"Whats the point in any of what you're doing?"

Gamage90
Gamage90's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
"Whats the point in any of what you're doing?"

Those were my younger brother's words to me. He was asking why do I bother being on this website and reading up about atheism and trying to prove Christians wrong. I dont know if this was profound in an obvious kind of way, in that whats the point of knowing how we got here, were here thats all that matters, trying to figure it out is a waste of time.

 

I think its fair to say that were all in the same boat and I want opinions. I understand what he means but I feel that people who generally say "why bother?" don't realise that many of the worlds governments are religion centered and many of the world's wars religion centered. I know that we wont reach a conclusion well not in my lifetime anyway and it may seem pointless from neutral ground. But I do get the sense that people are misssing out on the great debate. Does this mean everything or nothing?

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)


Gamage90
Gamage90's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-06-23
User is offlineOffline
When religion shapes

When religion shapes politics, people get hurt. The reason why i believe this great debate is a good cause because it's as valid as anything else in the world. It's as valid as many of life's questions: why do we have to work? why is money an  object? what's the point in sports? Why endure pain and dullness to satisfy our minor cravings? All questions people don't think about and just accept as necessary to society.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"
(Friedrich Nietzsche)


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Theist Argument:So what if 

Theist Argument:

So what if  people believe something else. Why not just let them be?

Problem:  Remember the Twin Towers? Want to live in a world were stem cell research could prolong lives? Then speak out against religion. If an adult still believed in Santa, wouldn’t you feel compelled to put them straight? Religion is severely dangerous to our world. Try find a war that didn’t have religious influence behind it. Whenever there is religion, knowledge is shunned and ridiculed.

Most christians think the world would be great if everyone thought like they did. We had that once. It was called the Dark Age, and it set humanity back possibly centuries. The fact is, people will rather vote for someone who has no qualification except believing in god, than a highly capable person who doesn’t.

People once believed demons caused illness and drilling holes in peoples head was considered the cutting edge of medicine. If that’s  the world you want, keep up your religion.

Theist Argument:

Atheists are just as bad as christians, cramming their beliefs down peoples throats.

 

Problem: When last did you see atheists going door to door?

When last did you see an atheist tv channel preaching to people?

When last did you have to see a monument of Richard Dawkins quotes in a courtroom?

When last did you see children going to a private atheist school were they are taught to distrust theists?

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Vermilion
Vermilion's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sam Harris

I would suggest "The End of Faith" or "Letter to a Christian Nation" to answer the question for theists


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why bother? When humanity

Why bother?

When humanity continues to cross it's fingers in "hopes" that the rabbit's feet, or voodoo bones, will side with them, we will be stuck in tribalism and be doomed to behave like every other species on the planet.

When we look at skepticism as positive and questioning the norm, we won't make the ride infinite, but we(species) can extend the ride much further without myth.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
The point of proving that

The point of proving that theism is an intellectual handicap afflicting the majority of individual members of the species whose resultant ignorance could wind up in its very extinction?

 

Oh, I don't know ...

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
"Whats the point in any of what you're doing?"

Progress.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
EAT THE RICH

EAT THE RICH


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
oppression

 What's the point then of speaking out against *any* oppression? 

Besides... it's fun.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote: What's

Rich Woods wrote:

 What's the point then of speaking out against *any* oppression? 

 

That's going to be my standard answer from now on.Love it

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Gamage90 wrote: When

Gamage90 wrote:
When religion shapes politics, people get hurt. The reason why i believe this great debate is a good cause because it's as valid as anything else in the world. It's as valid as many of life's questions: why do we have to work? why is money an  object? what's the point in sports? Why endure pain and dullness to satisfy our minor cravings? All questions people don't think about and just accept as necessary to society.
Try feeling of something greater than you. It doesn't matter how, meditation, sex, music, nature, sport, whatever. These are just means to make you know that kind of quality. And the purpose of this quality is not to be addicted to it, to go to a mountain like Muhammad, leaving other people and real life, but to make that mountain come to Muhammad, to bring this quality here, into a real life and try to keep it consciously as often as you remember. This higher quality, (someone calls it "spirituality" ) is essential purpose for itself and everything involved. It contains a stimulus to development and improvement. It shouldn't be mythicized or demonized, it should be experienced, and then you can make a judgement.
Look at the legend of Jesus. Theists did a crappy job indeed by placing a holy man on a heightened spot. It's now like an unreachable idol, a taboo needed to worship. But in fact, it's an example, which should be followed. The idea of human, but also a god, is worthy of becoming it. How do you recognize how well are you doing in your life? Here it's rather not such a feel-goodism, it's measured by the amount of responsibility you have, and also an amount of control over your environment. If you are a politician or big businessman, then you surely have an influence on a lot of people and that really means something. Such people we have as idols, but we shouldn't imitate them, we should become a new kind of idol, in our own style. Being above the crowd shouldn't be considered as thinking how I'm better than them, but as showing what they can become.
If you will ever have any power over people, realize, that most valuable are those, who can take care of themselves instead having to be bossed around. Teaching them independence is much better than making them dependent, because a slaver is caught in slavery just as a slave is.
Well, so much for theory, now let's try to make it happen, step by step, in real life. On the internet everyone's wise, enlightened, and so on, but it's only practice, what matters. I'm curious how I'll keep this awareness at work Smiling

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Or you can just chill out

Or you can just chill out with a Guinness and a good book. One can have a little too much of all that hyperbole ...

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
In the overall cosmic sense,

In the overall cosmic sense, nothing really has any purpose or good or bad association. But as human beings we exist in a reality where our emotions are very real to us, so we proceed in trying to achieve "good" emotions. As atheists, we recognize that religion causes many "bad" emotions. So in the end, the point is just the pursuit of happiness, just like everything else anyone ever does.

"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Focusing on the innocent

Focusing on the innocent children and the world, we are handing them, brings home the "point" of why fighting against all dogma and separatism patriotism is so needed.   


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:In the

pyrokidd wrote:

In the overall cosmic sense, nothing really has any purpose or good or bad association. But as human beings we exist in a reality where our emotions are very real to us, so we proceed in trying to achieve "good" emotions. As atheists, we recognize that religion causes many "bad" emotions. So in the end, the point is just the pursuit of happiness, just like everything else anyone ever does.

As you see, the universe itself has a tendency to activity. Also, the life and it's increasing complexity sents the trend. We are living. Understanding the mechanisms of life will also tell us who we are, where do we come from, and where we go. Life seems to develop in a regular speed as it is coherent with theory of evolution, but there are also sudden leaps in development. These probably is a pattern, a regularity in these leaps. Recognizing and explaining this problem would be a step forward.
Emotions are primitive, there are no great answers on great questions in them. With emotions alone, we're not more capable of determining a sense of life than animals.  Don't mistake emotions with spirituality. Highest forms of spirituality doesn't contain emotions at all, they're highly impersonal. (even similarly neutral like scientific writings) This is what distinguishes a real spirituality from feel-goodism.

There are, of course, various level of emotionally clouded mind. The worst and most primitive thing is theistic 'method of whip and sugar', emotional threatening by suffering in Hell and no less emotional luring at comfortable 'eternal life in Heaven'.
It appeals on low, primitive emotions.
But as a good example, of advanced and purposely useful emotional teaching is,  'A course in miracles' greatly popularized by Oprah Winfrey. Emotions there are of so high quality, that it's very acceptable look on life and emotional dis-information there is minimal. Anything even more perfect than that is already free from emotions.

Some people pursuits happiness, but many are happy in a certain degree of unhappiness. Take people something to complain on, and you'll piss them off.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
 What's the point

 What's the point ?

Replacing the pursuit of truth w/ what are essentially fairy tales cheapens our existence.  And of course, the price for a fictional next life is nearly always denying yourself happiness in this one. 

"Certainty about the next life is incompatible w/ tolerance in this one". 

Sam Harris

Teaching humans that belief in fiction is not only a virtue, but that it is  honorable to force others to abide by it is deplorable.  When it is promoted or forced on humans by government it amounts to tyranny. 

It purports to give the human the one thing they want most.  Relief from the fear of death and this is often why so many overlook its tyranny. 

But teaching the truth about our human condition, sobering though it may be, is not the end for humanity.  It's an opportunity for our growth and our education that religion has tried to stunt in humanity for so long.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


pyrokidd
Superfan
pyrokidd's picture
Posts: 253
Joined: 2007-02-03
User is offlineOffline
Is anyone else wondering

Is anyone else wondering what in the hell Luminon is trying to say?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Is anyone else

Quote:

Is anyone else wondering what in the hell Luminon is trying to say?

I long since stopped bothering.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Tripping with fun Luminon !

Tripping with fun Luminon !

Hey L, I was rather enjoying that , but then the last 2 paragraphs sorta lost me .... can you put in other words for me ... from a bit before "Oprah" on ... ? Me god, likes to know people's ideas !!! 

    ..... a simple summary

 

 


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I blame his parents.

I blame his parents.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Is anyone

pyrokidd wrote:
Is anyone else wondering what in the hell Luminon is trying to say?
He's saying his bullshit is better than their bullshit.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
RRS, a giggle a minute !

RRS, a giggle a minute ! Precious !  Wisdom TOO !    


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
pyrokidd wrote:Is anyone

pyrokidd wrote:

Is anyone else wondering what in the hell Luminon is trying to say?

It's hard to explain if it's totally unfamiliar to you. But I don't have any negative reference to your post.
Generally, I'm trying to break a strictly dualistic world-view. Like, we have emotions and rationality. Good and bad. Two opposites. Spirituality is also often merged with the "bad", irrational side of emotions.
I'm trying to emphasize, that these are not two opposites, but emotions as one step in development, intellect as second step, spirituality as next, higher step, and there is also a few of steps ahead to take humanity even further. Further, on our common path of development, which is objectively valid for everyone, regardless of religion or philosophy.

 


AmericanIdle: I agree

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
Tripping with fun Luminon !

Hey L, I was enjoying rather that , but then the last 2 paragraphs sorta lost me .... can you put in other words for me ... from "Oprah" on ... ? Me god, likes to know people ideas !!! 

    ..... a simple summary

Emotions there are of so high quality, that it's very acceptable look on life and emotional dis-information there is minimal. Anything even more perfect than that is already free from emotions.
That would be a bit diffcult to explain, I often think in world-view similar to Theosophy (but contemporary). OK, I'll try.
Whenever anyone writes a spiritual teaching, (some new-ageish book for example) the verity and precision of it are determined by emotionality of the writer. If the writer is prone to have a lot of not very virtuous emotions, the teaching will be rather crappy and delusional. If the writer tends to have good emotions, like love, compassion, etc, then a teaching will be more precise, less deluded, and will do more good for the readers.
If a writer of a spiritual teaching is completely unaffected by emotions (for example, can act in stressful situation calmly and efficiently) then there is a chance, that his book will contain most objective truths about humanity, the world and life. The style of text will be also impersonal, there won't be a danger that a writer would try (even unintentionally ) to delude readers by appealing on emotions, otherwise it often happens. This is the best way to determine what teaching or philosophy reflects the truth, or just writer's delusions.
Shortly said, trust a healthy doctor Smiling


Some people pursuits happiness, but many are happy in a certain degree of unhappiness. Take people something to complain on, and you'll piss them off.

It is said, to be really happy, people must have someone who is very unhappy. If someone  win a car, and his obnoxious mother-in-law wins two, he won't enjoy his new car so much.
Complaining on the government is a traditional part of sitting in a pub and drinking beer, if the government would be perfect, people would be nervous. "This isn't normal", they would say. And they would say with satisfaction, "I told you" when something would go wrong. It's the syndrome of problems in paradise. Remember the film Matrix, people couldn't live in idyllic simulation of the world, they expected problems. If you will come to someone and offer him a thousand of dollars, just for nothing, then you'll have a hard time to defeat his suspicion.
These are some of obstacles, that spirituality todays fights with. We want to be happy, but we also demonized the happiness, like the fox saying that unreachable grapes are sour anyway.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Thanks L ... I enjoy your

Thanks L ... I enjoy your words ... as the piano is being played here ....

  Was just thinking the word "spiritual" might be better substituted by "wisdom" or "idea" ....

     I forgot what I really wanted to say, so maybe later I will remember, something about the the yin yang it was .... as your post reflects ....


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
IRON BUTTERFLY

IRON BUTTERFLY THEME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qkcwBsKizU

                                   Did you see this Eloise ! Yeah, Symbols ! 

   GOD SURFS TOO ! 

Let's Go Surfing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-9kQOp729U&feature=related

John Belushi & Dan Ackroyd drag Brian Wilson SURFING 1976

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQD0uXIfuQ

                        go gawed ! fuck god !

     I should change my name, up-grade my spelling, and symbols  ....  

             

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 It's difficult not to

 It's difficult not to consider that kind of talk childish ("geez, what's the point?&quotEye-wink because ... well, what's the point of skiing? You just have to go up the hill again!

What's the point in tempering the general consensus that we all have an invisible dictator? To not do SOMETHING when identifying a large mistake like that is a little weird. The idea has staying power, that's for sure, but it's patently wrong. I like to be patient with people who still believe in strange things, but that's generally because the shock of loss when they figure out they've been duped is unsettling. That doesn't mean I won't still show them where they've been mislead.

It's an incredible lie, too, and one for which the truth is so utterly devoid of magic. I know a great many people want to feel special and "spiritual", so the idea that they're not really special isn't very attractive for them. But it's the truth. Shouldn't there be some value in that?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Obviously getting more

Obviously, getting more answers to what is consciousness, will be very helpful to erasing the dogmas so menacingly prevalent. "Sexed up consciousness" is at the root of spiritual fantasy and religion.

Google "What is Consciousness" for lots of ideas.

"Sexed up atheism" is non-dogmatic pantheism, wrote Dawkins, which exists largely  because the scientific questions of consciousness have yet to be better answered. 

I consider Luminon a romantic atheist, probably better described as a pantheist.

What do you think Luminon, and could you briefly summarize your definition of consciousness, and it's place in the puzzle of energy / matter / time ? 

Did consciousness precede or follow the material, and is this even the right question?      


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Gamage90 wrote: I dont know

Gamage90 wrote:
I dont know if this was profound in an obvious kind of way, in that whats the point of knowing how we got here, were here thats all that matters, trying to figure it out is a waste of time.

Well, this particular part seems very philosopical to me, and alot of the time, the discussions we have here, are political, not philosophical. Indeed, the RRS's whole raison d'etre would appear to be political.

We're here, and to me that is all that matters. The philosophical question of "why" is, to me, nothing but a game, or a way to occupy my thoughts. Surely, I will never know with certainty, and I'm fine with that.

You'll notice, however, that it is mostly the personal discussions, as opposed to the political discussions, that I engage in. Why is that? Because I live in Denmark, and there is no political issue with religion here. I'm not very worried about religious bigotry, because it is a non issue in my world, though I will say, I have alot of sympathy for the American atheists that are here, because, obviously, their situation is a different one.

 

So what am I doing here? I just like you people, and I find it fulfilling to hear your thoughts, and share mine. There isn't much point to it, nor does there have to be, because after all, what the point of anything really?

(said the happy nihilist, smilling Smiling )

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
.... and it is written in

 .... and it is written in folklore, that Buddha laughed too, when asked about "god and why" .... "How" to end unnecessary suffering and an interest in applying helpful science and knowledge was his core message. 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: I

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
I consider Luminon a romantic atheist, probably better described as a pantheist.

As for religion, I'm atheist indeed. Pantheism is a good way to look at the world as whole. But when I'm not debating with theist, nor experience a wholeness with universe, then I'm again someone else at this moment, it depends on a situation. Often, I'm an "experiencer of paranormal phenomena" and to find a coherence in what I perceive, I take some book where's something written about it and become an "esotericist" for a while. Yeah, I sometimes feel that I can be everything... But because I want to be at least something, I meditate once per week (TM), do what I can and wait for things to happen.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

What do you think Luminon, and could you briefly summarize your definition of consciousness, and it's place in the puzzle of energy / matter / time ?

Honestly, I don't know what consciousness is. I just know it's distributed and I'm trying to not get into a way of that distribution, but to clear this way. However, research of consciousness will be very useful, because the consciousness makes a long way to us and there are great sciences to be estabilished along that way.
Consciousness can hardly be explained in existing terms, only described (this is what sometimes science does Smiling description as explanation. ). I'd say it's a great observation, but on it's way to us it gets modified, clouded and altered by a set of structures what distinguishes us from other people, including a state in which is our physical body. As I said, clear the way and get more of undiluted consciousness from the source, then it's easier to be worked with. As it is now, it's hard to say.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
Did consciousness precede or follow the material, and is this even the right question?
Yes, it is the right question. Material part of the universe is was last to be created of them all. One was condensed from another, and the material universe is the last in that order, while a consciousness is behind everything, right on the start.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
It's taken me a while but at

It's taken me a while but at last I've figured it out. Just like Matt's contributions seem designed to make theists look humane, luminon's are self evidently designed to make them appear sane.

 

They're theist "plants", the pair of them! Or maybe even the one plant using two ID's - after all, has anyone ever seen them in the same thread talking to each other?

 

Man, them thar theists are sneaky! 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
These are a curious two

These are a curious two assertions to go together:

Quote:

Honestly, I don't know what consciousness is.

Quote:

One was condensed from another, and the material universe is the last in that order, while a consciousness is behind everything, right on the start.

As for the latter, there is a good reason why everyone except you recognizes this is simply not possible or compatible with a well-founded understanding of reality. THe problem is that consciousness is, well, complicated. As a process, it has particular prerequisites and prerequisite processes that can be understood and necessarily explained in terms of physical causal processes. Thus, for example, it wouldn't really make sense to speak of consciousness without a particular perception. It does not matter whether this perception is the result of a physical object or not (ie dreaming, or hallucinating). THe point is that a particular percpetual experience is correlated with those particular brain states . So, for example, I can give you fairly detailed and precise explanations of the manner in which particular sensory experiences are integrated and processed, etc. THe problem with your assertion is that it would explicitly require that the conscious process not require any of those processes which we can demonstrate to be the result of some physical causal chain and resulting brain states (perceptions, for example). Additionally, if we want to speak of minds, it will follow that we will be speaking of such things like thoughts, memories, etc. And it does not appear to make sense to speak of consciousness without a particular associated mind (unless of course you want to assert that this is possible, which would be problematic since you just asserted that you don't know what consciousness is). And then, if you want to speak of particular conscious minds as being precedents of matter, you will be going up against a pretty damn solid wall of neuroscience and philosophy of mind. In other words, your criterion is not only impossible, but appears to reduce consciousness to a vague and meaningless abstraction, which is equally problematic from your point of view.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Interesting and honest words

Interesting and "honest" words Luminon

You say, "I'm an "experiencer of paranormal phenomena"" and I say, ' I am on a never ending LSD trip ! ( ain't had any in 30 yrs , but never came down ! ) '

You say consciousness "right from the start",  and I smile with that thought, but never could actually accept that science model, tho it certainly doesn't bother me. I find energy / matter / and consciousness equally intriguing and connected. That's why I am beginning to see my question of, "what came first" as a likely error. 

I mean shit, ain't it all an eternal milkshake, where all the ingredients are present but being stirred in time? , ...... did I say "time" , oh man , now I AM really LOST !  

 

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
DG, ... yeah that

DG, ... yeah that contradiction I saw too. L should indeed address that.

  Thing is, I ponder what "our" kind of consciousness is, and wonder, are there other "types" of a conscious like energy, within the oneness of all connected reality, or what ever we might call it ..... like "the eternal ( changing milk shake )" ! ???    

  The ingredients were always all there, from which any consciousness emerged !  Worship materialism !!!!  Thats my dumb hunch ..... God is fancy "material" !               


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Nordmann, I've often

Yeah Nordmann,  I've often thought, much fun one could have, posting as different people !   Umm, how to beat the system !


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: As for the

deludedgod wrote:
As for the latter, there is a good reason why everyone except you recognizes this is simply not possible or compatible with a well-founded understanding of reality. THe problem is that consciousness is, well, complicated. As a process, it has particular prerequisites and prerequisite processes that can be understood and necessarily explained in terms of physical causal processes. Thus, for example, it wouldn't really make sense to speak of consciousness without a particular perception. It does not matter whether this perception is the result of a physical object or not (ie dreaming, or hallucinating). THe point is that a particular percpetual experience is correlated with those particular brain states . So, for example, I can give you fairly detailed and precise explanations of the manner in which particular sensory experiences are integrated and processed, etc. THe problem with your assertion is that it would explicitly require that the conscious process not require any of those processes which we can demonstrate to be the result of some physical causal chain and resulting brain states (perceptions, for example). Additionally, if we want to speak of minds, it will follow that we will be speaking of such things like thoughts, memories, etc. And it does not appear to make sense to speak of consciousness without a particular associated mind (unless of course you want to assert that this is possible, which would be problematic since you just asserted that you don't know what consciousness is). And then, if you want to speak of particular conscious minds as being precedents of matter, you will be going up against a pretty damn solid wall of neuroscience and philosophy of mind. In other words, your criterion is not only impossible, but appears to reduce consciousness to a vague and meaningless abstraction, which is equally problematic from your point of view.
To answer what is consciousness, would be like to say a verdict of research,  without having documented the process which led there.
I had only seen a consciousness to do more, than it's currently known to be possible. I think it's not a process, that it's like a light, which passes through filters of (retrospective) destiny, mind, emotions and physical body (soberness, for example). Consciousness is always, it just depends on state of the filters, how much of it gets to our everyday life. There is indeed a lot of happening on these filters, but we're like searching a source of light in a play of shadows on a partially translucent wall, while there's more of such walls. Consciousness itself probably isn't a process or activity, it's forms and effects are.
A gravity field is constant, and yet objects in it gains speed. By studying these objects you won't discover what is the gravity field as such, you can just see what it does in interaction with various objects.
We both seen a consciousness to interact with various things, some were responsive, some less. I for example, had seen a thing to interact with consciousness without a physical contact. This doesn't make me know what it is, but just that it's more than you think.


I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Interesting and honest words Luminon

You say, "I'm an "experiencer of paranormal phenomena"" and I say, ' I am on a never ending LSD trip ! ( ain't had any in 30 yrs , but never came down ! ) '

You say consciousness "right from the start",  and I smile with that thought, but never could actually accept that science model, tho it certainly doesn't bother me. I find energy / matter / and consciousness equally intriguing and connected. That's why I am beginning to see my question of, "what came first as"  a likely error.   

It rather isn't about what came "first" in time, but first in a sequence of events. Really, that gets blurry here, because the time as we know it is mainly a property of material world. In a dream, a 20 minutes of sleep can give you a dream all the day long... The order of events is the only thing I can be rather sure there.

As for solid matter, it doesn't really seem conscious, it behaves mainly according to laws of physics. I almost never had seen an exception. But there are more subtle degrees of "matter", 49  the esoterics, sensibiles, and clairvoyant people knows of. Each seven of them makes together a "plane of existence". Every degree "up" that direction is more responsive to consciousness, whatever it is.
Not only they're more responsive, they're seats of consciousness. If ours is seated in material level, then we we will be limited on material level in our actions.
The focus of consciousness, the range it's able to operate in, can be made more broad, allowing us to expand our perception. I for myself have the this range slightly broadened. It's nothing great, I have seen my friend to learn it as well, but it already gives a new look on life. My perception doesn't already end where my skin ends or begins, it's for an inch stretched outward and and attuned to that kind of subtle matter which is just above gaseous, called 1st etheric. This gives some really weird feelings, feeling of objects which are not visible by bare eye, but very well tangible. When I include that into my logical reasoning, everything changes. If matter is not the only thing in the world, where does it end? Are there people, who explored even "deeper" in that "direction" than me? Can I meet them? Did they write any books? If these books describes what I do, and more, does it mean they're true? So this is my lifetime exploration. I'm almost on the beginning, but I already have results.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I am needing rest now, but

I am needing rest now, but wanted to say Alan Watts talked about " we don't begin or end at our skin, as the air and sun and earth and everything, is what we also are .... "

 A message of the "connected oneness" .... Alan Watts was a great teacher .... and is even on Youtube .... that very message .... "our skin".   


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:A gravity field is

Quote:

A gravity field is constant, and yet objects in it gains speed.

What is your obsession with taking meaningful terms and wrecking them? Don't you know what a field is? A field is a mathematical concept where a particular value (which can be scalar, vector or tensor) is assigned to every point in space. Objects accelerate because being in a curved region of space time is equivalent to accelerating, although, gravity is not actually a force as Newton thought. Once again, you spew out meaningless terminology to sound intelligent. A constant refers to a particular real number, such as pi (the constant of proportionality between a circle's circumference and diameter) or e (a constant such that e^x is equivalent to the slope of d(e^x)/dx for all values of x). You get the idea. A field is a wholly different concept in mathematics.

Quote:

To answer what is consciousness, would be like to say a verdict of research,  without having documented the process which led there.
I had only seen a consciousness to do more, than it's currently known to be possible. I think it's not a process, that it's like a light, which passes through filters of (retrospective) destiny, mind, emotions and physical body (soberness, for example). Consciousness is always, it just depends on state of the filters, how much of it gets to our everyday life. There is indeed a lot of happening on these filters, but we're like searching a source of light in a play of shadows on a partially translucent wall, while there's more of such walls. Consciousness itself probably isn't a process or activity, it's forms and effects are.
A gravity field is constant, and yet objects in it gains speed. By studying these objects you won't discover what is the gravity field as such, you can just see what it does in interaction with various objects.
We both seen a consciousness to interact with various things, some were responsive, some less. I for example, had seen a thing to interact with consciousness without a physical contact. This doesn't make me know what it is, but just that it's more than you think.

This is all very well and good (by which I mean it is not) but without a coherent and well-founded definition of consciousness, your assertions are just that. And they mean nothing to boot. Some considerations of definitions of consciousness are, for example "a point of view, a particular subjective quality characterized by an experience" (Nagel), or an ability to introspect or access a particular mental space (Block). You get the idea. In any case, it would seem that either of these definitions, or any of the other coherent ones (all of which are variations on the same theme) will require that these particular structures came first. Any of these understandings rely on It is possible for an organism to be having a perceptual experience but not be conscious. Another very basic philosophical objection that could easily be raised to your vague assertions is simply that it cannot in any meaningfully account for the differences between consciousness and non-consciousness and unconsciousness. The latter is important and should be defined as different from non-conscious (someone dead is non-conscious but not unconscious). Another and even more obvious problem is that by asserting that consciousness is a form of substratum, you are committing a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Thus yielding a final and decisive objection (as if one were really needed) to your views. Or of course, it might have been easier to point out that what you said was totally devoid of meaning, but I like to be precise. Your view is most appropriately labeled as panpsychism, although it has some differences. Another and final thing to consider is the question: Is it possible to have consciousness without a particular subjective experience? This cannot be brushed aside, for it would be utterly essential to your position to claim so. If it was not possible, then whatever things are necessary for subjective experiences necessarily precede consciousness. But since consciousness is (as above) can be understood in terms of introspection, then it is not by definition possible to speak of consciousness without a particular subjective experience, and therefore your view (or whatever coherency could be salvaged from your writing) collapses. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Quote:A

deludedgod wrote:
Quote:
A gravity field is constant, and yet objects in it gains speed.

What is your obsession with taking meaningful terms and wrecking them? Don't you know what a field is? A field is a mathematical concept where a particular value (which can be scalar, vector or tensor) is assigned to every point in space. Objects accelerate because being in a curved region of space time is equivalent to accelerating, although, gravity is not actually a force as Newton thought. Once again, you spew out meaningless terminology to sound intelligent. A constant refers to a particular real number, such as pi (the constant of proportionality between a circle's circumference and diameter) or e (a constant such that e^x is equivalent to the slope of d(e^x)/dx for all values of x). You get the idea. A field is a wholly different concept in mathematics.

I think you got it here a bit wrong... "constant" in that sentence is adjective, if I'd want to write a noun, (in sense of a real number) there would be "a constant". So, I tried to describe the consciousness as rather passive phenomenon, of some initial constant intensity, just as gravity field is constant, though objects moving through it may accelerate, thus show a lot of activity. It was figuratively said.
 

deludedgod wrote:
This is all very well and good (by which I mean it is not) but without a coherent and well-founded definition of consciousness, your assertions are just that. And they mean nothing to boot.
Consciousness is so deep phenomenon, that we can't  completely explain it's basis, not in decades to come. We can just discover still new properies of matters, energies, forms of existence, forms of life, laws governing them, and so on. Consciousness may be found there as well, but not it's source. In this way of development mysticism will be definitely faster. A human can experience absolute, pure consciousness without having any technology or education. And will laugh at attempts to bind it in words.

deludedgod wrote:
Some considerations of definitions of consciousness are, for example "a point of view, a particular subjective quality characterized by an experience" (Nagel), or an ability to introspect or access a particular mental space (Block). You get the idea.
Yes, these are descriptions of what it does, not what it is. I'm OK with descriptions, as far as they're not mistaken with explanation. We can heuristically describe a system, by it's input and output, but we still won't understand how it works within.

deludedgod wrote:
In any case, it would seem that either of these definitions, or any of the other coherent ones (all of which are variations on the same theme) will require that these particular structures came first. Any of these understandings rely on It is possible for an organism to be having a perceptual experience but not be conscious.
  I think that consciousness is a sovereign concept, not a sum of activities. As for what is conscious and what not, all life has a degree of consciousness, and there are various degrees of livingness. Here I just stopped myself from copying a part of Theosophic description of Earth's life system which probably would be of no use to you. Shortly said, the multi-layered nature of reality allows things to have a degree of livingness (and thus consciousness), even if observable with diffculty.

deludedgod wrote:
Another very basic philosophical objection that could easily be raised to your vague assertions is simply that it cannot in any meaningfully account for the differences between consciousness and non-consciousness and unconsciousness. The latter is important and should be defined as different from non-conscious (someone dead is non-conscious but not unconscious).
That shouldn't be problem. Consciousness may be focused ( located) on various layers of multi-layered model of reality. While it's located on "higher" layer of reality than is physical brain, which memorizes what the consciousness sees, then the memory is affected. If the brain is knocked out - like under drugs, for example, then it doesn't memorize, and when the consciousness is allowed to return (narcosis or intoxication passes) then there are no records in brain of what consciousness was doing in that time. We say we were "unconscious", but that's not true, we were conscious, just brain wasn't able to take any record of it.
You surely know that effect, for example, a person gets drunk or high, and thinks about stuff, philosophy, and so on. When the person gets sober, he can't remember these ideas, no matter how he's trying to recall them. But when he gets intoxicated again, he's able to recall these ideas. My hypothesis is, that the ideas were stored in a structure, where a consciousness was focused at the moment. When the consciousness was focused somewhere else, the ideas stopped being available. So this is what the concept "unconscious" can be. Basically, a problem of memory.

But subconsciousness, this is something, I admit, don't know much about. It is not a superconsciousness, which I have very well mapped and I call it sometimes "soul". Subconsciousness is like a librarian in a great library. It has a lot of data, but it takes long before you get what do you search for. Also, it doesn't know the word of "not". Whatever affirmation or mantra there is, if it contains "not", then it will manifest itself like there wouldn't be any "not". But as I wrote, I don't know much about it. I'm not even sure if the subconsciousness is collective or not.
For missing concepts (or too vaguely described) search in books of Theosophic origin... Exact definition would take a longer lecture, so please try to use an abstract imagination for a while.


deludedgod wrote:
Another and even more obvious problem is that by asserting that consciousness is a form of substratum, you are committing a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Thus yielding a final and decisive objection (as if one were really needed) to your views. Or of course, it might have been easier to point out that what you said was totally devoid of meaning, but I like to be precise.
Well, I assure you, that to me and a few other people it's proven to a satisfaction of everyone. My mistake is presenting a concepts, which are very diffcult to substantiate interpersonally. Most of cases when it actually happened, was succesful because of an active approach from the other side, like that person wasn't just a passive skeptic, but tried it for himself seriously enough and came to the same verdict. Here, the best working tools we have at the moment are our own bodies and minds, if you don't use them by yourself, nobody else can do it for you. It's uncomfortable, but as a proverb says, no educated person had ever appeared out of the blue.
(original version says "no educated person had ever fallen from sky" but since a fall of Columbia it's not so true)

deludedgod wrote:
Your view is most appropriately labeled as panpsychism, although it has some differences.
Panpsychism? Man, that's so vague. I know, I'm not the right person to complain about that, but I don't value a philosophy as such enough to have it.
Matter, or any matter on any layer of multi-layered reality, is not automatically conscious. It is just a potential medium for life and consciousness to manifest themselves in some form. There's more theory about it, about transformation of matter by life, but panpsychism is a philosophy. Philosophy means, that we don't know anything about it, so we just...think.
By definition, Panpsychism, in philosophy, is either the view that all parts of matter involve mind, or the more holistic view that the whole universe is an organism that possesses a mind. That has nothing to do with me, for me, mind is a process done mainly by brain, and consciousness is entirely different thing. If you want to know what is really my "philosophy", then you can read books of Benjamin Creme, or Theosophists Alice Bailey and Helena P. Blavatsky. So far, whatever unusual happened in my life, it was deeply described and explained by them, and I have a confidence, that also my future observations will fit into this scheme of seeing the world. I can't apply Occam's razor here, because my experiences already supported a significant part of Theosophy.

deludedgod wrote:
Another and final thing to consider is the question: Is it possible to have consciousness without a particular subjective experience? This cannot be brushed aside, for it would be utterly essential to your position to claim so. If it was not possible, then whatever things are necessary for subjective experiences necessarily precede consciousness. But since consciousness is (as above) can be understood in terms of introspection, then it is not by definition possible to speak of consciousness without a particular subjective experience, and therefore your view (or whatever coherency could be salvaged from your writing) collapses.
This is one of reasons why I stated that I don't know what the consciousness is. I don't know it's source, and to answer that question, my consciousness would have to be right in the source, in it's highest, most clear form. Theoretically. But practically it becomes impossible long before that.
The more a consciousness is focused in that direction, the more all other concepts breaks down. Time goes first, then matter and life...  In the end it all becomes an inexpressible One in it's highest form, but between that is a huge unmapped space, which is structured, and contains life, but we have absolutely no means of understanding it.  
Imagine an enlightenment, nirvana, samadhi, satori, or how various cultures calls it, do you think it's an appropriate state to answer anything?
There may theoretically remain one, continual experience of total cosmic consciousness, but it in words sounds too cheap.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
So that you're saying is

So that you're saying is that you haven't a fucking clue what you're saying.

 

Nuff said.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You are going to fast lose

You are going to fast lose the very small number of people (myself included) who are going to bother to hold an extended exchange with you, because of the manner in which you use pertinent terms. Your descriptions are so fantastically useless. Have a read of this:

Quote:

I don't know it's source, and to answer that question, my consciousness would have to be right in the source, in it's highest, most clear form. Theoretically. But practically it becomes impossible long before that.
The more a consciousness is focused in that direction, the more all other concepts breaks down. Time goes first, then matter and life...  In the end it all becomes an inexpressible One in it's highest form, but between that is a huge unmapped space, which is structured, and contains life, but we have absolutely no means of understanding it. 

Now suppose I am a neuroscientist or a philosopher who researches consciousness. I need to define relevent terms in a manner so exact and precise they stand up to heavy scrutiny. If I can't do this, then how I could I possibly claim to be having a meaningful discussion? To anyone engaged in any field of consciousness research (AI, neuroscience, etc.) just how much use do you think something like the above you wrote is going to be? The answer is it won't be. Not the slightest chance. There is no useful content to be extracted from your writing. You would have failed pretty miserably if asked to write a paper on philosophy of mind. You should read one every so often. It might force some coherency into your writing. No relevant or meaningful discussion can be had by resorting to vague blanket terms like "source" or "highest, most clear forms" or "inexpressible one". This is why nobody talks to you anymore. When I say precision, it means a great deal more than mere detail. If I asked you to explain precisely what you mean by multi-layered reality, I'm sure you could provide a great deal of detail. I'm equally sure that a great deal of that detail would be so meaningless that nothing useful could be extracted. And if you are hiding behind the supposed "inexpressability" of your concepts, you are merely creating a mystery of your own devising, in which case, well...

Quote:

You surely know that effect, for example, a person gets drunk or high, and thinks about stuff, philosophy, and so on. When the person gets sober, he can't remember these ideas, no matter how he's trying to recall them. But when he gets intoxicated again, he's able to recall these ideas.

Yes, on television sitcoms and folk legends. Not in real life. Alchohol tends to impede LTP, which makes this a very dubious proposition anyway. You might ask, what is LTP? Here is where I show you what I mean when I say define something coherently:

LTP, or long term potentiation is a remarkable ability of neurons in the hippocampus. It refers to a strongly enhanced response of a post-synaptic membrane to a pre-synaptic action potential that results from repeated rapid firing from the pre-synaptic membrane. This can last for days, weeks, etc. depending on intensity. When I say a strongly enhanced response I mean that the magnitude of the post-synaptic potential increases. LTP will occur on a post-snypatic neuron which is already strongly depolarized and that recieves a signal from pre-synaptic neuron. If any other synapses are contacting the Post-synaptic membrane that are firing at the same time, those particular synapses will also undergo LTP at the surface of the post-synaptic membrane, even if those pre-synaptic membranes were only firing single action potentials. LTP works by the following steps:

The post-synaptic membrane has glutamame gated Na+ channels and NMDA gated channels which are Ca2+ permeable. The first are only transmitter gated, and therefore are opened when a pre-synaptic potential causes the release of glutamate into the cleft. The latter are a rare TVGIC (transmitter and voltage gated ion channel) that therefore integrate two signals. First, NMDA must be bound, or the channel won't open. Second, the channel has a plug in the form of an Mg2+ ion which can only be removed when the NMDA is bound and the membrane is depolarized. The influx of Ca2+ induces a signal whereby more glutamate TGIC are inserted into the membrane. As such, whenever that synapse fires again, the response of the Post-synaptic membrane is greatly enhanced. The loss or destruction of these cells blocks the formation of long term memories but does not impede recollection of pre-existing memories.

Now, the reason I went into the trouble to write that detail is to demonstrate precisely what I mean by precise coherency. It is precise in the sense that the description is detailed, and not deliberately vague. It is coherent in the sense that all pertinent terms (TGIC, NMDA, depolarization, post-synaptic membrane) are well defined and can be understood by means of employing other well-defined terms (such as peptide bond, allosteric transition, electromotive force etc.).

All I'm saying is that if you wrote like that, people would listen to you. I mean, the terminology I used is complicated, but there is no reason I cannot explain it. If some asked, for example "what is a TGIC?" the reply is: "A TGIC is a transmitter gated ion channel. It is a selective protein channel embedded in the cell membrane which allows ions to pass through (ions are otherwise impermeable to the cell membrane). Ion channels usually only admit one specific ion (such as sodium, potassium etc.). The channel is gated because it is closed unless a certain signal indicating it should open and allow ions through is present. In some cases, the signal is a change in voltage. In a TGIC, however, the signal is the presence of a chemical called a neurotransmitter which binds to binding sites on the TGIC and induces a conformational change in the protein complex allowing it to open the channel and admit ions through".

An important thing about the above description is that it can stand up to very good scrutiny in the way that your terminology usually doesn't. There are endless follow up questions one could ask such as "What do you mean by a conformation change?" or "why is the cell membrane impermeable to ions?" etc. None of these are problematic questions, because the terms of discussion are perfectly understood. But of course, you continue to hide behind vague allusions to the "esoteric" nature of your assertions as if this somehow excused you from the reasonable duty of defining all pertinent terms in a precise way. Could you imagine how much I would get laughed at it someone asked "How are other ions excluded from the selectivity filter of an ion channel?" and I replied "Well, it's because the channel admits their selective ion on the basis of (insert vague and meaningless metaphysical term) mystical force"?

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Boon Docks
Posts: 415
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
Points of reality

  

 

 

    Come on now, aren't we here for the community feeling of friends ?  I know that I have a sense of community here and my community is better than their community!!  We can look out for each other so to speak, watch each others backs.  I have learned quite a bit just by reading what you have to say.  So keep on writing, this is fun.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:An

deludedgod wrote:

An important thing about the above description is that it can stand up to very good scrutiny in the way that your terminology usually doesn't. There are endless follow up questions one could ask such as "What do you mean by a conformation change?" or "why is the cell membrane impermeable to ions?" etc. None of these are problematic questions, because the terms of discussion are perfectly understood. But of course, you continue to hide behind vague allusions to the "esoteric" nature of your assertions as if this somehow excused you from the reasonable duty of defining all pertinent terms in a precise way. Could you imagine how much I would get laughed at it someone asked "How are other ions excluded from the selectivity filter of an ion channel?" and I replied "Well, it's because the channel admits their selective ion on the basis of (insert vague and meaningless metaphysical term) mystical force"?

Basically, I tried to substitute specialized terms used in Theosophy, by more vague terms, which should be intuitively understood, but no, they aren't. Theosophy uses often terms of eastern origin, from sanskrit, for example. Believe it or not, esoterics has enough complexity in it to require a long study and practice to understand. This is why it's "hidden", it's not comprehensible for everyone. I can recall several books a total beginner should eventually read. This topic is extremely broad, it's about a transformation of every aspect of our lives. (including healthcare, education, economy, science, and so on)
There is a detailed and extensive terminology, which I don't have a time, patience and space to explain here, though I tried. I underestimated it's necessity, which resulted in sort of Babylonic confusion of languages, for which I apologize to all involved for their time. To fix this, you would have to sacrifice even more of your time to read a related books which contains the system in all this you'd need.  Without that, I can't express myself sufficiently, and you can't extend your skepticism and intelligent discussion on esoterics, because this is something you have no knowledge of. I disagree with deluded and too commercialized forms of esoterics, just like you disagree with pseudoscience.
My stance remains the same according to my interpersonally confirmed rational observations of reality. So far, these observations, mine, or other people, were coherent and explainable by a teaching of Theosophy or by information from it's continuator, Benjamin Creme. This is why I assume it's a correct paradigm. However, I understand a necessity to bring it into a coherence with official science, because Theosophic understanding is often superficial and unaccessible to the public.  I believe, that exploring of these phenomena is, what will scientists try to do in near future, and I think that this understanding of world would help them in certain aspects of their work.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Dishonest bullshit. And

Dishonest bullshit. And worse in several respects than even the worst excesses of religious hubris.

 

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Jello
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Theosophy is weak

Theosophy is weak


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Dishonest

Nordmann wrote:
Dishonest bullshit. And worse in several respects than even the worst excesses of religious hubris.
I'm honest as much as I can, but the more open and honest I am, the more I'm labelled as dishonest. It's interesting... would you please substantiate your claims? Otherwise it just shows, how you despise what you don't understand. Of course I know you act according to what you know, it's logical, but more understanding would certainly give you some detachment, you don't have to be so emotional about everything.



Jello wrote:

Theosophy is weak

Maybe. It was, anyway, founded in the end of 19th century. Would you mind to explain us why and how? I mostly prefer contemporary writings of Benjamin Creme, though I'll soon read something by Alice Bailey...

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
the Mall

My wife & I were in the Freehold Raceway Mall in NJ this weekend... I couldn't beleive that some assholes were allowed to put up a Christian recruiting station (more like a table with pamphlets) right in the middle of the mall...they were litterally bribing kids...yes offering monetary discounts....for them to stop & talk...which is Christian code for introductory fear mongering...

So whats the point you may ask?... These psychopaths are vigilant...they never stop because they traditionally lack any other intellectual persuits...fear has paralyzed them into servitude...They dont get laid, and that frustration seeks its expression by way of self righteous indignation...and a burning desire to make other people as vapid as they are. Our rights are being legislated away because politicians need their vote more than ours...

They are banking on our apathy.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There is a detailed

Quote:

There is a detailed and extensive terminology, which I don't have a time, patience and space to explain here, though I tried.

Try harder. I employ vastly more complex and meaningful terminology than you ever could, and I have no trouble explaining it.

Quote:

This is why it's "hidden", it's not comprehensible for everyone.

The proof of the Poincare conjecture and the canonization of quantum field theory are also complex concepts which are not comprehensible to everyone. There is a difference between the lack of comprehensibility of these things and the lack of comprehensibility of the things you assert. The lack of comprehensibility of the former for most people is because the pertinent terms are defined in terms of concepts which they do not understand because those concepts in turn are defined in terms of concepts which they don't understand. For example, to understand the proof of the axioms of the Zermelo-Frankel system would require me to understand the pertinent concepts in intuitive set theory, which in turn requires my understanding of formal logic and mathematical axioms (not to mention proof and definition by mathematical induction). This could be extended to explain why people do not understand perfectly meaningful concepts such as the ones I just mentioned. In your case, however, the lack of comprehensibility is because the terms you use have had the meaning sucked out of them in order to stand in for vague allusions which the real concepts they denote do not actually represent. Witness, for example, within the community of quacks and pseudophysics, the liberal use of words like "force" and "energy" etc. etc. ad infinitum. This constitutes precisely the sort of errors in your writing that I could spend days elaborating on. Do not tell me you are not guilty of these mistakes since I have pointed them to you many times. All the pertinent terms you use have real meanings in other contexts. This indicates to me that you aren't struggling because you are trying to explain a complex concept that requires a heirarchy of knowledge of other complex concpts (such as where a mathematician attempts to explain to a non-mathematician the proof of the Poincare conjecture). You are struggling because you need to make it look like this is the case, when it really is not.

 

Let me give you a precise example to articulate precisely what I am trying to get across. As you obviously know, there is a particular curious discipline of pseudoscience which is derogatorily and deservedly labeled quantum mysticism. It is called so because it attempts to use the discoveries of quantum mechanics to verify particular metaphysical beliefs they have, particularly those pertaining to “Eastern mysticism”. Reading their writings seems to be little more than mystical poetry than a serious and rigorous discussion about the nature of reality. But one way which would force those who hold these particular beliefs is to ask them to characterize their beliefs and assertions into a coherent set of mathematical statements. Of course they cannot do this. The reason for this is because the pertinent terms being used (read: abused) by these people cannot rigorously be employed in the context they are trying to use them in. The contentions they make about reality are too, well, metaphorical. The pertinent terms they employ cannot be force-fitted into their strange beliefs. This is why the whole business collapses. You find yourself in a similar position. And that is the difference between complex things that may be incoherent to most people such as quantum mechanics or topology, and things that are incoherent because of the stealing of pertinent terms. For example:

This makes perfect sense to me:

This does not:

“Quantum healing is healing the bodymind from a quantum level. That means from a level which is not manifest at a sensory level. Our bodies ultimately are fields of information, intelligence and energy. Quantum healing involves a shift in the fields of energy information, so as to bring about a correction in an idea that has gone wrong. So quantum healing involves healing one mode of consciousness, mind, to bring about changes in another mode of consciousness, body”. (Chopra)

This brings us to another distinction between the complex ideas and terminologies I employ and those that you…attempt to. The first example (Fick’s second law of diffusion) is a useful and meaningful statement about the nature of reality. Using it, I can predict the rate function for which non-constant diffusion across a partially permeable membrane will occur. As for the latter…well, what is there to say?

 

Quote:

Without that, I can't express myself sufficiently, and you can't extend your skepticism and intelligent discussion on esoterics, because this is something you have no knowledge of.

This is untrue because you make very extravagant assertions about the nature of reality, as well as such things as epistemology and ontology, as well as physics, chemistry, biology etc. As luck would have it, I have a great deal of knowledge on these things and am therefore perfectly able to hold a discussion on them. Virtually everything you assert could be classed under a discipline that I am fully competent in, but you aren't.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I'm honest as

Luminon wrote:

I'm honest as much as I can, but the more open and honest I am, the more I'm labelled as dishonest.

Ok, I'll have to stand up for a moment for Luminon.  I have no doubt that he is being honest.

That is he is speaking honestly about the beliefs that he has been indoctrinated into from birth.

I was indoctrinated too.  I would have quite "honestly" told people about how god doesn't put people into hell but they put themselves into hell.  And the only way to escape it was by accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.  And I was completely honest and sincere with my words.

I just didn't know any better.  I was enslaved...my very mind enslaved from how my parents raised me.

Luminon may not be a theist...but he is just as indoctrinated and as enslaved in his head as I was 10+ years ago.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
At some point in every

At some point in every deluded person's arguments - whether they have been indoctrinated or not into adopting their particular delusion - comes an assertion that they are above criticism since they hold "special knowledge" without which another person cannot be qualified to discuss, let alone debunk, the other foolish assertions they have made. That assertion alone reveals the depths of dishonesty to which these people have sunk, again whether it is entirely their fault or not that they have done so.

 

Deluded God has been trying valiantly in several posts now to refute this particular deluded fool's ranting with hard fact, and to any sane and reasonable person the points he has raised would long ago have at least given the other person cause to reflect on the possibility that he is wrong. But that would be an honest reaction, and Luminon is not capable even of that. The lies he tells us are indicative of the lies he has been told, but also of the ones he tells himself. Worse, he believes that his identity itself is bound up with this tangled web of dishonest fallacies which he lyingly refers to as philosophy, and therefore - like any theist - interprets contradiction as personal attack.

 

Since fools like this will take umbrage at anything that pokes a hole in their fantasies, however politely, diplomatically, or intelligently constructed it might be done, then I don't bother even trying (though I commend Deluded God for his effort, however wasted it is in this case). Luminon needs to know at least that his dishonest, arrogant and ultimately stupid take on life is recognised as such by others and merits no respect whatsoever. If he interprets this assessment as a judgement on his own character as well is entirely up to him - and as I said, he probably will.

 

But what is most offensive about this particular fool is where he has chosen to spout his inanities. Theists who come to this site are directed to areas where their views can be expressed, and requested forcefully not to enter other areas. The vast majority, deluded fools and all as many of them might be, are honest enough to do so. This guy, whose arrogance and stupidity in refuting rationality exceeds many theists, feels he can interject wherever he wants whenever he wants with repetition of his creed, and that he is protected from criticism by virtue of the fact that he asserts he is not a theist. That is hypocrisy, and hypocrites deserve no respect or consideration for hurt feelings when being spoken to.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Btw, Deludedgod, is it

Btw, Deludedgod, is it common to have a feeling in both pitituary and pineal gland within my skull? I mean, anything like itching, slight burning, feeling of heat or electricity or a strain, approximately in places where these glands should be.

 



Watcher wrote:

Luminon wrote:

I'm honest as much as I can, but the more open and honest I am, the more I'm labelled as dishonest.

Ok, I'll have to stand up for a moment for Luminon.  I have no doubt that he is being honest.

That is he is speaking honestly about the beliefs that he has been indoctrinated into from birth.

I was indoctrinated too.  I would have quite "honestly" told people about how god doesn't put people into hell but they put themselves into hell.  And the only way to escape it was by accepting the sacrifice that Jesus made for us.  And I was completely honest and sincere with my words.

I just didn't know any better.  I was enslaved...my very mind enslaved from how my parents raised me.

Luminon may not be a theist...but he is just as indoctrinated and as enslaved in his head as I was 10+ years ago.

With all respect, you use your experiences for an assumption. I'll tell you my experiences. I can't find a moment in my life where I was indoctrinated or brainwashed. My parents did nothing as for educating me.
Whatever informations I have, I chose them because they described the same things which I personally perceive. It was a conscious choice. Let me give you an example.
I have very often an intense, physical feeling of pressure, movement, openness, heat, electricity, and so on, in places on my body, specifically top of head, forehead, centre of my chest, and so on, about 10 of them totally. This is a fact, this is what I really perceive most of days of my life. (it's not all, but for the example it's enough)
I had read some esoteric texts, and there was written, than in these places on body are "vortexes of energy" called "chakra" which serves as input, output, and distribution organs of some "life energy". So, I certainly feel there is something exactly there, and that it's not stagnant at all.
For this reason, and not for any other reason, I personally decided to believe, that whatever is called as "chakra", most probably exists. Also, I decided that the existence of "energy" which the "chakras" distributes, also probably exists.

I didn't choose any conventional explanation of scientific basis, because there is nothing such on that topic. I know, some of chakras are near to certain glands (thymus for example), but not all of them. Also, I can control and trigger the mentioned activity of "chakras" immediately, by a moment of mental concentration, it feels like stimulating them. It's definitely not typical behavior, as for a majority of population. It seems to be something new (if a thing known in millenia old texts can be called "new" )

These and more, frequent intense and detailed physical feelings, corresponding with certain texts, encouraged me to take seriously what I take seriously. Ignoring these circumstances of my life would be, in my point of view, very irrational. 
I hope my ""theism"" is more clear now.
 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.