How can Christians not admit Christianity is all a pile of garbage when ...?

[The Grand Nudger]

true, however the fact that they didn't use the word hell does not mean it did not exist.

I concede the point, that a word is or isn't used in the bible is no indicator of whether or not it (what the word is or isn't referencing) exists. Which is exactly why I don't believe in your fairy tales to begin with.

[Abracadabra]

So I have an interest in trying to invoke "spirits" via thought-forms in this way. I confess that I haven't succeeded yet. Maybe it requires a brain that is on the edge of schizophrenia?

Maybe this explains why for some people the concept of 'spirits' seem far more real than for other people.

As much as a spiritual essence to reality interests me, I must confess that I haven't yet been able to invoke a convincingly 'independent spirit'.

Maybe one day it'll occur to you that spirits aren't real and that's why you can't invoke one. I live in hope.

Well, I don't know. According to secular atheist they are real. At least in the context of being 'thought-forms' which was the context I was addressing.

After all, this is precisely the explanation that secular atheists require that I am. Therefore I should be able to call up a spirit as a thought-form that is at least as real as me, even whilst keeping within secular atheistic views.

In other words, if the secular atheists are right, then I should be able to invoke spirits as thought-forms. And they should be at least as real as me.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I am a secular atheist and I don't believe spirits are real, so there. Nor do I believe you can invoke something that is made up, obviously.

[Abracadabra]

I am a secular atheist and I don't believe spirits are real, so there. Nor do I believe you can invoke something that is made up, obviously.

Made up?

Made up of what?

According to the secular picture you are just a made-up illusion of a biological computer (i.e. your own brain)

All, I'm saying is that if your brain can "make you up", why couldn't it also "make-up" additional characters?

And if it did, why would those additional characters not be any more 'valid' than you?

[Norfolk And Chance]

I only got halfway through reading that and my eyeballs burst.

[Abracadabra]

I only got halfway through reading that and my eyeballs burst.

I don't blame them.

These are hard issues to contemplate for sure.

[Minimalist]

All, I'm saying is that if your brain can "make you up", why couldn't it also "make-up" additional characters?

[The Grand Nudger]

Made up?

Made up of what?

According to the secular picture you are just a made-up illusion of a biological computer (i.e. your own brain)

All, I'm saying is that if your brain can "make you up", why couldn't it also "make-up" additional characters?

Handled in post 50.

And if it did, why would those additional characters not be any more 'valid' than you?

That would be an interesting discussion, wouldn't it?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/disso...y-disorder

[Abracadabra]

Made up?

Made up of what?

According to the secular picture you are just a made-up illusion of a biological computer (i.e. your own brain)

All, I'm saying is that if your brain can "make you up", why couldn't it also "make-up" additional characters?

Handled in post 50.

That was not "handled" in your post at all. On the contrary all you did was confess that by my definition of 'spirit' it can indeed occur and does occur as schizophrenia and dissociative identity "disorder". Then you added that this necessarily results in negative things and can be viewed as a clear "disorder".

However, that doesn't necessarily need to be the case at all.

Clearly it can be a negative situation to be sure. But that doesn't always need to be the case.

And if it did, why would those additional characters not be any more 'valid' than you?

That would be an interesting discussion, wouldn't it?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/disso...y-disorder

Ok, I've read the article. But that article address dissociative personality disorder, not schizophrenia. They are speaking of multiple personas in term of them being disruptive to a person's life, etc.

I'm more interested in schizophrenia myself (i.e. seeing and talking with fairies, spirits, or whatever), but dissociative personally 'disorder' would certainly be along the same lines I would think (at least in terms of how they are created within the brain)

In fact, in the article you linked to they say, "It is now acknowledged that these dissociated states are not fully-mature personalities, but rather they represent a disjointed sense of identity."

So even they are acknowledging the secular reality of the situation within the brain.

They even go on to say, "There is usually a host personality within the individual, who identifies with the person's real name. Ironically, the host personality is usually unaware of the presence of other personalities."

In the case of dissociative personality disorder the "host personality" isn't even necessarily aware of the other emergent personalities.

So that would be far from schizophrenia where a person is seeing things and hearing voices.

Clearly you are pointing to the wrong thing altogether. Schizophrenia would indeed be more closely related to the concept of "invoking spirits".

I mean, if you could consciously 'invoke' schizophrenic spirits, and they did you no harm and always gave you great advice. What would be negative about that? Also how could that be considered to be a "disorder" if you have control over it and no harm comes from it?

I mean, clearly people who suffer from schizophrenia without wanting to call upon these experiences, and apparently have no control over them, would be seriously confused and even frightened by these experiences.

But someone who had actually learned to call up these types of "illusions' in their brains at will, and felt like they had total control over when they appear, etc., and also trusted the entities that do appear to be "good", then it would not be a "problem". In fact, for them, all it would be is a profound spiritual experience proving that "spirits" do indeed exist. Because these people can clearly see them and converse with them.

~~~~

This is what I'm suggesting.

If schizophrenia (not dissociative personality disorder) could be called upon at will under the control of the person who is "invoking" these thought-forms, then they would be convinced that they are indeed calling up "spirits".

Moreover this should be possible even from a secular point of view. If for no other reason than we know that schizophrenia is possible in a human brain.

I would love to be able to willfully call up such convincing characters in my brain. Especially if they are appearing as "good spirits" and I feel that I have total control over when I can call them up or not. That's the whole idea of being able to 'invoke spirits' in a spiritual sense.

I think it's a lovely idea. And clearly an idea that should be possible even within the confines of a secular view of reality.

That's the idea that I'm thinking about.

But yes, the dissociative personality disorder is clearly also possible. I'm not sure why anyone would want to create that situation on purpose. That situation does appear to be a total loss of control over the brain for the original personality and surely no one would want that.

But obviously even that happens in 'reality'.

But, no, I'm more interested in schizophrenia. (seeing and hearing spirits, fairies or whatnot). I think that would be cool. Especially if you had confident control over when these spirits could be invoked it or not.

And there are books on "How to Invoke Spirits" that address the issue precisely from this vantage point. From the point of view of creating 'thought-forms'.

But I haven't had any luck becoming willfully schizophrenic yet.

Maybe things will get better with practice? Eh?

---

Some excepts from the page you linked to:

Are There Famous People With Dissociative Identity Disorder?

Famous people with dissociative identity disorder include retired NFL star Herschel Walker, who says he's struggled with dissociative identity disorder for years but has only been treated for the past eight years.

Walker recently published a book about his struggles with dissociative identity disorder, along with his suicide attempts. Walker talks about a feeling of disconnect from childhood to the professional leagues. To cope, he developed a tough personality that didn't feel loneliness, one that was fearless and wanted to act out the anger he always suppressed. These "alters" could withstand the abuse he felt; other alters came to help him rise to national fame. Today, Walker realizes that these alternate personalities are part of dissociative identity disorder, which he was diagnosed with in adulthood.

(Well apparently this "disorder" helped Walker rise to national fame)
That's interesting.


How Common Is Dissociative Identity Disorder?

Statistics show the rate of dissociative identity disorder is .01% to 1% of the general population. Still, more than 1/3 of people say they feel as if they're watching themselves in a movie at times, and 7% percent of the population may have undiagnosed dissociative disorder.

(Wow! 33% of people feel as if they are watching themselves in a movie?)

That's pretty amazing. It's almost hard to claim that it's a 'disorder' if so many people are doing it.

[Jackalope]

Statistics show the rate of dissociative identity disorder is .01% to 1% of the general population. Still, more than 1/3 of people say they feel as if they're watching themselves in a movie at times, and 7% percent of the population may have undiagnosed dissociative disorder.

(Wow! 33% of people feel as if they are watching themselves in a movie?)

That's pretty amazing. It's almost hard to claim that it's a 'disorder' if so many people are doing it.

The vast majority of the 1/3 of people who "feel as though they are watching themselves in a movie at times" (emphasis added) don't meet the clinical criteria for DID. It's considered normal for people to exhibit dissociative symptoms at times (the same applies for symptoms of other disorders as well). If you don't meet the diagnostic criteria, you don't get the diagnosis. Absent other clinically significant indicators, those 1/3 do not meet the criteria.

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.