Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean
I think it's a bit strong to call socionics a pseudoscience - it has some observations about people that appear to hold true - some socionists may be pseudoscientists, however, if they deliberately obscure + twist 'facts' to fit their theories. As long as their is a scientific framework in place, socionics will remain relevant until superseded by a better theory.

Mariano Rajoy: I don't see how god is inseparable from reality - If I can't be sure I exist, I certainly can't be sure God exists - this argument implies 'because I exist, god must also exist'. Also, most (if not all) religions do seek to explain reality through creation myths etc. + the very suggestion that god exists and created the world. Scientific investigation as we know it may not have existed thousands of years ago, but religion involves an universal framework which obscures observation of phenomenon either through indoctrination + persecution. Humans have always had their individual perceptions of reality, and on this level, understanding + interpretation of phenomenon existed before religion.
People twist religion to fit what they want and they often get away with it. Human behavior has not changed from the times that people were indoctrinated + persecuted until now. People continue to manipulate a tradition founded on love into something to be used for their own agenda.

I am not sure how to convince you of your own existence. I will say that the doctrines of today have many people chasing their own tail.

I would also venture a guess and say if you do not see G-d, then you do not see reality, which would make sense because you are unsure of your own existence.

Religions do not seek to explain reality. Science does that! The brevity of the Christian tradition, which is hard to come to terms with, is that the word is G-d. There is no difference between reality and the written word. In this backhanded way, the Christian tradtition holds some affinity to the Buddhist tradition.