Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours :)
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Oly says the darndest things...
Brazko
Well-Known Member
Ok, lets check our understanding....
Are you separate from the Universe?
Are you able to change your state of being in relation to your surroundings?
Are your surroundings separated from the Universe?
Do the relations of your surroundings effect your state of being?
Does your state of being effect your surroundings?
edit: Could you please post your encyclopedia entries? The ones you are referring.
Also, could you please explain the redundancy and superflousness?
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
i see you like to deflect... nice
[video=youtube;doihYFkeWsQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doihYFkeWsQ[/video]
[video=youtube;doihYFkeWsQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doihYFkeWsQ[/video]
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
so you call a one sided discussion great? that is really stupid, why dont you GTFO?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Perhaps your delivery needs work? You say you already mentioned the same thing I did, OK, go find the post and quote it in its entirety so I can see the context. If that's the case, shouldn't you be standing by my side asking Karri0n the same thing? Instead you take the defensive and, again, pull the hurt card... Getting us nowhere. Can't you just get past the whole "they're all out to get ME!" attitude? Just stop man, right now, as you are reading this, THINK about this, why are you getting so damn upset? Compose yourself, stop acting like a child, answer the questions as asked and stop using logical fallacies every post you make. Study these things so you can better yourself, so you can avoid the mistakes they present. Stop taking things so personally.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Reading the right books, talking to people of various different spiritual systems, lots of meditation and pondering.
I disagree. I feel that everything should be subjected to the scrutiny of constant standards, but those standards are not the same for everyone, and must be developed on a personal level, mostly through trial and error. That's not to say there are no resources available to use as a starting point.
A valid question. experienced teachers of things such as vision quests and guided meditations, message retrieval, and other various things that can be confused with imagination teach a fairly simple method of determining whether something is valid or imagined, and that's "are you able to consciously change what you are watching?"
"Imagination" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. Beyond that, indeed, on a quantum level, it's been shown that there is little difference between reality and fantasy. Whether you choose to accept this or not has little bearing, as spirituality is not something that lies within the physical realm, and is generally something that lies within the psyche and the emotional body. In short, and "imagined" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two. An "imagined" spiritual experience has measurable affects on the physical body from activation of different areas of the brain, to changes in brainwave frequency, heart rate, blood pressure, serotonin,dopamine, and other various neutrotransmitter levels, muscle tension, electrical resistance as measured on the skin, body temperature, etc.
a. I don't expect you to accept it, and I'm quite certain I mentioned that in my post. You asked why I haven't shared, and I said "because you wouldn't accept it".
b. consequences of what exactly? I'm relating my personal experiences. You seem to be once again equating all spiritual systems with those of fundamentalist regimes, ad the consequences you speak of are the result of politics and economics intertwining with religion. Make no mistake, I believe separation of church and state, and indeed the separation of spirituality from any form of institutionalization to be not only dangerous due to the possibility of large-scale politicization such as you are referencing, but also that as soon as it becomes institutionalized, it loses most if not all of its spiritual meaning.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
This is directed at everyone except Oly:
STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.
The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.
STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.
The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Yo man you take this shit too serious bro... You got a problem with me, pm me. Dont be a little bitch a cry like one... Pad is the mod, he is all for the bashing of others religions and.beliefs, so i dont think it will get closed...
You believe these.discussions are so good when they aint! You all talk about the same thing over and over again, with atheists never accepting anything a believer says.
You and luger41 make a good couple, why dont you all mate and have a bunnch of oly haters
You believe these.discussions are so good when they aint! You all talk about the same thing over and over again, with atheists never accepting anything a believer says.
You and luger41 make a good couple, why dont you all mate and have a bunnch of oly haters
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
Atheists need their fun and to them, well
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
This is what I was trying to get at, if we do different things to try to study the different aspects of spirituality, wouldn't we reach different conclusions about it?
You may have done this already before, but could you define exactly what you mean by 'spirituality' as specifically as possible?
What does a 'spiritual experience' constitute, and how do you know it's an authentic 'spiritual experience' and not just in your imagination? What is the difference between the guy who says he speaks to God and people who just have these 'religious experiences'? This is where consistent standards for everyone are important.
You seem to have contradicted yourself "consistent standards", but not the same for everyone". Wouldn't those be inconsistent standards?
Yes, but I'd argue that most people are not very well versed in such techniques, so most people who experience these kinds of feelings (which are then reinforced by our society) automatically attribute them to their religion and mark it up to a 'religious experience' without any actual evidence other than the experience itself. That doesn't seem like a very good way to acquire knowledge to me.
I'm not using the word 'imagination' in that context here. You can swap it out with the phrase "in my head" or "in my mind" if you want, the question still remains unanswered;
'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not in my head/mind?'
What do you have to support that? What is the 'psyche and emotional body'?
So the only standard you use to determine if someone is having a 'religious experience' (be it 100% made up in their own mind or not) is if it has measurable effects on their physical body?
I'm sorry man but that just is not science. You can't simply say 'this subject believed he was being spoken to by God, we were able to pick up measurable differences in hormone and chemical levels, therefore, it must have been real'.. There is a distinction between something you think up and believe and something that actually is real.
This seems to be a pretty common misconception contrasting between the two, science and religion. Personal experiences are paramount for theists, it essentally forms the foundation of their entire faith, but personal experiences don't amount to anything in science, they are not proof or evidence of anything because they are individual to the person having the experience. I cannot replicate a feeling you had that changed your mind or strengthened your existing belief during something you experienced, so bringing it to the table won't mean a thing to me.
The objective focus of science ensures the evidence get's analyzed without envoking emotional responses.
How could you yourself accept that?
I tell people this all the time, I'll tell you now...
Even if I was 100% sure God existed, if it demanded obedience, demanded to be worshiped, gave innocent people terrible diseases, caused, or at the least didn't prevent things like famines, plagues, war, etc., basically, if the God of the Bible actually did exist, and I was 100% sure, I wouldn't follow it or worship it or any of that because all that stuff is wrong, it doesn't matter to me that God is in charge of it, it's still wrong. Deep down, I trust myself more than I trust any other person on the planet, I've thought long and hard about these topics, and I know that a being capable of creating existence, creating love, would not require such absurd things. It's that simple. If I stood before that God on some day of judgment at the end of my life and it asked me why I didn't worship it or why I didn't acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, I would tell it because it's wrong.
You're right, I didn't mean to generalize.
Well we did a great job, 23 or 24 pages without incident, that has to be a record! That points system in the beginning seemed to detour people from the personal attacks, I think oly just couldn't contain himself, which is usually what happens when you still want to talk but don't have anything to say.
I think he's the one that takes things a little bit too seriously...
I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
So you want to snitch on oly for stating his beliefs? Wow.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
he isnt stating his beliefs at all. he is complaining that we dont find his evidence sufficient, when he provides no evidence. he complains that we all hate on him because we are atheists and he is religious, which we are not doing. these things waste our time and fill up the thread with useless nonsense, when we could be filling it with legitimate debate instead.
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.
karri0n
Well-Known Member
Ideally, if we were both following sound and correct processes of study, did not allow bias or preconceptions to pollute our process, and had thetime and ability to learn everything there is to know about the subject, our conclusions wold be he same.
Essentially having a connection with the aspect of divinity set down by your particular spiritual system and living as close to in tune with it as possible. For a pagan, this would mean living their ife in tune with the natural cycles of the earth. For a Christian, this would mean living their life as closely to the way Jesus lived his as possible.
You seem to be implying "the guy who says he speaks to god" is crazy person, and in this case most likely schizophrenic. The difference is that that person's evaluations of many aspects of reality cannot be trusted, as his brain does not work correctly.
Fair enough. This becomes an issue in terminology - I meant that a person should use the same standards they would use for evaluating anything else as they do for this. The standards are consistent in relation to other things the person may be evaluating, but not in regard to the entire population
Which is why experts recommend that people take classes, workshops, or at least read books on the subject(also because they want their money, but there are honest people and shysters in most professions.).
"In our head" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. In short, an "in our head" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two.
Barring a mental disorder such as Schizophrenia, there's little distinction.
The psyche and the emotions. What do you mean by what do I have to support that? Is it not widely known(especially among atheists) that much of religion and spirituality is an aspect of psychology?
No. I was pointing out one of the ways spirituality can be seen to affect people physically. I wouldn't use that to quantify a religious experience.
Which is why science cannot quantify religion or spirituality. This comes down to my original discussion with MP where I pointed out that I can accept personal experience as being something real, and you cannot. I'm not a scientist by profession, but if I were, I would not attempt to use this reasoning in my work.
I know. I said that as the answer to your original question.
Religion/Spirituality ≠ Science
Repeated results.
Good on you. I agree 100%.
It's really only monotheistic religions that require worship of such a deity. Depending on your views, These things you referenced are simply parts of nature. Famine and disease are necessary to avoid overpopulation, war is a natural tendency of many different animals that build social structures in the conflict over resources and territory.
To a traditional or ancient polytheist, there would be gods who hold dominion over things such as disease, famine, and war. The gods of war were indeed worshipped, because while many people can see the ills of war, war was a very real part of life, and gaining the favor of a war god was one way of ensuring your tribe's survival. The gods who held domain over things such as famine and disease weren't worshipped, but appeased.
Cool. Congrats on your promotion to Mod by the way; I didn't notice that until Oly pointed it out.I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going
karri0n
Well-Known Member
No. No one is disrespecting his beliefs and no one thinks he's crazy because he's religious. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's crazy, but many hold a negative opinion of him based on his nonsense, personal attacks, and attempts to derail a thread with unrelated posts and bullshit.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Yes and no. Probably no more so than yes. I believe we came from the universe and will return to it. In the meantime we have consciousness which offers the universe a way to know itself, speaking metaphorically.
State of being meaning either to exist or not exist? I can stop being if I chose, or I can continue being, that's about it. I can change my attitude towards my surroundings.
not that I am aware of.
My surroundings as related to what? To me being? Already answered that. My surroundings can affect my attitude, my mood, my well being (poverty).
Does the fact that of my being as opposed to my not being affect my surroundings? I consume and destroy, as well as build and preserve. Does my mood or attitude (state of consciousness) directly affect my surroundings, no. Not if by surroundings you mean inanimate objects. My mood and the signals I give off can effect other living things, if they notice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/p/pantheism.html
Speaking about a naturalistic pantheistic view, which is IMO the least criticizable, I have the same problem as I have with any supernatural explanation. Where is the reasoning to point someone in this direction? Why look at the universe and decide it represents or is a manifestation of a unity that connects us all? Where are the evidential arrows? If someone can indeed change their state of consciousness in relation to this unity, how can we confirm that? How do we decide on the methods used to bring us to this special state of consciousness? How can we objectively know that those methods are effective? It seems to be rhyme without reason. It is more than is needed to explain; superfluousness. If we have no sound support for these ideas, then the belief must incorporate a degree of faith and suggests a degree of divinity. Assuming this is accurate, then what makes these ideas any more valid than the idea that the universe exists only to support Elvis and the rest of us are just failed embodiment's of the perfect state of being, Elvisness? We can strive to become better and improve our state of Elvisness in relation to Elvis, who is really the universe.
The redundancy is right there in the language. Everything is a unity, and the unity is everything. All is the universe therefore the universe is all. The only god is nature, and nature is the only law. To me it seems these statements are basically meaningless, and in order to give them meaning we must convolute and contrive practically every term used until it means something completely different.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Agree. I have stated several times that my problem with Oly is not his intellect or his beliefs. Hep has similar beliefs and we get along just fine and still have rational discussions. It's oly's conduct and his failure to think things through. It's his sloppy methods which seem to entail ignoring context, and his childish tendency to purposely cause grief. It's his lack of being self critical, as evidenced by the dumb sounding shit he says in almost every post. His words are disconnected and often devoid of any point or genuine expression. I don't think this is a result of someone who is stupid and unable to think intellectually, I think it is the result of a lazy uncritical mind that forgives itself every mistake and bias, including resentment.
olylifter420
Well-Known Member
dont i say the darndest things!!!
funny that you are religious while having jack black as your avatar... irony at its finest
funny that you are religious while having jack black as your avatar... irony at its finest