Raising Standards

I do understand psychology; but I'm having a hard time reading your post.I have a system I use when it come to Brad's post: I don't read them.Why don't you frame your arguements in a concise way? It would really help.

Brenda, I have absolutley no idea what point you are trying to convey, here.Could you please clarify your point? I got interested when psychology was mentioned but nothing in your post to me resembles the psychology I study.You seem to be trying to explain some concept but keep dropping in terms like 'energy' in an inappropriate way.What are you trying to say?

That's a stupid idea: it dosen't work, I didn't see any damn fireworks and now my eyes hurt like a pair of bastards!^{And now I seem to have developed a fear of spoons.}

This is a good question: poor student or poor teacher?

I'm going to assume this meant that you wanted to learn that what you already beleived to be correct. I'm also going to assume that what you beleive was given short thrift. Both "The Secret Doctorine" and "Urantia" are both full of wide eyed nonsense that has the same veracity as the Cthulhu Mythos by H.P. Lovcraft: therin lies the similarity. You have so far displayed a complete inability to articulate your position to us. Why would anyone be able to understand you? The problem you have Brenda m'dear, is that there is no compelling reason to beleive this claim. I read this as to say that for some reason you think equal concideration should be given to your beliefs as to the ToE. On what grounds would you substantiate this? Present your findings here. Simple. Scientists are not the ones engaging in this debate. To a scientist there is no debate. The evidence (what scientist look at) does not support creationism so it has long been discarded as viable theory. Only some of the religious feel there is a debate going on in science.

Am I right in thinking that you are saying that if one can get a patient to beleive you assertions that it could have a theraputic effect?I would be very interested in any outcome studies you have.Is this the new cbt?

1: You seem to be aware of an incompatatbility between science and religion and have some awareness of the the distress (cognitive dissonance) this can create.2: It has become an important enough point for you that you have spent over 10 years trying to reconcile this incompatability.3: You read a text (Secret Doctrine) that for you deals with this incompatatbility very well indead.4: You have attempted to promogulate this thext and the ideas contain therein to other people and have so far got virtually nowhere.5: You came here to try with the members of this forum.6: You have ran into exactly the same problems you have had for the last 10 years on this site.7: You have made several conclusions as to why this is, but have not given up trying.So, if the above is even vaguely correct the answer is obvious: either you communication skills are flawed and people dismiss your assertions on this basis, or, the message of the Secret Doctrine is flawed and people dismiss its assertions on this basis.My titular question is this: have you heard of the psychological term 'Overvalued Idea'? I assert this could be the cause of your current challenges.Edited by Larni, : Changed Assumptiosn from Observations.

But this is just apologetics. You are adding variables (where none are required) to make a religion fit with the evidence. Brenda: I beleive the xian bible is a work of fiction. This means I have no need for the concept of Girass (what ever the heell it is). Show me why I need it. But you are not providing any neutral ground where science and religion can come together and iron out their differences! All you are doing is proposing a 'just so story' that makes science and religion fit. For no reason other than one of apologetics. Gibberish. Good luck with that.

As I said. You are trying to square a circle that will not work.

If it's so good a: explain why it is so good and b: explain why no one bar you thinks it's so ace?

But there is no promise of advancement without some conceptualisation of the theory; you provided neihter.Explain better, please.

Finally!Now I understand what you mean by girasas.

Yeah, this only needs a few nuclear volcanoes and battle fleets and we are well within Hubbard territory.ABE: check out the scores for Feasibility, Originality and Humour.Global Ideas Bank - most socially innovative ideas and projects plus awardsEdited by Larni, : Added site link.

---

Jesus Saves! The rest of the party take full damage.

As I said: an over valued idea.But how is Brenda's nonsensical beliefs any different from religious belief?After all, it's no different from the FSM or xianity.Edited by Larni, : DVD extras

---

Jesus Saves! The rest of the party take full damage.

You obviously believe what you have read in the Secret Doctrine but have you given any thought as to why you believe it?Why are your asserted beliefs true? By that I mean what have you experienced that points to the Secret Doctrine being true?You see, the problem we are all having here is that you say "girasas theory is true but for some reason nobody has ever encountered girasas" and you seem to feel that someone should take girasas theory out of your hands and promogulate it to the general population.It appears that for you, adopting 'girasas theory' allowed you to make sense of the world in a way that you found conducive to good mental health: you seem to mention many time that girasas theory allows xiantity and science to come togther in synergy.This seems to have allowed you to remove an amount of cognitive dissonance about religion and science. From here it appears that you believe that if everyone could see it how you see it people would be much happier.Is this about right, or am I way off?