convinced that they can do it. Maybe they can?

There's at least one explanation beyond "they seem to be convinced that they can do it" that I can think of without trying very hard.

To be perfectly honest, I really couldn't care less what someone is convinced that they can do. Demonstrate it, and I my interest might be piqued. Aaah, but there's the problem.

Quote:In other words, they see these 'thought-forms' as being mere vessels that external spirits use as a means of communicating with you.

That may or may not be true. Maybe they are just having controlled schizophrenic hallucinations?

If they are controlled, they aren't "schizophrenic". There are many causes of hallucinations - and one who is able to control one's hallucinations likely doesn't meet the clinical criteria of dysfunction. On the other hand, if you mean "schizophrenic" as in hallucinations similar to those found in schizophrenics, you can drop the adjective and avoid the confusion. A hallucination is a hallucination.

(February 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: There's at least one explanation beyond "they seem to be convinced that they can do it" that I can think of without trying very hard.

Well, if I was interested in just dismissing them that would be easy enough to do. I'm more interested in finding out if there is anything to it. All I'm saying is that there at exists secular knowledge (i.e. cases of schizophrenia) of why this should be possible for a human brain to do.

So the idea that they might be able to do it "reasonable" even from a pure secular vantage point.

(February 12, 2012 at 10:29 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: To be perfectly honest, I really couldn't care less what someone is convinced that they can do. Demonstrate it, and I my interest might be piqued. Aaah, but there's the problem.

But that's the issue right there. They could never prove their hallucinations to you, you'd have to experience them for yourself. This would be the kind of thing that only you could prove to yourself via a direct experience.

Quote:If they are controlled, they aren't "schizophrenic". There are many causes of hallucinations - and one who is able to control one's hallucinations likely doesn't meet the clinical criteria of dysfunction. On the other hand, if you mean "schizophrenic" as in hallucinations similar to those found in schizophrenics, you can drop the adjective and avoid the confusion. A hallucination is a hallucination.

Well, sure.

I only pointed to "schizophrenia" as secular evidence that such lucid hallucinations are possible to the point where people are convinced that they are having conversations with other beings.

So that part has been established as a "secular truth".

The only question that remains now, is whether this can be done at will mentally using certain psychic procedures. And if so, how convincing are these hallucinations?

I just find it an interesting phenomenon. Worthy of looking into.

Not suggesting that anyone else should necessarily find it interesting. But it certainly has a secular basis via the recognition of schizophrenia. That should bring it within the interest of secular thinkers I would think.

Quote:I also agree that it wouldn't be considered to be schizophrenia if a person could control their lucid visions. You say, "if it were possible at all", but there are books written on how to invoke 'spirits' using these types of psychological 'thought-forms'. So evidently the authors of these books seem to be convinced that they can do it. Maybe they can?

Of course, they are writing these from the vantage point of believing that they are actually calling up "real spirits".

Or maybe there is a market for such books and the authors are compensated for their work on the book. Do you believe everything someone writes in a book? I know a big book that people wrote about spirits. Starts with a "B" and ends in "ible".

Quote:They could never prove their hallucinations

Yet we understand that such things occur, diagnosis is made and treatments are recommended that can be shown to have en effect, hmn. Maybe you don't actually know wtf you're talking about, again.

(February 12, 2012 at 3:43 am)chipan Wrote: and tell me, what facts are there to prove athiestic cosmology? what tests? i don't want to hear dating methods unless you have some evidence of them proving 100% that they have accurately dated something they already knew the date of that was over 2000 years old. if not, it's not a proven test.

Every damn bit of evidence we have in every damn field of scientific enquiry you can name points to an old universe.

NONE of it points to a young universe(except in the fevered imaginings of cretinist "scientists" desperate to perpetrate any lie in support of their fairytale)

(January 31, 2012 at 2:03 pm)Xavier Wrote: How can modern Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when reject ideas which are integral to it?

Most Christians don't says people should be stoned to death for adultery or homosexuality, say Hindus and Buddhists should all be murdered and their temples burnt down if they won't worship the Judeo Christian god. They don't think slavery is OK. They don't believe in Adam or Eve or any of the bullshit science in Genesis.

So how can they not think the whole Bible is not just a work of fiction if they're rejecting half of it as fiction or morally wrong anyway?

Oh that's actually a really hard point for conservative Evangelicals to answer. In order to justify treating homosexual people like second-class citizens you really have to take the Bible pretty literally. Then you feel kind of slighted when they don't kick adulterers out of church and stone disobedient children. They typically gloss over stuff like that, and usually they kind of downplay the Old Testament (except when it comes to gays, then it's a great text). It's kind of an odd, schizophrenic reading of the text that ends up supporting whatever they want to support. Your average Christian can't really even explain what their hermeneutic is, they're just going off of things they've heard. So the basic answer is, "because people just inherent a way of justifying their opinions from whoever they follow that doesn't really even have to be logically consistent."

I think it's kind of ridiculous to read a book of stories and poetry as a constitution for enforcing morality, but that's just me.

(February 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm)coffeeveritas Wrote: I think it's kind of ridiculous to read a book of stories and poetry as a constitution for enforcing morality, but that's just me.

Why are you a Christian then if you think the Bible is just stories and poetry?

(February 12, 2012 at 1:14 pm)RW_9 Wrote:

(February 12, 2012 at 3:43 am)chipan Wrote: true, however the fact that they didn't use the word hell does not mean it did not exist. in the bible "Sheol" consisted of 2 compartments. there was the "Bosom of Abraham" and "Gehenna" in hebrew and "Hades" in greek. it was a place of eternal tourment. christians believe after christ, those in Abraham's bosom were brought to heaven.

I'm not sure if you actually read my response. "Gehenna" is from the New Testament, not the OT. The OT used Sheol and Hades, both resting places for the dead. The concept of hell as eternal torture did not exist until the New Testament.

I really don't care if you believe it existed back then in reality or some such. I was purely referring to when the concept came about in Christianity and the Bible - not reality.

So he hades was used in the old trstament but not gehenna? It was written in Hebrew so it using Greek does not make sense. And regardless of the lack of description of this place one thing is clear from the start. This place is a place of eternal separation from God. You think the fire is bad but the real torture is the separation from God. Before I get any smart remarks keep in mind that everything good comes from God so that means nothing good is in hell or Gehenna. No love, peace, happiness, or anything. What do you get when you take everything good and everything you enjoy out of this world? What you have left is hell. The fire is extra but that's not the true torture. It seams cruel but God cannot have any part in sin so when you pick sin over him he cannot allow you in his kingdom.