Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours :)

[Padawanbater2]

I feel the need to quote myself....
Just like you won't understand the counterintuitive aspects of biology or physics, if you don't actively study and put forth quite a bit of effort, it can be excessively difficult, especially as a person who is not easily tricked or led and is naturally skeptical, to be able to understand the deeper aspects of spirituality. This is not dissimilar to the large number of physicists(which is growing ever smaller) who at one point in time have denied and rallied against any plausibility of the theories presented by Quantum mechanics. Without a proper understanding, of course it looks like nothing more than a bunch of garbage.

I was raised in a non-religious household, and in my high school years and and beyond, naturally leaned toward skepticism and atheism, and did my fair share of reading on subjects such as biology, physics, astrophysics, etc. My first foray into the world of modern spirituality was based on me arguing and attempting to disprove claims made by the person who eventually became my first spiritual guide/teacher/priestess. The more I learned, the more I started to see just how it is that these claims and theories make sense, even within a scientific understanding of the world.

How would I study the deeper aspects of spirituality?

Why haven't you presented the claims that swayed your skeptical mind to the rest of us?? I'd be interested in hearing what they were.

 

[mindphuk]

My first foray into the world of modern spirituality was based on me arguing and attempting to disprove claims made by the person who eventually became my first spiritual guide/teacher/priestess. The more I learned, the more I started to see just how it is that these claims and theories make sense, even within a scientific understanding of the world.

Of course they make sense. That's what so much of this woo is designed to do, make sense within a modern framework that includes modern cosmology and quantum physics. It tries to appeal to intellectuals that have a basic understanding of science but not so much that real skepticism gets in the way.

The question I have is one of truth value. How do what is and is not true about reality? Testable claims are all that I'm interested in because untestable means it's outside of useful knowledge. Of course nailing down actual claims seems to be a problem with this version of pantheism.

We MIGHT be part of a multiverse with many different parallel universes.
​

At this point in time it's interesting speculation but not testable, although that all seems to be changing.

This is the level I put your feel good, pantheistic claims. Interesting but not meaningful. Bring me something that is testable even in theory. Hell, I'd be happy if you would just formulate your claims so that they are consistent and understandable. I think the reason you have trouble solidifying them is because it benefits you to leave them sort of intangible as it allows you to move the goalposts to wherever the questioning leads. Seriously try it. Just write out a few positive statements about what you believe to be true about god without being self-referential as you were a few posts up.

I would love to have been able to discuss this with your 'priestess' as we are here now. I think the fact that you initially were out there trying to disprove claims says a lot about the level of your cognitive skills back then. Skeptical, but like many smart pot-smokers allow your deep intuition to override true analytical, rational processes.

 

[karri0n]

Deflection.
I'm not asking deep level spiritual questions here, just the basic, "why should I accept your claim that a god or gods exist?"

You shouldn't. You should evaluate the evidence, and accept what exactly entails evidence to you.You have a mind of your own and spirituality will be to you vastly different than it will be to someone else. See:

I can have a deep spiritual experience while pondering the universe and looking at the newest and relatively close supernova in M101 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/25/m101-supernova-update/

Okay, so we, in our human experience, tend to anthropomorphize things. How do we go from this underlying conceptual framework to one where you believe these things have any basis in reality?

This is based on my own spiritual practice, and observed results. It's also based on various discussions I have had with similar minded individuals, and the results and experiences that they have shared in discussion. While I realize that neither you nor the Scientific Method can possibly count personal experience as evidence, I find that reality is not as rigid as theory and I am willing to accept some personal experience and allow it to sway my opinion, though I do not exclude it from scrutiny. My question to you is this: I am fine with the fact that you do not accept personal experience and human observation as evidence. Why is it that you have a problem with me accepting some of this as evidence?

I can think of love as a cupid baby sporting a quiver of arrows but that doesn't make it a true representation of reality.

I don't believe that Thor exists on a physical level as a 200 foot tall giant with a hammer that calls forth lightning storms. In the realms of thought and meditation, however, this is the form he takes on. I've observed repeated results when petitioning the gods for various different outcomes, and I've watched as the various coincidences fall into place and create the desired reality that was requested. That is not to say this works 100% of the time, and I don't feel that any spiritual practitioner(who isn't out to get something from you)would ever claim that it does.

You seem to want to have all of the trappings of religion and deities without being subjected to the criticisms. You appear to be creating a concept of god and divinity without the obvious problems that the theist has. This to me is no more than word games.

I'm not understanding. Please elaborate. For reference, I am a polytheist. I believe that counts as a Theist, so these "problems" should apply to me as well.

God either exists or not. Is part of nature or not. Affects our lives or not. Interacts with us or not.

Exists, but not physically. I'm having trouble understanding your definition of "nature", but to me gods are well within the natural realm. Yes, the gods do interact with us and vice versa.

Once you start allowing some characteristics, you begin to allow things that can be tested but then whine and say it can't be tested because not testing is part of the rules.

I love testing, and I've not whined.

How would I study the deeper aspects of spirituality?

I'd imagine you want to stay away from foofy crap, and given that you tend to be a bit on the cynical side, I suppose an ok start would be with Aleister Crowley, but there are plenty of other resources out there. You're intelligent and resourceful, and you know how to find information. I imagine if you were truly seeking, you could find something that appeals to you.

Why haven't you presented the claims that swayed your skeptical mind to the rest of us?? I'd be interested in hearing what they were.

I honestly cannot remember all of it, but suffice it to say a major portion of it comes down to personal experience, and noting how my personal experiences coincide and interact with what I was reading at the time. I wouldn't say any person's "claims" ever changed a thing in regard to my perspective. This is of course not conclusive evidence, and your response would be something along the lines of "what you think is happening is not what is happening in reality and cannot be proven."

The "cannot be proven" I would agree with.

Of course they make sense. That's what so much of this woo is designed to do, make sense within a modern framework that includes modern cosmology and quantum physics. It tries to appeal to intellectuals that have a basic understanding of science but not so much that real skepticism gets in the way.

Hyper-Skepticism shows a lack of trust and is therefore a personality flaw.

The question I have is one of truth value. How do[we know] what is and is not true about reality? Testable claims are all that I'm interested in because untestable means it's outside of useful knowledge. Of course nailing down actual claims seems to be a problem with this version of pantheism.

I'm not sure if your continued claims that I'm preaching pantheism are antagonistic or innocent misconceptions.

Regardless, the disconnect in this case once again falls into a difference in our personal preference of what entails evidence, and by that token, just what the meaning of "testable" is. You want something that can be repeated, and shown to repeat when controls for different variables are added. A claim or someone's thoughts and personal opinions hold no bearing. I settle for "take action A with desired result B, and end up with result B, or related, but sometimes better, option C".

This is the level I put your feel good, pantheistic claims. Interesting but not meaningful. Bring me something that is testable even in theory. Hell, I'd be happy if you would just formulate your claims so that they are consistent and understandable. I think the reason you have trouble solidifying them is because it benefits you to leave them sort of intangible as it allows you to move the goalposts to wherever the questioning leads. Seriously try it. Just write out a few positive statements about what you believe to be true about god without being self-referential as you were a few posts up.

I don't feel that I've made inconsistent claims, but if I have, please give me examples so I can look over this and revise my thought process. Understandable may be more difficult, as I would need to first figure out where the disconnect lies.

A few positive statements about god - OK:

All of the many different understandings of god are exactly that - different structures, ideas, and personifications put together by people to help understand and work with something that is inherently quite difficult to understand.

The only true spirituality is the one that works best for the practitioner. As all the many spiritual systems have essentially the same goal and are linked to the same source, all are correct. "There are many paths up the mountain", so to speak. The only time that it comes to be that a particular system is not correct is in one that holds fundamentalism at its heart. For example, one could worship Jesus and gain great fulfillment from this, and not really have any fundamentalist tendencies other than not working with other gods or systems. However, if their main path to "salvation" was to attempt to convert "sinners" through violence, coercion, or trickery, this is not a spiritual activity and is little more than lust for power and control.

Specific gods can be worked with, and have different affinities and aspects of reality that they interact with more than other things. If you want a bountiful harvest, it would be better to leave flowers and prayers to Aphrodite than to do a war dance to Ares.

That's all for now, but If you'd like specific answers go ahead.

I would love to have been able to discuss this with your 'priestess' as we are here now.

You'd tear her apart. She holds much more traditionalist views and doesn't care to understand the underlying forces at work. To her, Gods have absolutely physically existed, at least at some point in the past. As far as religion and spiritual techniques go, it has been quite some time since I've had much to learn from her. She does, however, continue to be a teacher to me in other ways, such as learning about the true nature of people and how quick they are to stab you in the back if they have something to gain.

I think the fact that you initially were out there trying to disprove claims says a lot about the level of your cognitive skills back then. Skeptical, but like many smart pot-smokers allow your deep intuition to override true analytical, rational processes.

Think what you will. I believe it says that I was a hotheaded 19 year old kid who liked to argue and had a problem with authority(she was my manager.). I feel that intuition often has a lot more to teach us than what we can learn by applying what we believe to be rationality. If modern science has taught us nothing more, it's that reality is much further from rational then we have ever imagined.

 

[olylifter420]

Why haven't you presented the claims that swayed your skeptical mind to the rest of us?? I'd be interested in hearing what they were.

dude, why is it that you continue to seek an answer that is inexplainable? I find it that you like to troll others with these "questions" to the "what is that you felt that i dont" type of stuff.


your beliefs have already made at least one person on here question their self worth and consider suicide... you all think your beliefs are so "safe" and the right way, if you go the wrong way, you are dumb no matter what you know.

 

[olylifter420]

awesome post karrion... sadly, these atheists will not see it as a "valid" answer only because your logic is "hindered" by your beliefs... what a crock pot of slow cooking poop... + rep

You shouldn't. You should evaluate the evidence, and accept what exactly entails evidence to you.You have a mind of your own and spirituality will be to you vastly different than it will be to someone else. See:





This is based on my own spiritual practice, and observed results. It's also based on various discussions I have had with similar minded individuals, and the results and experiences that they have shared in discussion. While I realize that neither you nor the Scientific Method can possibly count personal experience as evidence, I find that reality is not as rigid as theory and I am willing to accept some personal experience and allow it to sway my opinion, though I do not exclude it from scrutiny. My question to you is this: I am fine with the fact that you do not accept personal experience and human observation as evidence. Why is it that you have a problem with me accepting some of this as evidence?


I don't believe that Thor exists on a physical level as a 200 foot tall giant with a hammer that calls forth lightning storms. In the realms of thought and meditation, however, this is the form he takes on. I've observed repeated results when petitioning the gods for various different outcomes, and I've watched as the various coincidences fall into place and create the desired reality that was requested. That is not to say this works 100% of the time, and I don't feel that any spiritual practitioner(who isn't out to get something from you)would ever claim that it does.



I'm not understanding. Please elaborate. For reference, I am a polytheist. I believe that counts as a Theist, so these "problems" should apply to me as well.


Exists, but not physically. I'm having trouble understanding your definition of "nature", but to me gods are well within the natural realm. Yes, the gods do interact with us and vice versa.



I love testing, and I've not whined.



I'd imagine you want to stay away from foofy crap, and given that you tend to be a bit on the cynical side, I suppose an ok start would be with Aleister Crowley, but there are plenty of other resources out there. You're intelligent and resourceful, and you know how to find information. I imagine if you were truly seeking, you could find something that appeals to you.



I honestly cannot remember all of it, but suffice it to say a major portion of it comes down to personal experience, and noting how my personal experiences coincide and interact with what I was reading at the time. I wouldn't say any person's "claims" ever changed a thing in regard to my perspective. This is of course not conclusive evidence, and your response would be something along the lines of "what you think is happening is not what is happening in reality and cannot be proven."

The "cannot be proven" I would agree with.



Hyper-Skepticism shows a lack of trust and is therefore a personality flaw.




I'm not sure if your continued claims that I'm preaching pantheism are antagonistic or innocent misconceptions.

Regardless, the disconnect in this case once again falls into a difference in our personal preference of what entails evidence, and by that token, just what the meaning of "testable" is. You want something that can be repeated, and shown to repeat when controls for different variables are added. A claim or someone's thoughts and personal opinions hold no bearing. I settle for "take action A with desired result B, and end up with result B, or related, but sometimes better, option C".



I don't feel that I've made inconsistent claims, but if I have, please give me examples so I can look over this and revise my thought process. Understandable may be more difficult, as I would need to first figure out where the disconnect lies.

A few positive statements about god - OK:

All of the many different understandings of god are exactly that - different structures, ideas, and personifications put together by people to help understand and work with something that is inherently quite difficult to understand.

The only true spirituality is the one that works best for the practitioner. As all the many spiritual systems have essentially the same goal and are linked to the same source, all are correct. "There are many paths up the mountain", so to speak. The only time that it comes to be that a particular system is not correct is in one that holds fundamentalism at its heart. For example, one could worship Jesus and gain great fulfillment from this, and not really have any fundamentalist tendencies other than not working with other gods or systems. However, if their main path to "salvation" was to attempt to convert "sinners" through violence, coercion, or trickery, this is not a spiritual activity and is little more than lust for power and control.

Specific gods can be worked with, and have different affinities and aspects of reality that they interact with more than other things. If you want a bountiful harvest, it would be better to leave flowers and prayers to Aphrodite than to do a war dance to Ares.

That's all for now, but If you'd like specific answers go ahead.



You'd tear her apart. She holds much more traditionalist views and doesn't care to understand the underlying forces at work. To her, Gods have absolutely physically existed, at least at some point in the past. As far as religion and spiritual techniques go, it has been quite some time since I've had much to learn from her. She does, however, continue to be a teacher to me in other ways, such as learning about the true nature of people and how quick they are to stab you in the back if they have something to gain.




Think what you will. I believe it says that I was a hotheaded 19 year old kid who liked to argue and had a problem with authority(she was my manager.). I feel that intuition often has a lot more to teach us than what we can learn by applying what we believe to be rationality. If modern science has taught us nothing more, it's that reality is much further from rational then we have ever imagined.

 

[ThE sAtIvA hIgH]

lol olly you need a slice of ...............

 

[Heisenberg]

dude, why is it that you continue to seek an answer that is inexplainable? I find it that you like to troll others with these "questions" to the "what is that you felt that i dont" type of stuff.

Quit pretending that you know what a troll even is. Questions are the only way to gain knowledge, and asking someone if they feel something we are missing, is about the most respectful way to inquire about differences. It is simply expressing interest. Karri0n has stated that he enjoys being challenged and welcomes genuine criticism.

your beliefs have already made at least one person on here question their self worth and consider suicide... you all think your beliefs are so "safe" and the right way, if you go the wrong way, you are dumb no matter what you know.

That person is just fine and seems to be far from suicide. You however seem to be as short minded and uninsightful as ever. As I said before, you consistently misconstrue others posts, and continuously confuse others with your posts. Before demanding improvement from others why don't you perform some quality assurance on yourself? You frame every response as if it is an attack, without taking even a second to consider the context of the conversation. When you take others words out of context and use them for ammo, that is true disrespect, as well as an indication that you have nothing intelligent to say. You contribute nothing to these discussions except petty unfounded conflict, conflict which doesn't even exist outside of your half-baked mind. These flaws reflect your sloppy careless conduct and are independent of your beliefs.

Quit trying to put others in their place unless you enjoy being put into yours.

 

[karri0n]

Quit pretending that you know what a troll even is. Questions are the only way to gain knowledge, and asking someone if they feel something we are missing, is about the most respectful way to inquire about differences. It is simply expressing interest. Karri0n has stated that he enjoys being challenged and welcomes genuine criticism.



That person is just fine and seems to be far from suicide. You however seem to be as short minded and uninsightful as ever. As I said before, you consistently misconstrue others posts, and continuously confuse others with your posts. Before demanding improvement from others why don't you perform some quality assurance on yourself? You frame every response as if it is an attack, without taking even a second to consider the context of the conversation. When you take others words out of context and use them for ammo, that is true disrespect, as well as an indication that you have nothing intelligent to say. You contribute nothing to these discussions except petty unfounded conflict, conflict which doesn't even exist outside of your half-baked mind. These flaws reflect your sloppy careless conduct and are independent of your beliefs.

Quit trying to put others in their place unless you enjoy being put into yours.

Oly, While I appreciate your support, I have to agree with Heisenberg on this. This thread is about discussion, and in regard to the correspondence between myself, Padawanbater, and Mindphuk, has been refreshingly free of conflict and personal attacks. In short, the only person trolling in this thread is you.

Once again, I do appreciate your support and recognition, but I would like to keep this thread on track.

Edit: I have no idea what this is all about, but if someone was genuinely considering suicide over something someone said on an internet forum regarding their religion, they have much bigger problems than something someone was saying on an internet forum.

 

[olylifter420]

well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...

Oly, While I appreciate your support, I have to agree with Heisenberg on this. This thread is about discussion, and in regard to the correspondence between myself, Padawanbater, and Mindphuk, has been refreshingly free of conflict and personal attacks. In short, the only person trolling in this thread is you.

Once again, I do appreciate your support and recognition, but I would like to keep this thread on track.

Edit: I have no idea what this is all about, but if someone was genuinely considering suicide over something someone said on an internet forum regarding their religion, they have much bigger problems than something someone was saying on an internet forum.

 

[olylifter420]

Quit pretending that you know what a troll even is.

professor, im sorry for disrupting your class. dude get a life... your view of the world is so construed that you see everything with one eye... yes i may sound retarded to you, but how bout you mind your own business... Last i remember you believed in God... hypocrite

That person is just fine and seems to be far from suicide.

oh, he is fine? if he was fine then why did he post that thread? just cause you offered your "assistance" through pm makes you some great person? man you are so full of yourself heis....

You contribute nothing to these discussions except petty unfounded conflict, conflict which doesn't even exist outside of your half-baked mind.

again, you think you are far better then me... just cause my responses are not what you want that does not mean they are not helpful... your are so blind to the fact bro... for a professional like you, i thought you would consider it. my responses can be seen by others and others can learn about proper etiquette you fool...


i just hate how you think you are some type of guru...

 

[Luger187]

I am fine with the fact that you do not accept personal experience and human observation as evidence. Why is it that you have a problem with me accepting some of this as evidence?

because those things are very unreliable and there are many things that can affect the way the person sees the observation. not only will each person see it differently, but how YOU see it would depend on your mood, thoughts, beliefs, etc.

this makes it hard to confirm anything because who can we trust, and how? what makes your experience more real than the crazy bum that talks to himself and sees aliens?(no offense) if he sees them, they are real to him, right? they exist. but in reality, they dont.

 

[Hepheastus420]

well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...

Don't feel bad oly I don't hate you. They are set on their beliefs and you are debating against them. When there are about 3 against one you are most likely not going to help anyone have faith so just let it be. I say we smoke a bowl take a step back and just have faith in what you believe in and let others believe what they want to believe.

And for others reading this post do not feel offended when I say they. I'm just referring to the people arguing against oly, which is not bad because you guys don't actually hate each other. (I hope)

 

[Luger187]

well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...

professor, im sorry for disrupting your class. dude get a life... your view of the world is so construed that you see everything with one eye... yes i may sound retarded to you, but how bout you mind your own business... Last i remember you believed in God... hypocrite





oh, he is fine? if he was fine then why did he post that thread? just cause you offered your "assistance" through pm makes you some great person? man you are so full of yourself heis....





again, you think you are far better then me... just cause my responses are not what you want that does not mean they are not helpful... your are so blind to the fact bro... for a professional like you, i thought you would consider it. my responses can be seen by others and others can learn about proper etiquette you fool...


i just hate how you think you are some type of guru...

nothing but unnecessary conflict...


3,000 POSTS! WOOOOOH!

 

[Heisenberg]

professor, im sorry for disrupting your class. dude get a life... your view of the world is so construed that you see everything with one eye... yes i may sound retarded to you, but how bout you mind your own business... Last i remember you believed in God... hypocrite





oh, he is fine? if he was fine then why did he post that thread? just cause you offered your "assistance" through pm makes you some great person? man you are so full of yourself heis....





again, you think you are far better then me... just cause my responses are not what you want that does not mean they are not helpful... your are so blind to the fact bro... for a professional like you, i thought you would consider it. my responses can be seen by others and others can learn about proper etiquette you fool...


i just hate how you think you are some type of guru...

The only one who seems to think I am a guru is you. When have I ever referred to myself as professor? I could defend against each of your points, but as you are the only one with this opinion I trust the defense is obvious to others. You have derailed enough threads goading people into defending asinine assertions. It's time we stop providing you with this option, and simply respond by saying "Oly says the darndest things".

 

[Heisenberg]

well, i see that you all hate people who are just trying to be fair...

Oly says the darndest things...

 

[mexiblunt]

Oly says the darndest things...

 

[Luger187]

back to the topic?

 

[olylifter420]

i say the darndest things, lol

 

[olylifter420]

Oly says the darndest things".

[video=youtube;RFZrzg62Zj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/video]

 

[olylifter420]

hey thanks heph, i know it is a one sided debate, but i wont let these guys continue running their trash talk without sharing my trash talk as well... these dudes are so funny that they ask you for something, you give it to them, then they say, "oh, well that is this because of that" i like these guys cause they are funny....


i hate how they pick on you and then they act like they are your friend... what hypocrits


but thanks for the support bro

Don't feel bad oly I don't hate you. They are set on their beliefs and you are debating against them. When there are about 3 against one you are most likely not going to help anyone have faith so just let it be. I say we smoke a bowl take a step back and just have faith in what you believe in and let others believe what they want to believe.

And for others reading this post do not feel offended when I say they. I'm just referring to the people arguing against oly, which is not bad because you guys don't actually hate each other. (I hope)