The Question That Will Stump Paisley

zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
The Question That Will Stump Paisley

Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If you think about this

 

Paisley wrote:

 

"...it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego."

 

 

There's something oxymoronic about this statement...feeling is true, rational thinking is weakened by egotism?

It's been an instructive thread, anyway - thanks OP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

i don't know what your idea of mysticism is

Merriam-Webster defines the term as follows:

Quote:

mysticism : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)

(source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mysticism

I consider myself to be a mystic because I hold the above stated belief. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

 

pedant : a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

(source: Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary; emphasis my own)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

i consider you to be a pedant because you consistently display the traits mentioned above.

i would also like to point out, from the position of a graduate in religion, that the most common usage of "mystic" is one who is consistently able to experience direct spiritual insights, not one who just believes such insights are possible.  if you happen to believe yourself to be a mystic in praxis i would seriously contest that claim, since you exhibit the polar opposite behavior of those most commonly accepted as mystics, who recorded their experiences and whose lives we possess second-hand records of.  even if you don't believe yourself to be a mystic in praxis, i'm very saddened that someone who claims to be familiar with mysticism has obviously learned so little of humility from it.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist


Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Paisley wrote:

 

"...it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego."

 

 

There's something oxymoronic about this statement...feeling is true, rational thinking is weakened by egotism?

It's been an instructive thread, anyway - thanks OP.

 i wonder if god can make himself not exist ? hmmm....

 

 

 

 

 

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself to be a

mystic

because I hold the above stated

belief

. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

Yeah, your own personal brain fart. 

The terminally deluded, who just know their mind is infallibly able to know when they are perceiving direct truth...

Such hubris. Such over-weening pride in their ability to access true truth, and know that their direct perception is the 'real thing'.

Why do you consider it hubris to express such a belief? On the other hand, you fail to see the arrogance of your own position, which holds that anyone who does not subscribe to the worldview of scientific materialism is to be deemed irrational and intellectually incompetent. This type of attitude does not speak well for you or your cause.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself to be a

mystic

because I hold the above stated

belief

. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

Yeah, your own personal brain fart. 

The terminally deluded, who just know their mind is infallibly able to know when they are perceiving direct truth...

Such hubris. Such over-weening pride in their ability to access true truth, and know that their direct perception is the 'real thing'.

Why do you consider it hubris to express such a belief? On the other hand, you fail to see the arrogance of your own position, which holds that anyone who does not subscribe to the worldview of scientific materialism is to be deemed irrational and intellectually incompetent. This type of attitude does not speak well for you or your cause.

You don't think it's hubris to claim to be the only one who knows the secrets of God and the universe (as you and other theists do)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself to be a

mystic

because I hold the above stated

belief

. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

Yeah, your own personal brain fart. 

The terminally deluded, who just know their mind is infallibly able to know when they are perceiving direct truth...

Such hubris. Such over-weening pride in their ability to access true truth, and know that their direct perception is the 'real thing'.

Why do you consider it hubris to express such a belief? On the other hand, you fail to see the arrogance of your own position, which holds that anyone who does not subscribe to the worldview of scientific materialism is to be deemed irrational and intellectually incompetent. This type of attitude does not speak well for you or your cause.

I did not say it is hubris to express such a belief.

It is hubris to assert that you are able to know, with certainty, that some mental experience is an actual 'direct perception' of something not 'physically' observable.

I is the reverse of hubris to point this out - that all our perceptions are potentially fallible, including perceptions about perceptions, and that people who refuse to acknowledge this fact are being irrational.

Truth about reality at any 'level' can only be approached by careful study of that reality, with a lot of checking to eliminate the effects of individual biases and preconceptions that might affect our findings. History shows that intuitions about the nature of reality are a poor guide to truth, especially as we get further away from the 'everyday' world.

We no longer believe that our breath carries our soul, that the seat of our consciousness is in our physical heart, that the Universe beyond the moon is a divine realm, not subject to earthly laws. To remind people of these indications of the fallibility of ideas and beliefs that have not been empirically derived and tested is not hubris.

Anyone who does not accept that is opening themselves up accusations of irrationality.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself to be a mystic because I hold the above stated belief. And the answer I provided to the question posed in the OP is a mystical one because it appeals directly to the intuitive mind, not the analytical ego. If you "got it," then you experienced a direct spiritual insight.

pedant : a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

(source: Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary; emphasis my own)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant

i consider you to be a pedant because you consistently display the traits mentioned above.

Flinging personal attacks says more about your character than mine.

iwbiek wrote:

i would also like to point out, from the position of a graduate in religion, that the most common usage of "mystic" is one who is consistently able to experience direct spiritual insights, not one who just believes such insights are possible.

I consider myself a mystic because I believe that God can be experientially known. I cited a source that supports this definition of the term. Whether you agree with it or not is of little consequence to me.

iwbiek wrote:

if you happen to believe yourself to be a mystic in praxis i would seriously contest that claim, since you exhibit the polar opposite behavior of those most commonly accepted as mystics, who recorded their experiences and whose lives we possess second-hand records of.  even if you don't believe yourself to be a mystic in praxis, i'm very saddened that someone who claims to be familiar with mysticism has obviously learned so little of humility from it. 

You are certainly not in a position to be casting aspersions upon my character. I suggest your worry about your own flaws rather than focusing on the flaws of others.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Flinging

Paisley wrote:

Flinging personal attacks says more about your character than mine.

 

yeah, we all know you never resort to that, paisley.

 

Paisley wrote:

You are certainly not in a position to be casting aspersions upon my character. I suggest your worry about your own flaws rather than focusing on the flaws of others.

 

so i'm right but i shouldn't say it?  thanks, that'll do.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I consider

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself a mystic because I believe that God can be experientially known. I cited a source that supports this definition of the term.

 

yeah, you got me there.  after all, the merriam-webster online dictionary was required reading in all my religion courses.  borg and wright, huston smith, and the merriam-webster online dictionary: gold standards in the field.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
He's a mystic now ? What,

He's a mystic now ? What, like William Blake, that kind of thing ?

Kewl.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley, you linked to a

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

 

 

yeah, bob, but my point is i have a hard time believing he's unaware of what the word "mystic" automatically denotes in the mind of anyone even remotely familiar with the concept, layman or scholar.  he knows he could be much clearer by saying "i study mysticism" or "i lean towards mystical theology" or even "i'm a follower of the mystics."  but no. 

instead, he goes around shooting his mouth off about being a "mystic," probably in the hope of a., throwing up a smokescreen by embracing a religious phenomenon which has broad boundaries and, more importantly, is unfamiliar even to most educated people, thus giving him plenty of room to slide around and shout "straw man" whenever he gets in a bind, and b., more importantly to his line of "reasoning," giving him (in his own mind) a right to claim some special "intuitive" (read: unfalsifiable) knowledge and thus pass himself off as some sort of an authority.

of course, the minute he runs into someone who has intensively studied the phenomenon of mysticism, both in the classroom and out, who has even defended a thesis on it, and can say, with an authority backed by a universally accredited institution rather than "intuitive" knowledge*, that he doesn't behave like a mystic at all, he goes quote-mining and nitpicking and tries to cover his ass with a definition virtually nobody uses except, apparently, him.  then again, i think we've all come to expect as much from paisley.

i certainly never heard any of my professors use it, and i had one who studied directly under bernard mcginn.

and if paisley really knows something about mysticism, he'll know who that is without resorting to google.

 

*though, as i said before, i've had more than my share of that as well--it's just that my education gave me a proper framework in which to put it.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:and if paisley really

Quote:
and if paisley really knows something about mysticism, he'll know who that is without resorting to google.

He can't.  He is a quote miner.  He looks for the basic critique of an argument and simply states it.  Until this thread, he didn't even offer up what he himself believes.  He only critiqued other ideas.

Example comes from post 179 in the Fundamental Question of Existence thread:

Paisley: Whether you give  a "fuck" about the question is irrelevant. Previously, you implied that the question I posed in the OP of this thread had nothing to do with serious philosophy (apparently because you had learned so much about philosophy from an online encounter with a "professional" philosopher). Well, I corrected you. It is  probably the most fundamental question of philosophy. And I just cited the "Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" to back that claim.

Me: You are correct...up until the 20th century.  Many 20th century philosophers (most notably Bertrand Russell) actually considered the question to be moot and of little relevance.  Most Logical Positivists would see philosophy as having a very narrow scope, mostly in linguistics and natural phenomenon (more in line with science, actually).  The question is relevant when learning ancient and early modern philosophy, but contemporary philosophy really drives away from that question and looks at more relevant questions.

IMHO, this was necessary for philisophical thought to not only survive, but to find relevance in a modern world.  In that realm, philosophy is much like science.  It has reshaped and rethought itself in order to keep pace with modern times.  This is a GOOD thing.

Paisley: Logical positivism is inherently self-refuting because the "verification principle" on which it is based cannot itself be verified and therefore must be rendered meaningless.

Here, I give not only a different take from modern philosophers, but I give my own take as well.  The reasons why I agree with them (to a point).  His response was a basic critique of Logical Positivism that you could find from a basic google search on Logical Positivism.  He didn't give his own take, he just quoted the basic critique by others.  He did this throughout that entire thread.

He is the exact person that you would want to debate verbally without any computers...just a pen and notes.  Without a handy search engine or a bookmark to www.dictionary.com, he would be flopping like a fish out of water. 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:He is the

kidvelvet wrote:

He is the exact person that you would want to debate verbally without any computers...just a pen and notes.  Without a handy search engine or a bookmark to www.dictionary.com, he would be flopping like a fish out of water. 

 

bullseye. 

i used to debate a guy almost exactly like this on the amazon.com forums a couple years ago.  in fact, i'd almost be tempted to assume they're the same person, except the guy on amazon used to resort to calling people "fat" when he was cornered.  people he'd never seen, mind you.  and talk about how much he could bench.  i wish i was making this up.

in all fairness, though, i would be worse off too: my spelling would suffer considerably.

 

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:zarathustra

Paisley wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

"We say "God is," and then we cease to speak, for in that knowledge words are meaningless."

(source: A Course in Miracles)
 

Wow. Your flawgic is impeccable.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:He is the

kidvelvet wrote:
He is the exact person that you would want to debate verbally without any computers...just a pen and notes.  Without a handy search engine or a bookmark to www.dictionary.com, he would be flopping like a fish out of water. 

This is because Paisley doesn't discuss ideas. He argues words. He mistakes sophistry for debate.

I diagnosed Paisley with narcissistic personality disorder a year ago. Everything he's ever said since has reinforced that impression. He believes himself to be superior to all of us, and that belief allows him to be impervious to logic. His avoidance of complex ideas, and his cleaving to dictionary definitions when defending, yet using the broader meanings of words when attacking, is meant to deflect actual debate, rather than engage it.

Paisley will never be willing to admit he is wrong, because he believes he is not. There is no logic, no rational thought, that can sway him. He perceives he is brilliant. For him, perception is reality.

So I'd add to that list, Hamby:

7) Convinced of his own superiority.

Couple that with vast ignorance, and the inability to discuss ideas openly and honestly, and you end up with an ignorant narcissistic mystic who would rather "win" an argument with sophistry than attempt to debate ideas.

His assertion that you have never experienced a eureka! moment of "clarity," when you clearly stated you had (even if that idea that provoked the moment was wrong), is merely one example of him (intentionally?) misrepresenting what others have said. In this case, he cannot admit that you may have experienced those ah-HAH moments, because that throws his whole worldview into question. If someone like you can experience those moments, then that no longer makes him special.

And Paisley desperately needs to feel special.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Why is it that every schlub

Why is it that every schlub who believes illusionists are practicing "real" magic get to call themselves "mystics"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Why is it

jcgadfly wrote:

Why is it that every schlub who believes illusionists are practicing "real" magic get to call themselves "mystics"?

Why is it that every mystic quotes gibberish to prove they are all mystical 'n' shit?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:jcgadfly

nigelTheBold wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Why is it that every schlub who believes illusionists are practicing "real" magic get to call themselves "mystics"?

Why is it that every mystic quotes gibberish to prove they are all mystical 'n' shit?

What would a "mystic" be without "magic words"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:nigelTheBold

jcgadfly wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Why is it that every schlub who believes illusionists are practicing "real" magic get to call themselves "mystics"?

Why is it that every mystic quotes gibberish to prove they are all mystical 'n' shit?

What would a "mystic" be without "magic words"?

To quote Bea Arthur from "The History of the World, Part 1":

"Oh, you're a bullshit artist!"

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

in what form?  by the way, you can't just equate contemplation with mysticism across the board.  zen buddhists practise meditation daily and d.t. suzuki at least strongly denies that zen or any form of buddhism is mysticism. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Meditation or contemplation

Meditation or contemplation do NOT equate to practicing mysticism, even though they are part of what mystics do. It has to be part of a specific set of practices, and following on from specific training and guidelines as to what to contemplate or have in mind in the meditation, depending on which tradition of mysticism is being followed.

What tradition were you trained in, Paisley?

EDIT: I don't believe they have any warrant for their belief that the subjective experiences they can initiate in their brains by subjecting it to more-or-less subtle physical stress via special breathing techniques and other physical practices, while holding a particular set of thoughts requiring careful training to achieve, lead to any real 'truth' beyond what science or other empirical study of our 'normal' reality can reveal.

Nevertheless, your claim to be a mystic is a pale travesty of the discipline followed by actual mystics.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Meditation

BobSpence1 wrote:

Meditation or contemplation do NOT equate to practicing mysticism, even it they are part of what mystics do. It has to part of a specific set of practices, and following on from specific training and guidelines as to what to contemplate or have in mind in the meditation, depending on which tradition of mysticism is being followed.

What tradition were you trained in, Paisley?

 

my guess is he's about to refuse to tell us, either by once again hiding behind semantics or telling us we have no right to know or something like that.

in other words, none.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

Sitting and thinking makes you a mystic? We're all mystics then (though I'm not too sure about you as your claims don't seem to indicate much thought was put into them).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

in what form?  by the way, you can't just equate contemplation with mysticism across the board.  zen buddhists practise meditation daily and d.t. suzuki at least strongly denies that zen or any form of buddhism is mysticism. 

You are seeking to create controversy where there is no controversy. I never stated that contemplation and/or meditation are the only forms of mystical practices. Albeit, they are certainly among the most prominent practices. And the notion that Zen (or any other form of Buddhism) does not involve mysticism is simply an uninformed assertion.

Why do Zen Buddhists practice meditation daily?

Quote:

According to D.T. Suzuki, "Satori is the raison d'etre of Zen, without which Zen is no Zen. Therefore every contrivance, disciplinary and doctrinal, is directed towards satori."[1]

(source: Wikipedia: Satori)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori

Quote:

The word literally means "understanding." "Satori" translates as a flash of sudden awareness, or individual enlightenment, and while satori is from the Zen Buddhist tradition, enlightenment can be simultaneously considered "the first step" or embarkation toward nirvana.

(source: Wikipedia: Satori) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Paisley would rather paste

Paisley would rather paste more links, rather than answer the question.

I'd say he' stumped. 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself a mystic because I believe that God can be experientially known. I cited a source that supports this definition of the term.

yeah, you got me there.  after all, the merriam-webster online dictionary was required reading in all my religion courses.  borg and wright, huston smith, and the merriam-webster online dictionary: gold standards in the field.

Giving me your resume (especially on an online forum where talk is cheap) doesn't qualify as a counterargument. If you believe that I have misrepresented mysticism, then I expect you to back it up with something more authoritative than your opinion.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

in what form?  by the way, you can't just equate contemplation with mysticism across the board.  zen buddhists practise meditation daily and d.t. suzuki at least strongly denies that zen or any form of buddhism is mysticism. 

You are seeking to create controversy where there is no controversy. I never stated that contemplation and/or meditation are the only forms of mystical practices. Albeit, they are certainly among the most prominent practices. And the notion that Zen (or any other form of Buddhism) does not involve mysticism is simply an uninformed assertion.

Why do Zen Buddhists practice meditation daily?

Quote:

According to D.T. Suzuki, "Satori is the raison d'etre of Zen, without which Zen is no Zen. Therefore every contrivance, disciplinary and doctrinal, is directed towards satori."[1]

(source: Wikipedia: Satori)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori

Quote:

The word literally means "understanding." "Satori" translates as a flash of sudden awareness, or individual enlightenment, and while satori is from the Zen Buddhist tradition, enlightenment can be simultaneously considered "the first step" or embarkation toward nirvana.

(source: Wikipedia: Satori) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori

 

told ya, bob.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I consider myself a mystic because I believe that God can be experientially known. I cited a source that supports this definition of the term.

yeah, you got me there.  after all, the merriam-webster online dictionary was required reading in all my religion courses.  borg and wright, huston smith, and the merriam-webster online dictionary: gold standards in the field.

Giving me your resume (especially on an online forum where talk is cheap) doesn't qualify as a counterargument. If you believe that I have misrepresented mysticism, then I expect you to back it up with something more authoritative than your opinion.

Sitting and thinking does not make you a mystic (unless you're saying we're all mystics and I don't see you giving up your self-exalted status willingly).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Meditation

BobSpence1 wrote:

Meditation or contemplation do NOT equate to practicing mysticism, even though they are part of what mystics do. It has to be part of a specific set of practices, and following on from specific training and guidelines as to what to contemplate or have in mind in the meditation, depending on which tradition of mysticism is being followed.

Meditation is a mystical practice. If you practice meditation religiously with the aspiration of divine union or spiritual enlightenment, then you are engaging in mysticism.

Quote:

Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion0[1] is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness.

(source: Wikipedia: Mysticism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

BobSpence1 wrote:

What tradition were you trained in, Paisley?

I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum. Having said that, the practice of mysticism does not require that an individual practice in the confines of a formal tradition.

BobSpence1 wrote:

EDIT: I don't believe they have any warrant for their belief that the subjective experiences they can initiate in their brains by subjecting it to more-or-less subtle physical stress via special breathing techniques and other physical practices, while holding a particular set of thoughts requiring careful training to achieve, lead to any real 'truth' beyond what science or other empirical study of our 'normal' reality can reveal.

Nevertheless, your claim to be a mystic is a pale travesty of the discipline followed by actual mystics.

I see. You now envisage yourself as RRS's resident expert on mysticism. Quite honestly, I am not particularly interested in your opinion on the subject matter.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I see. You now

Paisley wrote:

I see. You now envisage yourself as RRS's resident expert on mysticism.

no, that would be me, at least until someone with a postgraduate degree comes along.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley wrote:I

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I see. You now envisage yourself as RRS's resident expert on mysticism.

no, that would be me, at least until someone with a postgraduate degree comes along.

I will happily accept your greater knowledge of the subject.

I of course made no such claims to expertise, but I have some idea of what seems to be involved - Paisley just has to respond in some dismissive or condescending way when he can think of no adequate direct response. I take that as some sort of compliment from him.

The most I can claim is to have visited (briefly) a number of Buddhist temples and monasteries in my travels, and to have read a number of articles about such practices, and fitted it into other knowledge I have acquired about how the brain/mind works.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Inferno
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Quite

Paisley wrote:

Quite honestly, I am not particularly interested in your opinion on the subject matter.

 

That seems to be why no progress can be made with theism, or totalitarianism.

 

Wait, those are the same thing...sorry.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

I do the same thing, but it is a tool I use for anger management.

Seriously.  I do.

But I am not a mystic.  Just someone trying to remain calm.

Therefore, that is not enough to qualify you as a mystic.  But you may have anger management issues.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:iwbiek

BobSpence1 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I see. You now envisage yourself as RRS's resident expert on mysticism.

no, that would be me, at least until someone with a postgraduate degree comes along.

I will happily accept your greater knowledge of the subject.

I of course made no such claims to expertise, but I have some idea of what seems to be involved - Paisley has just has to respond in some dismissive or condescending way when he can think of no adequate direct response. I take that as some sort of compliment from him.

The most I can claim is to have visited (briefly) a number of Buddhist temples and monasteries in my travels, and to have read a number of articles about such practices, and fitted it into other knowledge I have acquired about how the brain/mind works.

one-upping you wasn't my intent, bob, but i'm sure you gathered that.  it was just another reminder to paisley that there are people here he can't bullshit on the issue.  in fact, if paisley actually behaved like every example of a practising mystic i know of, instead of a pedantic asswipe, i never would've brought my up my education at all.  then again, it's unlikely a practising mystic would be on here in the first place.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I am initiated

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed.

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I am a mystic, too.

 

I've just spent ten minutes reading the latter part of this thread and contemplating the nature of bullshit.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Paisley

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed.

Looking at the sequence of claims from Paisley about this, he has kept shifting his position.

First he basically claimed to be a 'mystic' because he believed in the mysticism.

Then when we pointed out this didn't really quite justify the claim to be a real mystic, he claimed that he contemplated and meditated, and since these are mystic practices, this justified his claim to be a mystic.

Then when we strongly suggested that this was still hardly adequate to qualify him as a mystic, he gets all huffy and obliquely attacks me as claiming to be some super expert on the topic.

And of course when we ask him what tradition he trained in, he refuses to. I think we have a pretty good idea why.

It all fits a common pattern of someone caught out in a claim he really couldn't back up, but not able to concede the fact.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Looking at

BobSpence1 wrote:

Looking at the sequence of claims from Paisley about this, he has kept shifting his position.

That's his standard operating procedure:

 

in "Challenging the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism", Paisley wrote:
I allow myself the luxury to change theological views as I see appropriate.

BobSpence1 wrote:
First he basically claimed to be a 'mystic' because he believed in the mysticism.

Then when we pointed out this didn't really quite justify the claim to be a real mystic, he claimed that he contemplated and meditated, and since these are mystic practices, this justified his claim to be a mystic.

Then when we strongly suggested that this was still hardly adequate to qualify him as a mystic, he gets all huffy and obliquely attacks me as claiming to be some super expert on the topic.

And of course when we ask him what tradition he trained in, he refuses to. I think we have a pretty good idea why.

It all fits a common pattern of someone caught out in a claim he really couldn't back up, but not able to concede the fact.

Much like he once claimed to be knowledgeable of quantum physics, then got a bit dodgy when Pineapple et al. started asking him real questions.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: Paisley

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed. 

I am not embarrassed. But I do heed the advice of Jesus regarding this very issue.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6 (KJV)

You and other members on this forum are not truly interested in my mystical practice. You simply want me to divulge information in order to gain some kind of tactical advantage that will enable you to go on the offensive - attacking the practice while flinging personal attacks at me. I am not so naive as to provide you with that luxury.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I am not

Paisley wrote:

I am not embarrassed. But I do heed the advice of Jesus regarding this very issue.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6 (KJV)

It's really not very nice to compare people to dogs and swine. I have no intention of "rending" you, so there is no reason to be afraid either. Do try to calm down.

Paisley wrote:
You and other members on this forum are not truly interested in my mystical practice. You simply want me to divulge information in order to gain some kind of tactical advantage that will enable you to go on the offensive - attacking the practice while flinging personal attacks at me.

Uhm...I don't really need a "tactical advantage". The last time I asked you a question (in your "faith" thread, I think), you answered it, I said thank you, and that was that. So there's really no reason for paranoia either.

Paisley wrote:
I am not so naive as to provide you with that luxury.

I really don't understand what you're afraid of. What do you think we're going to do when you reveal your "tradition" ? Compare it to something degrading ? You know, like "swine" or "dogs" ? Okay, that would be rather childish if we did that, but having recently been exposed to such behaviour, I can tell you it's survivable.

 

Oh well, I guess you answering my question the other time was just a fluke.

Keep your "pearl". It might evaporate when other people look at it, I suppose.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Anonymouse

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed.

Looking at the sequence of claims from Paisley about this, he has kept shifting his position.

First he basically claimed to be a 'mystic' because he believed in the mysticism.

Then when we pointed out this didn't really quite justify the claim to be a real mystic, he claimed that he contemplated and meditated, and since these are mystic practices, this justified his claim to be a mystic.

No, I have never shifted my position. I stated that I was a mystic and cited sources to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, simply expressed your uninformed opinion that I do not qualify as a mystic and then appeal to other forum members for validation of your opinion. Of course, the other forum members you appeal to are engaging in the same deplorable tactic as you are.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed.

Looking at the sequence of claims from Paisley about this, he has kept shifting his position.

First he basically claimed to be a 'mystic' because he believed in the mysticism.

Then when we pointed out this didn't really quite justify the claim to be a real mystic, he claimed that he contemplated and meditated, and since these are mystic practices, this justified his claim to be a mystic.

No, I have never shifted my position. I stated that I was a mystic and cited sources to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, simply expressed your uninformed opinion that I do not qualify as a mystic and then appeal to other forum members for validation of your opinion. Of course, the other forum members you appeal to are engaging in the same deplorable tactic as you are.

You did NOT cite sources which addressed your claim to be a mystic. You are a liar.

EDIT: Or a fool. Probably a bit of both.

I actually quoted a reference which provided better support for your initial claim than your link did.

You still haven't supplied backup for your claim to be a mystic. An online link is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate in some way that you actually practice enough of the aspects of actual serious mystical technique to 'qualify'. If you had been able to quote a tradition and some indication you were familiar with some of the details specific to that tradition, that would have supported your claim. Instead you are evasive and defensive.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed.

Looking at the sequence of claims from Paisley about this, he has kept shifting his position.

First he basically claimed to be a 'mystic' because he believed in the mysticism.

Then when we pointed out this didn't really quite justify the claim to be a real mystic, he claimed that he contemplated and meditated, and since these are mystic practices, this justified his claim to be a mystic.

No, I have never shifted my position. I stated that I was a mystic and cited sources to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, simply expressed your uninformed opinion that I do not qualify as a mystic and then appeal to other forum members for validation of your opinion. Of course, the other forum members you appeal to are engaging in the same deplorable tactic as you are.

You did NOT cite sources which addressed your claim to be a mystic. You are a liar.

EDIT: Or a fool. Probably a bit of both.

I actually quoted a reference which provided better support for your initial claim than your link did.

You still haven't supplied backup for your claim to be a mystic. An online link is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate in some way that you actually practice enough of the aspects of actual serious mystical technique to 'qualify'. If you had been able to quote a tradition and some indication you were familiar with some of the details specific to that tradition, that would have supported your claim. Instead you are evasive and defensive.

Bob, there is no question that Paisley is at the very least dishonest, and at the most he is lying.

Example: He was asked what makes him a mystic -

Quote:
I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

This is a complete quote from earlier in the thread.  This is easy to dispute because he is saying the following

"All people who practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily are mystics" as his major premise.

I disputed that with the following:

Quote:
I do the same thing, but it is a tool I use for anger management.

Seriously.  I do.

But I am not a mystic.  Just someone trying to remain calm.

Therefore, that is not enough to qualify you as a mystic.  But you may have anger management issues.

The last sentence is, admittedly, a cheap shot, but the rest is true.  Many of us have called him out on this, but as Nigel pointed out, he is more worried about "winning" an argument by use of word play and sophistry than actually discussing what makes him a mystic.  When people who are clearly knowledgeable in the subject of mysticism (ibwiek) and have a graduate degree in the subject call him out and want more details, he says that he is not an authority and his opinion doesn't matter.

IOW, he can't accurately answer the question.  And either he knows this and is being dishonest or lying, or he doesn't know it and he is ignorant.

EDIT: Given that in the past he seems to focus his energy on attempts to poke holes in why people are atheists, my best hypothesis to why he doesn't directly discuss his particular form of mysticism is that he doesn't want us to open that up for criticism.  He would then have to defend his claim, which is much more difficult than finding gaps in someone elses claim (or their assumed claim).

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Paisley wrote:
I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum.

Why not ? There's no need to be embarrassed.

Looking at the sequence of claims from Paisley about this, he has kept shifting his position.

First he basically claimed to be a 'mystic' because he believed in the mysticism.

Then when we pointed out this didn't really quite justify the claim to be a real mystic, he claimed that he contemplated and meditated, and since these are mystic practices, this justified his claim to be a mystic.

No, I have never shifted my position. I stated that I was a mystic and cited sources to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, simply expressed your uninformed opinion that I do not qualify as a mystic and then appeal to other forum members for validation of your opinion. Of course, the other forum members you appeal to are engaging in the same deplorable tactic as you are.

You made a claim that you are a mystic because you claim to sit quietly and think about stuff. All of us have done that at some point. Many of us have gotten enlightenment about what we were thinking about. Are we all mystics?

Or are you special because you sit and think about nothing and call it "God"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Paisley

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

No, I have never shifted my position. I stated that I was a mystic and cited sources to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, simply expressed your uninformed opinion that I do not qualify as a mystic and then appeal to other forum members for validation of your opinion. Of course, the other forum members you appeal to are engaging in the same deplorable tactic as you are.

You did NOT cite sources which addressed your claim to be a mystic. You are a liar.

Here is the definition of the term "mystic" that you yourself provided in this thread (I cannot cite the source because you did not provide it in your original post):

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'. However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

I am a mystic. Why? Because I am "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How does saying that qualify me as a liar? What exactly am I lying about? That I do not really practice contemplation? That I do not really believe that the practice of contemplation will lead to union with the divine? That I do not really believe in the "spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect?" What exactly do you believe that I am lying about here that does not qualify me as a mystic?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You made a

jcgadfly wrote:

You made a claim that you are a mystic because you claim to sit quietly and think about stuff. All of us have done that at some point. Many of us have gotten enlightenment about what we were thinking about. Are we all mystics?

Or are you special because you sit and think about nothing and call it "God"?

I never said I was special. I said I was a mystic. Also, I never said I "sit quietly and think about stuff." I said I have a daily contemplation/meditation practice.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

No, I have never shifted my position. I stated that I was a mystic and cited sources to back up my claim. You, on the other hand, simply expressed your uninformed opinion that I do not qualify as a mystic and then appeal to other forum members for validation of your opinion. Of course, the other forum members you appeal to are engaging in the same deplorable tactic as you are.

You did NOT cite sources which addressed your claim to be a mystic. You are a liar.

Here is the definition of the term "mystic" that you yourself provided in this thread (I cannot cite the source because you did not provide it in your original post):

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

I am a mystic. Why? Because I am "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How does saying that qualify me as a liar? What exactly am I lying about? That I do not really practice contemplation? That I do not really believe that the practice of contemplation will lead to union with the divine? That I do not really believe in the "spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect?" What exactly do you believe that I am lying about here that does not qualify me as a mystic?

 

You originally claimed that you were a mystic because (#48 ):

Quote:
"I consider myself to be a mystic because I hold the above stated belief."

and again in #57:

Quote:
"I consider myself a mystic because I believe that God can be experientially known. I cited a source that supports this definition of the term. Whether you agree with it or not is of little consequence to me."

Finally, after many had pointed out to you the inadequacy of this response, you extended your claim (#71 ):

Quote:
"I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism."

Then, when I and others pointed out this was still inadequate, you came up with this (#81 ):

Quote:
"I am initiated into a tradition but I am not about to share that with you or anyone else on this forum. Having said that, the practice of mysticism does not require that an individual practice in the confines of a formal tradition."

When asked why you would not be more specific, we got this (#91 ):

Quote:
"I am not embarrassed. But I do heed the advice of Jesus regarding this very issue.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6 (KJV)

"You and other members on this forum are not truly interested in my mystical practice. You simply want me to divulge information in order to gain some kind of tactical advantage that will enable you to go on the offensive - attacking the practice while flinging personal attacks at me. I am not so naive as to provide you with that luxury."

Which is simple evasion.

And now you claim you haven't shifted your position?? 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:And now you

BobSpence1 wrote:

And now you claim you haven't shifted your position?? 

I guess I will have to repeat myself because you are evading my last post.

Here is the definition of the term "mystic" that you yourself provided in this thread (I cannot cite the source because you did not provide it in your original post):

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'. However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

I am a mystic. Why? Because I am "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How does saying that qualify me as a liar? What exactly am I lying about? That I do not really practice contemplation? That I do not really believe that the practice of contemplation will lead to union with the divine? That I do not really believe in the "spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect?" What exactly do you believe that I am lying about here that does not qualify me as a mystic?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead