Women more likely than men to believe in the spiritual and supernatural - why?

Great Debates
101

…???..

Geeeez, no. Hello???

It’s just that I’ve taken a lot of crap for my views and my statements of them, and I found it interesting that other posters in that thread said many of the same things I’ve been trying to get at. I thought they were pretty clear.

Earlier in this thread I made a remark about the myriad experiences of being human and people were like, duh, what’s that, cite cite - so in looking at the other thread it struck me that other experiences of being human were being stated but were ignored because they didn’t follow the argument parameters you were seeking.

That’s basically the problem with this whole thing. You empirical posters have decided that you know how everything in life must be approached because you’re able to use your tools (reason, logic, verbage) effectively within your own lives. And I’ll grant you that it is a good thing to dispel stupidity and fight rank ignorance, such as those who deny evolutionary theory. I appreciate living in a society that benefits from such knowledge.

But you know, your tools don’t work equally well for everyone and every situation. How could they? Personally I can’t stand symbolic logic. I don’t get it, reducing words to symbols. On the other hand I have spiritual experiences that are apparently something you know nothing about. So be it. And women, in raising children and providing an emotional base for their families (speaking generally, of course) have a need for other skills, other means of approaching life. Yet people here scoff and scorn and disrespect non-logical approaches.

I’ll grant you the scientific method as a generally superior means of assembling many kinds of knowledge - but I don’t think it accomplishes beans towards wisdom. The fact that people here apparently can’t use it to understand religion (scorn it, yes; understand, no) is evidence.

102

Excuse me, but do you respond to every single post you ever see? It doesn’t mean you’re ignoring them.

You do realize, dear, that this is a forum for debating, don’t you? It’s Great Debates; it’s not child-raising, and it’s not loving your family. We do those things; just not here at this particular moment. Just because someone doesn’t post flaky, illogical arguments doesn’t mean they don’t know how to love. There’s a time and a place for everything. This is the place where we make intellectual arguments. It doesn’t mean we go around like robots all the time treating everything with coldly intellectual contempt. I enjoy your participation, Fessie, but geez - get a grip!

It’s funny - you seem to spend a lot of time accusing non-religious people of having contempt for others, but the vibe I get from you is one of contempt for those who don’t share your religious beliefs. Sorry, but I don’t believe religion is a necessary prerequisite for wisdom.

103

This is an interesting response from you, blowero, because you sort of affirm what I’m saying. This board, these discussions follow certain rules - it’s a game, really. And that’s fine, that’s cool; frankly I learn a lot, particularly when my own ignorance is exposed.

But you guys are like “it’s not real because it doesn’t exist here w/in SDMB GD” and when I point out that there’s other aspects of life beyond SDMB, you respond, “well, this is the place for debates and intellectual arguments, not love”. So why not just acknowledge the limits of the forum and leave off attacking the broad principles of religion and God? Falls within that purview of time and place you recommended.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, bud; however you’re one with whom I don’t mind reaching a stalemate.

You must be correct that my writing is arrogant at times, as I certainly draw ire. I shall try to mend my ways.

104

I’ll throw this one out there for amusement value, and because it just might cause someone to rethink their hardline atheism. I’ve been pfutzing for the last 3 hours with my printer (new cartridges, check cables, reload, retest, uninstall/reinstall software, run diagnostics). The thing is dead. DEAD.

The technology gods are having their way with me. I’m sure TVAA must be laughing.

105

No, what you said is that there is something outside of logic and reasoning ala a huge broad brushstroke combining many different types of philosophies into something you claim is “science.” Nobody has said what you just claimed above, though it is obviously you would like to paint us as having said them. You still have not given a good method of problem solving or some other nebulous thing you seem to think is out there.

It IS a game here. It is a game of sharpening debating skills, intellectual capacities, and a chance to experience something other than our own views. It is a game with a serious overtones because many people no doubt have paradigm shifts all the time. A persons life can be changed by reading one thread on a message board. Ideas exchanged are Ideas doubled. A simple sentance from me can cause somebody else to have an “Aha” moment and in a moment of epiphinay sudenly understand something he/she previously did not, or even go beyond that and cognigate and idea that only had roots in my original post.

You hate science, that much is obvious. Otherwise you wouldn’t be grinding your axe here. Your words show more about you than you seem to realize. You are hurt because people on a message board think you are crazy because you have had a spiritual experience and instead of accepting the Idea that such an experience could have rational origins, you attack.

I keep a part of myself ready to believe in the spiritual, NDE’s, some god like being, ghosts, aliens, whatever. I certainly am not so gullible that I am going to believe anybody just because they say “trust me, this really happened.” Most skeptics, or rational, logic type people you decry do this. It is called having an open mind. We accept the fact that we may be mistaken, disalusioned or whatnot. It seems however that your type doesnt even slightly entertain the fact that they may be wrong. Sorry fessie, but you are the one with the closed mind.

Take your grind somewhere else. If you don’t like the game, leave it.

106

** Words are symbols. Mathematics is language.

You look at truth, and see trivialities. You look at unification, and see division. You look at thought, and divide it into logic and reason and emotion and intuiton. You see accuracy and call it arrogance.

You do not understand what you claim. You do not understand the nature of what we understand. You do not understand the limits of understanding.

107

There are those who play it as a game, carping about the definitions of words, restricting the range of discussion, yadda, yadda yadda (to use a passe cliche). There are also those of us who really care about what we say and really believe it.

There are limits to this forum that mean we should not disagree with the “broad principles of religion and God”??? I believe that there is no God (and no gods)–I could be wrong and I’m willing to admit that, but it’s not a game to me, REALLY.

I know perfectly well that there are areas of human life that do not yield to rational/logical analysis–that doesn’t mean I just believe in anything. I look at a question (Does God exist? Is there something, call it a “soul,” that continues after death? Can the position of the stars affect our actions/personality/lives/fate?) and decide, based on what I know, what I’ve learned, what I’ve experienced, that it makes sense or not.

Then I defend my position with all the tools that I have (that God has given me?). Saying “leave off attacking” is not a defense, it’s not an argument, it’s just nothing.

You say that “On the other hand I have spiritual experiences that are apparently something you know nothing about.” Where did you get that idea? Having a spiritual experience and knowing :slight_smile: that one must check everything experienced against what makes sense are not antithetical–just a way of trying to understand. If I take drugs and have a mystical experience that tells me I can walk off the top of a building (but I’m saved by the fire department, bless their hearts)…that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t look at the experience later and say “that was dumb”–does it?

Are there enough double negatives in this post?

fessie, maybe you need to call in reinforcements? You seem to be getting slammed here. I hate to see that happen.

Not that you seem to be cowed by the experience!

** TVAA** seems to have a harsh way of stating things, so I don’t much like to be on his side, but the arguments on fessie’s side seem to be getting weak.

“I don’t know about sides. I go my own way; but your way may go along with mine for a while.”

108

If there’s one thing I would like to communicate to you, it’s that we can love without god-belief. I wish you could understand that being a rational person does not mean one is without emotions.

Well I do get a sense from you that you think your way is the only correct path, but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.:slight_smile:

109

I am getting slammed, and that’s fine. I’m learning a lot about the weaknesses in how I present my beliefs and I don’t imagine I could do so otherwise. It is fun to discuss important issues with excellent minds. If we all understood each other and were in perfect agreement, what would be the point?

And yes, TVAA, I don’t get you at all. epimetheus you’re not understanding me. blowero I don’t mean to imply that you don’t have a full range of emotions. NoCoolUserName, interesting post. I’m surprised I’m not more bothered by the responses, too; I think it’s because this conversation is like an octopus, so much flailing and misunderstanding going on.

It seems to me that one of the reasons we’ve been at such odds, besides my poorly stated attacks on science, is that it’s assumed I’m defending Judeo-Christian beliefs when in fact I’m not. The OP just used the term “spiritual”, which to me did not mean it had to be limited to popular Western religion and that’s not where I’m coming from. So you guys keep aiming for a target that I keep moving, and that’s got to be annoying. And in truth I agree with many of your principles, many of your statements; just not necessarily the way you interpret their meaning.

Rather than continue the negativity that has accumulated here (for which I take the blame) I’ll hope to catch you guys in another thread where perhaps something more positive can be accomplished. In many ways our views may not be as far apart as you imagine. Christianity is dogmatic about everything - including God; I don’t like it any more than you guys do. Frankly I think that religion needs to be redefined to include both spirituality and science; there’s no reason why that couldn’t be the case. They’re both constructs and explanations, albeit with differing efficacy and applications.

Anyway RexDart already answered his own OP quite eloquently a few posts back.

110

Accomplishing something positive is accomplishing something negative. You can’t include without excluding, affirm without rejecting, learn the truth without knowing falsehood.

111

That’s a bit Zen isn’t it? Care to elaborate for the hard of thinking (i.e. me)?

112

See, TVAA, that’s what keep throwing me off about you. Your cryptic statements actually make sense.

113

If I assert the claim that apples are red, I deny the claim that apples are non-red. If A is true, ~A is false.

Making a statement is equivalent to denying the negation of that statement in every way. Thus, you cannot accept one statement without rejecting its negation. There is no positive without negative.

114

Speak for yourself.

<clank> <clank> <clank> <clank> Out of the way, puny flesh creature! <clank> <clank> <clank>

115

Only if you assert the claim that all apples are red, which is a different claim than: “Apples are red.”

Julie

116

Ah, the glorious ambiguity of the English language! Soon, it will be a complete impediment to understanding.

117

You mean like marriage?

Julie

118

You mean like marriage?

Julie