introductions and requests

[curiouskorean]

Hey forum,
My name is Sam but you can call me
curiouskorean
or Korean
or curious

I am here because I would like to use this forum as a medium/tool for my senior project on psychology, more specifically religious psychology.  Although I am able to find my own research and data on the history of psychology, the history of religion and the history of religious psychology.  In order for me to truly make my senior project, I need documentation on the hours I have spent actively on this subject. 

And so I request a "mentor."
in this case a active member on this forum, to moderate me, listen to me, correct me, teach me, be a witness for this project. (This probably includes rules to this forum)

this means that this mentor is willing to reveal their username to the BOE. (bogotifying old educators) ahem... (board of education)

Any ways I hope I am welcome to this forum and am expected to be very active for the next 3 months.  If I become interested or attached to this site, then probably longer.

recap
things I can provide

• I am open minded
• I have a lot to say
• I don't troll or flame XD

things I need

• A mentor

[gone]

If you are studying religious psycology I'd put down the text book and look around you. See the signs, the history. Starting with perhaps Zoroastrianism, Asyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian Mythology - cult of Osiris through to Greek & Roman Gods and Mithriasm and Sol Invictus etc and you'll quickly realise they are all skins of the onion. Each layer are cultural adaptations of the SAME ancient astrological pagan myths.
The text books, lecturers will not tell you this because it's a hidden knowledge, found only by those who seek it.

[curiouskorean]

I don't think we are on the same page
as in "psychology", I mean psychology

I'm not doing my studies on analyzing and cracking the codes to religions for my personal beliefs and what not, that's just called spiritual searching.

I'm 100% taking this in a psychology view point
human interaction with psychology
influence of major religions to societies and people
how it affects human behavior, ideals and roles
All that jazz,

its something found with logic and reasoning, not because I'm searching for something I'm missing.  It's because I'm searching for something already visible.  The entity that controls the minds of the masses and you.  That's what I need to actively search and study with other people.

But then again, my broad subject of psychology was only narrowed to religion initially because it was such a deep subject with out as much data behind it.  If I we're not to do religious psychology I'm also looking for a political psychologist.

[gone]

Ah I see. That will be 'beliefs' and I can't talk anymore about beliefs than I already have, the subject bores me now but reasearch in 'beliefs' is very interesting.
For one example : repetition forms beliefs
For another : we arive at believing through 'desire' not choice
etc... Also of interest is on the MRI scan there is a difference in the athiest brain and the religious persons brain (aparently - I say because I personally haven't seen it first hand).
Good luck with your studies.

[curiouskorean]

thanks for the help I'm sure my studies will do fine =D

[Enigma]

Sounds like an interesting project; if you post it I'd be happy to critique it. 

[SWM]

how do you think your attitude to religion and spirituality will affect your research and what can you do about it?

[curiouskorean]

Sounds like an interesting project; if you post it I'd be happy to critique it. 

Thank you, hopefully this will be very interactive (almost like a small debate, without the flaming)

now where to post it someone has to teach me

[curiouskorean]

how do you think your attitude to religion and spirituality will affect your research and what can you do about it?

I haven't really thought about taking that into effect because the "Thesis" I guess you could call it, would only be based on society as a majority. 

So I don't know If it will affect my research.  Maybe I'll start doing it ignorantly and without me knowing that I'm actually applying my own experiences. 

If then it would probably best if someone told me, so I can steer towards my intended direction of taking this in a 3rd person perspective.

[pert -5]

Sounds like an interesting project; if you post it I'd be happy to critique it. 

Thank you, hopefully this will be very interactive (almost like a small debate, without the flaming)

now where to post it someone has to teach me

Post it here so all of us can laugh at it! 

[curiouskorean]

Post it here so all of us can laugh at it! 

haha as long as that's fine with everyone else and it's not going against any forum rules or conveniences.
sure

[Enigma]

General Psych should be a fine place to post it.

[SWM]

how do you think your attitude to religion and spirituality will affect your research and what can you do about it?

I haven't really thought about taking that into effect because the "Thesis" I guess you could call it, would only be based on society as a majority. 

So I don't know If it will affect my research.  Maybe I'll start doing it ignorantly and without me knowing that I'm actually applying my own experiences. 

If then it would probably best if someone told me, so I can steer towards my intended direction of taking this in a 3rd person perspective.

knowing what your attitudes about religion and spirituality are could help you to identify bias in your findings.

exmaple. if you have a belief that religion is devised by early human society as a mean of controlling the population then you are more likely to notice and pay attention to indicators of control. by paying attention to indicators of control you might not notice indicators that show how religion has liberated a population. you pay attention to something because you recognise it more easily and when paying attention to that apsect you dont notice something else which is equally as important in gaining a full understanding of the subject.

if you can identify your own attitudes and beliefs you can begin to reduce the impact on the objectivity of your study.

[gone]

"by paying attention to indicators of control you might not notice indicators that show how religion has liberated a population" .

I guess that sums up your bias. Do you have any examples of where a population has been 'liberated' by religion? And what was it liberated from? And why do you percive the change a 'liberating' one?

[SWM]

i am using an example to show how bias can cause a person to miss information which is important to the conclusions they make.

if you have a bias you might perceive something to be true because you miss evidence for the contrary when paying attention to evidence that supports your belief.

which is what you did when responding to my example. you are responding to my comment as though i was presenting a statement of fact, which i wasnt. but you perceived that to be the case because of your emotional attachment to your beliefs about religion.

[gone]

why do you never answer my questions?
you also confirm to conformation bias, as you don't suggest but say "religion has liberated people".. this a statement, not a suggestion.
Of course I would never suggest such a thing, because in all the history of the world religions I don't see how 'religion' has ever been liberating, except perhaps in 'deluding' a person to feel liberated. There is NO evidence populations have been liberated in the context of physical reality (quite the opposite - it is oppressive) the only 'liberation' comes from distoring reality with psychology.

[SWM]

have i ever answered one of your questions, i am pretty sure i have.

"never" is an example of generalisation, it could also be an example of deletion.

your very good at providing illustrations of my points for me.

you don't suggest but say "religion has liberated people".. this a statement, not a suggestion.

out of the context of the rest of the sentence it is a statement but it was written in the context of a longer sentence, which was in a paragraph of two sentences designed to convey an example to illustrate a point.


this is a real good example of what i was talking about above.

you are only paying attention to the information that is relevant to your point. either that or you have dsylexia. is their a form of comprehension dyslexia?

i made a comment

exmaple. if you have a belief that religion is devised by early human society as a mean of controlling the population then you are more likely to notice and pay attention to indicators of control. by paying attention to indicators of control you might not notice indicators that show how religion has liberated a population

you ignored the whole of the point, focused on a portion of the sentence, took that portion of the sentence out of the context of the rest of the sentence so that the portion no longer has the meaning it was given by its context and you give it a new meaning that fits your agenda. then you set about builiding your argument against religion again.

the comment i made is an example to illustrate how a persons attiutdes to religion will influence their ability to arrive at a conclusion which encompasses all the evidence. this a structured paraggraph, that is designed to be read as a whole. each sentence gives meaning and context to the other sentence and the words were ordered to convey the meaning that i had in mind.

if you take a part of one sentence and read it like it is a statment of its own then you are deluding yourself.

john was playing with the farmers cockrels in the chicken coup.

in the above quote would it be accurate to say the speaker had said that "john was playing with the farmers cock"?
no, because taking a portion of a sentence deprives the portion of the meaning given by the context of the whole.

[SWM]

this a statement, not a suggestion.

as a side note. i never said it was suggestion either. you made that up as well. this is called distortion.

[gone]

Yes my 'Why do you never answer my questions' was a 'generalisation', you do answer them but rarely answer them, like a politician you skate around them without answering them "sometimes".

English language is open to much misinterpretation. However you want to interpret your own sentence it still stands as a bias weather in portion or complete. I'm sorry I still stand by that. Or you would have also said 'If you had a belief religion is the truth you may not notice that religion is also an organised tool to control the population' that would have been an ubiased statement, but your statement was loaded with bias.

I have ALWAYS worked with language, I know what you are trying to spell out, I know this, but as I say your statment still reads as a bias. Weather it is a statement, a suggestion or a comment

I am not (whatever) dyslexic I don't believe there is such a thing. Dyslexia is another made up disorder. But I do read things literal, I'm rarely fooled by marketing & such because I'm only too familar with the language they use, just like cold reading, barnum statements etc.. I'm finely tuned into words I like to think. I can't spell them very well though!

[curiouskorean]

General Psych should be a fine place to post it.

alright then I'll take you suggestion and move it.
BTW if anyone doesn't mind I kind of want to print screen this onto a paint document and use it as a proof documentation.

Also I'd like to temporarily assume you to be one of my mentors for this project as well as SWM

[curiouskorean]

how do you think your attitude to religion and spirituality will affect your research and what can you do about it?

I haven't really thought about taking that into effect because the "Thesis" I guess you could call it, would only be based on society as a majority. 

So I don't know If it will affect my research.  Maybe I'll start doing it ignorantly and without me knowing that I'm actually applying my own experiences. 

If then it would probably best if someone told me, so I can steer towards my intended direction of taking this in a 3rd person perspective.

knowing what your attitudes about religion and spirituality are could help you to identify bias in your findings.

exmaple. if you have a belief that religion is devised by early human society as a mean of controlling the population then you are more likely to notice and pay attention to indicators of control. by paying attention to indicators of control you might not notice indicators that show how religion has liberated a population. you pay attention to something because you recognise it more easily and when paying attention to that apsect you dont notice something else which is equally as important in gaining a full understanding of the subject.

if you can identify your own attitudes and beliefs you can begin to reduce the impact on the objectivity of your study.

that makes sense, but to apply or even layout my thoughts on religion will take a LOOOONG ass time

[curiouskorean]

"by paying attention to indicators of control you might not notice indicators that show how religion has liberated a population" .

I guess that sums up your bias. Do you have any examples of where a population has been 'liberated' by religion? And what was it liberated from? And why do you percive the change a 'liberating' one?

That I will add in the new thread in the general psychology section

[SWM]

Or you would have also said 'If you had a belief religion is the truth you may not notice that religion is also an organised tool to control the population' that would have been an ubiased statement, but your statement was loaded with bias.

you said i should have said "if i had a belief religion is the truth..." but I would not use such an example as it is poor grammar and not a logical phrase.

if you think about that phrase it is not a logical phrase

religion is true would be more grammatically correct however is still not a logical argument.

religion contains the truth, is grammatically correct and is more logical, however it is a generalisation. which religion contains the truth? all religion? that would mean that there are no religions that could not contain a truth.

so any way i would not have used such a phrase as an example.
 
also you said i would have also said, this means that i would have said what i did say and i would have said what you said i would say. so i would have given an example from each perspective.

i think that is absolute rubbish.  i dont have to give an example from every possible dimension in order to demonstrate an unbiased example. there is more than two possible positions to take on this subject and using your logic i would have had to give an example from each perspective in order to make an unbiased example.

so if i have to use this "also" would i have to give every possible scenario.

would it make sense to say, if you believe religion is the false you may not notice the political elite using religion as a trojan horse to inflict war and genocide on peaceful people.  


anyway, splitting hairs, nough said about this from me.

[curiouskorean]

Or you would have also said 'If you had a belief religion is the truth you may not notice that religion is also an organised tool to control the population' that would have been an ubiased statement, but your statement was loaded with bias.

you said i should have said "if i had a belief religion is the truth..." but I would not use such an example as it is poor grammar and not a logical phrase.

if you think about that phrase it is not a logical phrase

religion is true would be more grammatically correct however is still not a logical argument.

religion contains the truth, is grammatically correct and is more logical, however it is a generalisation. which religion contains the truth? all religion? that would mean that there are no religions that could not contain a truth.

Come and read my new thread later on, in the general psychology section. You might be interested in what I have to say about this inquiry. 

Although the grammar might suck you should enjoy my logic once it's presented. =)

In a sense that goes for everyone else too
http://psychology-forum.com/off-topic/religion-flame-behavior-chaos-and-salvation/msg15073/#new

[gone]

exmaple. if you have a belief that religion is devised by early human society as a mean of controlling the population then you are more likely to notice and pay attention to indicators of control. by paying attention to indicators of control you might not notice indicators that show how religion has liberated a population. you pay attention to something because you recognise it more easily and when paying attention to that apsect you dont notice something else which is equally as important in gaining a full understanding of the subject.

that was your 'comment' now if you switch 'religion' and 'control' around (as I did above to demonstate my point, but you didn't get it) then the bias is the opposite.. It is a bias sentence.

if you have a belief that religion is true then you are more likely to notice and pay attention to indicators of spiritialism. by paying attention to indicators of spirituality you might not notice indicators that show how religion was developed by early human societies as a mean of controlling the population.

that is your sentence presented with the opposite bias.

you can present grammar to reinforce your argument but as you're the one who's sentences are being misinterpreted I'll give grammar a miss this time as it's also deviating from the subject. But what the hell I think we understand we don't understand each other :-)

[SWM]

that version of my sentence makes a little more sense than your other. so you can choose to read which ever version or make up your own based on your own beliefs and attitudes towards religion.

the important point was made and I believe accepted by all involved.

[braska]

are looking for apsychological point of view about religion....I think It's very complecated
but my opinion....reliogion -psychologically - is alist of things we want to get it badly or things we want to avoid badely and so on.
so religions-in my point of view -are one at the  end but It's different in the small details ..because we don't have the same needs at the end or the same fears or the same values.

[S. Earl Martin]

Psycho Mommy You cannot see how religion has liberated people because you are biased. Even if I did give examples you would probably dismiss them because you wouldn't believe them. Because you haven't experienced them and refuse to do so. I personally find my religious beliefs very liberateing and informing. I am sure there are others here who feel the same way. SWM is absolutely correct in his statements and I see he in fact made a consorted effort to answer you as he has done in the past. You just chose to not accept his input and that leads you to the mistaken belief he didn't respond. When in fact he did, just not in the way you wanted. This tirad you have against religion is very odd considering how you quote religions as supposed proof. Or for whatever reason you are doing it? 

[curiouskorean]

eeehhhhh sorry I've been inactive for so long guys I promise I will get busy on my religious project, was caught up with a bunch of other things, so bear with me. thanks