<<
<< I find it's much more fun to view reality as subjective to the individual. Reality is based on belief instead of the other way around. It's nice because it means nobody is ever wrong, their reality is just a little different from yours. This view applies very nicely to religion as there is no evidence for or against the existence of "god" to mess with your confidence. If you belive in god, s/he exists. If you don't then s/he doesn't. Pick the one which makes you happy, as the "truth" doesn't really matter. >>
The problem with subjectivism, is that by it's own rules, it can't claim to be superior to non-subjectivism. Reality is not subjective. Our perceptions of reality are subjective. But my non-observance, or incorrect interpretation of an event does not cause the event to be any different in reality.
The most basic rule of logic is the law of non-contradiction. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Subjectivism violates this basic law and dooms itself to a self contradictory death. >>
Excuse me? Who are you to say that reality is not subjective? It's related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We don't know if reality is subjective or objective...In a sense, a cat in a box would be a cat in a box no matter what in an objective reality, but in a subjective reality it's ANYTHING inside the box until you open it and it appears to be a cat. You didn't know it was a cat until you looked, therefore it was not necessarily a cat, in a way. Anyway, reality isn't objective but it isn't really completely subjective either. It's difficult to navigate and harder to explain. See my earlier post about trying to prove that someone else exists and isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't.
-Forsaken
<< Elledan is right in some respect, all "civilizations" (I cringe at that word since Elledan seems to place a valuation on it in defining goals for concrete actions) do have a religion of sorts. I assert that the reason they do that is because God is real. What do I mean by that? By that, I mean, that the experiences of the mystics are fundamentally a part of the universal human experience and placing metaphysical or physical valuations on it only takes away the direct experiences. >>
You're not making any sense here. Please elaborate.
<< This was a large part of Jesus' message. >>
There's no evidence that the Jesus as described in the bible ever existed.
<< He rebuked the Pharisees for being learned men and not letting the people experience divinity and the Kingdom of God (which is within you). He said that were are all gods (I don't want to look up passages here but they are there) but at the same time are fallen short of the glory of that ineffable which is a part of living.
You seem to find it hard to believe that the spiritual exists. >>
He simply sees that there's more than the ideology he grew up with tells him.
<< I seem to find it hard to believe that anything other than the spiritual exists. Why? Because God to me is Real. >>
Two words: blind faith.
Why do you think that your god exists? Why did so many other people before you believe that their god(s) was/were real? Blind faith.
<< I could cite a dozen or so philosophical arguments and all that jazz but that doesn't ultimately matter. What good is it for a man to gain the world (understand the wisdom of the ages) but to lose or harm his own soul? I am quoting with metaphysical implications but think about it. Does it make a difference if we call God 2+2=4 or a warm feeling around the heart if the universal experience is Real? If it is real, I think we should pursue it. Now it seems to me that this is what everyone tries to argue about. Fundamentally, we each experience an objective reality. Granted, this may be colored by culture or our own temperament but it is Real. What we should pursue then is the real. But our individual differences compel us to claim what we see as real as some sort of absolute solution to the existential dilemma. Sadly, this often leads to a "my book is better than yours" argument. Recognize this and benefit from it.
Take Elledan here who is logically compelled to choose a empirical solution. >>
That's incorrect. I value both observations and pure logic.
<< Should he choose differently? I won't get into that. But his own ego compels him to not accept inferior solutions. >>
You're familiar with Occam's Razor?
<< The problem here is that this can lead to an absolutist stand and we have a "my absolutism is better than yours" argument again. >>
In short, an ideology.
Is an ideology necessarily bad? No, it's not. Only intolerant ideologies (e.g., ideologies which are not based on observations and/or logic) are 'bad', because they reject anything which would disprove (parts of) the basis on which the ideology is based, usually a (collection of) myths.
Mithrandir2001: Elen s?la lumenn omentilmo! Thank you very much, I appreciate the support.
Dismal: I had never before heard of "Pascal's Wager," yet I had come to the very same conclusion myself; however as others have pointed out, which God do you choose? What is the "right" religion? Or IS there a "right" religion? Some theories claim that every God exists, and that/those God(s) life-force is equivalent to its/their number of followers. When a religion dies, the god(s) belonging to that religion die with it. Etc., etc. Interesting theory; highly implausible, imho. I believe that if God does exist, one need not necessarily believe in Him to gain entrance to Heaven. You can lead a "Christian" (I prefer to say moral and honest) life without believing in God. Since the Bible does contain a lot of common-sense morals, it behooves one to follow a similar code, and by doing so they are living in a manner consistent with the Bible's teachings. It is my belief that, should God exist and we all be judged upon death, such a life would be worthy of Heaven regardless of whether you believed in God during life or not.
Secondly, I think many people also cling to the fear of death; we are mortal beings, not long for this world, and it is in our nature to fear the unknown. Death is THE unknown - NO one knows for certain what happens when you die. I find that the most likely outcome, as depressing and hard to imagine as it may be, is that we simply cease to exist. Nerve impulses cease to fire and our consciousness, if the brain can be said to be more than the sum of its parts, fades. It's incredibly scary and when I think about it I can easily see why so many yearn for the possibility of an "afterlife." But until I see some kind of scientific evidence of a "soul" or SOMEthing leaving the body at death, a person who dies is to me nothing more than a soon-to-decay heap of molecules. Well, that was a little emotionally detached; obviously if it is someone I know it would affect me emotionally, but in the physical sense that is all there is.
Consider this, for a moment (and try not to get depressed): The universe has been around for BILLIONS of years. A *long* human life-span is about 100. That's less than .000001% of the time the universe has existed. And it can be expected to last for at least that much longer. And that's just time; we live on ONE planet which we haven't even finished completely exploring yet, the third from a sun in a single solar system in an outer spiral arm of a single galaxy which is over 100, 000 light-years side to side (Monty Python's Galaxy Song, anyone?). There are BILLIONS of other planets in this solar system alone, and we have no idea how many other galaxies even exist - billions? trillions? infinity? And if we're part of the planet and the planet is part of the solar system and the solar system is part of the galaxy, what is the galaxy part of? And how many of THOSE are there? How many steps until you get to "universe?" Is the universe really Infinite? How is that possible? And if it's not, then it must have an end; but if there is an end there must be something beyond the end, so what's that? Getting the idea? All of us are completely and utterly meaningless. Religion tries to give meaning to our lives. Which is good, since if we didn't think we meant something nothing would ever get done and we'd all be either dead or roaming the prairies strangling zebras. While I accept the above views as true, I also for the sake of accomplishing things and making my short time here on earth pleasurable, refute them. I strive to become something, someone; bigger, faster, better; the natural process. Religion simply tries to provide this drive to those who do not possess it of their own as one of its many functions. I don't recall who said it, but some famous comedian once suggested that all those people who believe in such a wonderful afterlife should just commit suicide to get there faster and rid us of their presence. Sounds a lot like George Carlin. Well, you might think that all those above views would make people depressed and suicidal, but think about it: if you really believe that when you die you turn to nothing, why commit suicide? What a terrible waste.
Uh-oh, this is turning into another long thread. Well, another benefit of religion is that it is stress-relieving; you can go to Confessional, speak to someone who will listen to you about anything, and then given prayers to say that make you feel like you are earning forgiveness while at the same time reinforcing your moral behavior. It's a great system.
As my final comment for the day here (I have to go to work in about 1/2 an hour) I'd just like to reinforce that you cannot know good without evil; you would have nothing to compare it to. Relativism is not necessarily absolutely logically sound in every respect, but it's a damn good way to look at things.
-Forsaken
Dismal: I had never before heard of "Pascal's Wager," yet I had come to the very same conclusion myself; however as others have pointed out, which God do you choose? What is the "right" religion? Or IS there a "right" religion? Some theories claim that every God exists, and that/those God(s) life-force is equivalent to its/their number of followers. When a religion dies, the god(s) belonging to that religion die with it. Etc., etc. Interesting theory; highly implausible, imho. I believe that if God does exist, one need not necessarily believe in Him to gain entrance to Heaven. You can lead a "Christian" (I prefer to say moral and honest) life without believing in God. Since the Bible does contain a lot of common-sense morals, it behooves one to follow a similar code, and by doing so they are living in a manner consistent with the Bible's teachings. It is my belief that, should God exist and we all be judged upon death, such a life would be worthy of Heaven regardless of whether you believed in God during life or not.
Secondly, I think many people also cling to the fear of death; we are mortal beings, not long for this world, and it is in our nature to fear the unknown. Death is THE unknown - NO one knows for certain what happens when you die. I find that the most likely outcome, as depressing and hard to imagine as it may be, is that we simply cease to exist. Nerve impulses cease to fire and our consciousness, if the brain can be said to be more than the sum of its parts, fades. It's incredibly scary and when I think about it I can easily see why so many yearn for the possibility of an "afterlife." But until I see some kind of scientific evidence of a "soul" or SOMEthing leaving the body at death, a person who dies is to me nothing more than a soon-to-decay heap of molecules. Well, that was a little emotionally detached; obviously if it is someone I know it would affect me emotionally, but in the physical sense that is all there is.
Consider this, for a moment (and try not to get depressed): The universe has been around for BILLIONS of years. A *long* human life-span is about 100. That's less than .000001% of the time the universe has existed. And it can be expected to last for at least that much longer. And that's just time; we live on ONE planet which we haven't even finished completely exploring yet, the third from a sun in a single solar system in an outer spiral arm of a single galaxy which is over 100, 000 light-years side to side (Monty Python's Galaxy Song, anyone?). There are BILLIONS of other planets in this solar system alone, and we have no idea how many other galaxies even exist - billions? trillions? infinity? And if we're part of the planet and the planet is part of the solar system and the solar system is part of the galaxy, what is the galaxy part of? And how many of THOSE are there? How many steps until you get to "universe?" Is the universe really Infinite? How is that possible? And if it's not, then it must have an end; but if there is an end there must be something beyond the end, so what's that? Getting the idea? All of us are completely and utterly meaningless. Religion tries to give meaning to our lives. Which is good, since if we didn't think we meant something nothing would ever get done and we'd all be either dead or roaming the prairies strangling zebras. While I accept the above views as true, I also for the sake of accomplishing things and making my short time here on earth pleasurable, refute them. I strive to become something, someone; bigger, faster, better; the natural process. Religion simply tries to provide this drive to those who do not possess it of their own as one of its many functions. I don't recall who said it, but some famous comedian once suggested that all those people who believe in such a wonderful afterlife should just commit suicide to get there faster and rid us of their presence. Sounds a lot like George Carlin. Well, you might think that all those above views would make people depressed and suicidal, but think about it: if you really believe that when you die you turn to nothing, why commit suicide? What a terrible waste.
Uh-oh, this is turning into another long thread. Well, another benefit of religion is that it is stress-relieving; you can go to Confessional, speak to someone who will listen to you about anything, and then given prayers to say that make you feel like you are earning forgiveness while at the same time reinforcing your moral behavior. It's a great system.
As my final comment for the day here (I have to go to work in about 1/2 an hour) I'd just like to reinforce that you cannot know good without evil; you would have nothing to compare it to. Relativism is not necessarily absolutely logically sound in every respect, but it's a damn good way to look at things.
-Forsaken
BD231
Lifer
- Feb 26, 2001
- 10,568
- 138
- 106
All you need to do is bilieve, how you go about finding out he's actualy there is sometimes harder than most are willing to deal with. The best way to find God is when your in a bad place, when you need help the most. Call on him in a time of need and he almost always reveals himself. Faith is a virtue, and like all other virtues, you have to either work for it, or attain it through wisdom of past mistakes. You can only fear hell when you know absolutely nothing about God, if you did know anything about him and perhaps took the time to "read up" on the bible, you wouldent have posted this thread, nor would you fear hell in the least.
<< You can only fear hell when you know absolutely nothing about God,(..) >>
Which god? Which 'hell'?
What is a 'hell'? What is a 'heaven'?
Does anything supernatural exist? Can one prove it?
Dismal: thank you.
In reference to your quote, I would like to suggest that you read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. I won't give the entire text here since it is better by far to read the genuine article, but the gist is that you start off in a small cave which is all you know, therefore it must be all there is to know. But as you learn things you gain access to larger and more expansive caves than you could have ever imagined, which then become your world and you can never go back to the relative safety of your old world. Basically when you apply this to religion, religion is an excellent system in many regards, but once you recognise it for what is is and what it does, it is extremely hard for most to go back to the faith. I'd post more but I need to leave for work. Looking forward to reading more tonight.
-Forsaken
In reference to your quote, I would like to suggest that you read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. I won't give the entire text here since it is better by far to read the genuine article, but the gist is that you start off in a small cave which is all you know, therefore it must be all there is to know. But as you learn things you gain access to larger and more expansive caves than you could have ever imagined, which then become your world and you can never go back to the relative safety of your old world. Basically when you apply this to religion, religion is an excellent system in many regards, but once you recognise it for what is is and what it does, it is extremely hard for most to go back to the faith. I'd post more but I need to leave for work. Looking forward to reading more tonight.
-Forsaken
oy vey.
my good and passionate friend, how I would love you to see what I see.
<< Elledan is right in some respect, all "civilizations" (I cringe at that word since Elledan seems to place a valuation on it in defining goals for concrete actions) do have a religion of sorts. I assert that the reason they do that is because God is real. What do I mean by that? By that, I mean, that the experiences of the mystics are fundamentally a part of the universal human experience and placing metaphysical or physical valuations on it only takes away the direct experiences. >>
You're not making any sense here. Please elaborate.
In assuming that a civilization is somehow at a different state fundamentally that non-civilization, you claim that there are certain solutions used by "primitive" civilizations that are no longer applicable in everyday living. I claim that the human brain cannot rid itself of all the old baggage aquired through years of evolution and before going to "the next level", we should figure out what it is we are, without being Luddites.
I don't see what you don't understand. Your comment is akin to a student asking me to look at a 40-page paper and saying, what's this all about? Can you give me more specifics to explain my views? I guess my claim is that thoughts are fragmentary. Logic requires words. Words are inadequate, albeit useful. While it has it's place, the problem we eventually get to way way down the line is circularity. My proposal is a transcendance of that through analyzing the experiences of gurus both in terms of everyday life (for all people) and for the empirically inclined, in terms of their models.
<< This was a large part of Jesus' message. >>
There's no evidence that the Jesus as described in the bible ever existed.
Please don't use red herring. I never made any claims of historicity. My emphasis was on the insight. If you perceive all claims of characterizations in a book to be historic, then perhaps you still bear a grudge against your "necessary but outdated ideology" which you claim you have made amends with.
<< He rebuked the Pharisees for being learned men and not letting the people experience divinity and the Kingdom of God (which is within you). He said that were are all gods (I don't want to look up passages here but they are there) but at the same time are fallen short of the glory of that ineffable which is a part of living.
You seem to find it hard to believe that the spiritual exists. >>
He simply sees that there's more than the ideology he grew up with tells him.
Eh... Not ideology as you use it. The claim was one of a larger ideology but it was also a claim of transcendent human experience, without the excessive elitism. If that's an ideology, then be it, but I don't see how you can claim categorization to ineffability.
<< I seem to find it hard to believe that anything other than the spiritual exists. Why? Because God to me is Real. >>
Two words: blind faith.
Why do you think that your god exists? Why did so many other people before you believe that their god(s) was/were real? Blind faith.
Don't use dialectic please. I never said "my god exists". I never said I believe. All I ever said here is that God is Real. Also, I want to make the comment that without self, how can anything be mine? Why did people before me "believe"? It's a necessary coping function. Much like reason. Also, don't assume I define "spiritual" in any way you know of. We come to different levels of being, at which normal rules alter.
<< I could cite a dozen or so philosophical arguments and all that jazz but that doesn't ultimately matter. What good is it for a man to gain the world (understand the wisdom of the ages) but to lose or harm his own soul? I am quoting with metaphysical implications but think about it. Does it make a difference if we call God 2+2=4 or a warm feeling around the heart if the universal experience is Real? If it is real, I think we should pursue it. Now it seems to me that this is what everyone tries to argue about. Fundamentally, we each experience an objective reality. Granted, this may be colored by culture or our own temperament but it is Real. What we should pursue then is the real. But our individual differences compel us to claim what we see as real as some sort of absolute solution to the existential dilemma. Sadly, this often leads to a "my book is better than yours" argument. Recognize this and benefit from it.
Take Elledan here who is logically compelled to choose a empirical solution. >>
That's incorrect. I value both observations and pure logic.
I don't quite see the contradiction. All I said is that your temperament is such that you have an especially intense intellect. Thus, you are compelled to choose the empirical solution over blind faith. In other words, there is no metaphysically compelling reason to choose faith over logic. You have stated this yourself numerous times. have I misinterpreted. You seem to misunderstand me in thinking my claims are exclusive, like you try to make yours. I don't see the necessity of exacting language since that is not an objective state of being due to altering brain patters.
<< Should he choose differently? I won't get into that. But his own ego compels him to not accept inferior solutions. >>
You're familiar with Occam's Razor?
That's exactly my point. I don't see wuite what you're getting at. My claim is that you won't accept an "inferior" solution to a "superior" one. Am I really that far off?
<< The problem here is that this can lead to an absolutist stand and we have a "my absolutism is better than yours" argument again. >>
In short, an ideology.
Not quite. Absolutism does not presuppose ideological foundations. It certainly is sufficient but not necessary. Without a necessary-and-sufficient proposition, one cannot begin to claim true understanding without recognizing the logical limits.
Is an ideology necessarily bad? No, it's not. Only intolerant ideologies (e.g., ideologies which are not based on observations and/or logic) are 'bad', because they reject anything which would disprove (parts of) the basis on which the ideology is based, usually a (collection of) myths.
Ok, I see what you mean here. I agree with that although I still don't like valuation.
moving on.
Excuse me? Who are you to say that reality is not subjective? It's related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We don't know if reality is subjective or objective...In a sense, a cat in a box would be a cat in a box no matter what in an objective reality, but in a subjective reality it's ANYTHING inside the box until you open it and it appears to be a cat. You didn't know it was a cat until you looked, therefore it was not necessarily a cat, in a way. Anyway, reality isn't objective but it isn't really completely subjective either. It's difficult to navigate and harder to explain. See my earlier post about trying to prove that someone else exists and isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't.
Which is the point I made, albeit with some more technical jargon. After which I tried to get into something which does not lead us down that path.
[edit]
so allow me to make this temporary argument, since it is how I think things are.
1) God-features are grounded by non-God features
2) Non-God features do not imply God-features
[/edit]
In reference to your quote, I would like to suggest that you read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. I won't give the entire text here since it is better by far to read the genuine article, but the gist is that you start off in a small cave which is all you know, therefore it must be all there is to know. But as you learn things you gain access to larger and more expansive caves than you could have ever imagined, which then become your world and you can never go back to the relative safety of your old world. Basically when you apply this to religion, religion is an excellent system in many regards, but once you recognise it for what is is and what it does, it is extremely hard for most to go back to the faith. I'd post more but I need to leave for work. Looking forward to reading more tonight.
You have an interesting mind. Plato's ideas here are particularly helpful in one's development, especially with your succint summary. My emphasis in all of this (as stated in the previous thread) is to not allow psychic states to manipulate one further. I also emphasized the importance of the truth and validity of psychic states to one's overall well being and the necessity of at least remaining mindful of this fact.
Cheers !
[edit]
Dismal, do you need some more support? How does this current discourse aid you in your perception of Divinity? How are you affected emotionally and cognitively? My main interest at this point are those important psychic states, since that is what I care about most when dealing with people.
[/edit]
my good and passionate friend, how I would love you to see what I see.
<< Elledan is right in some respect, all "civilizations" (I cringe at that word since Elledan seems to place a valuation on it in defining goals for concrete actions) do have a religion of sorts. I assert that the reason they do that is because God is real. What do I mean by that? By that, I mean, that the experiences of the mystics are fundamentally a part of the universal human experience and placing metaphysical or physical valuations on it only takes away the direct experiences. >>
You're not making any sense here. Please elaborate.
In assuming that a civilization is somehow at a different state fundamentally that non-civilization, you claim that there are certain solutions used by "primitive" civilizations that are no longer applicable in everyday living. I claim that the human brain cannot rid itself of all the old baggage aquired through years of evolution and before going to "the next level", we should figure out what it is we are, without being Luddites.
I don't see what you don't understand. Your comment is akin to a student asking me to look at a 40-page paper and saying, what's this all about? Can you give me more specifics to explain my views? I guess my claim is that thoughts are fragmentary. Logic requires words. Words are inadequate, albeit useful. While it has it's place, the problem we eventually get to way way down the line is circularity. My proposal is a transcendance of that through analyzing the experiences of gurus both in terms of everyday life (for all people) and for the empirically inclined, in terms of their models.
<< This was a large part of Jesus' message. >>
There's no evidence that the Jesus as described in the bible ever existed.
Please don't use red herring. I never made any claims of historicity. My emphasis was on the insight. If you perceive all claims of characterizations in a book to be historic, then perhaps you still bear a grudge against your "necessary but outdated ideology" which you claim you have made amends with.
<< He rebuked the Pharisees for being learned men and not letting the people experience divinity and the Kingdom of God (which is within you). He said that were are all gods (I don't want to look up passages here but they are there) but at the same time are fallen short of the glory of that ineffable which is a part of living.
You seem to find it hard to believe that the spiritual exists. >>
He simply sees that there's more than the ideology he grew up with tells him.
Eh... Not ideology as you use it. The claim was one of a larger ideology but it was also a claim of transcendent human experience, without the excessive elitism. If that's an ideology, then be it, but I don't see how you can claim categorization to ineffability.
<< I seem to find it hard to believe that anything other than the spiritual exists. Why? Because God to me is Real. >>
Two words: blind faith.
Why do you think that your god exists? Why did so many other people before you believe that their god(s) was/were real? Blind faith.
Don't use dialectic please. I never said "my god exists". I never said I believe. All I ever said here is that God is Real. Also, I want to make the comment that without self, how can anything be mine? Why did people before me "believe"? It's a necessary coping function. Much like reason. Also, don't assume I define "spiritual" in any way you know of. We come to different levels of being, at which normal rules alter.
<< I could cite a dozen or so philosophical arguments and all that jazz but that doesn't ultimately matter. What good is it for a man to gain the world (understand the wisdom of the ages) but to lose or harm his own soul? I am quoting with metaphysical implications but think about it. Does it make a difference if we call God 2+2=4 or a warm feeling around the heart if the universal experience is Real? If it is real, I think we should pursue it. Now it seems to me that this is what everyone tries to argue about. Fundamentally, we each experience an objective reality. Granted, this may be colored by culture or our own temperament but it is Real. What we should pursue then is the real. But our individual differences compel us to claim what we see as real as some sort of absolute solution to the existential dilemma. Sadly, this often leads to a "my book is better than yours" argument. Recognize this and benefit from it.
Take Elledan here who is logically compelled to choose a empirical solution. >>
That's incorrect. I value both observations and pure logic.
I don't quite see the contradiction. All I said is that your temperament is such that you have an especially intense intellect. Thus, you are compelled to choose the empirical solution over blind faith. In other words, there is no metaphysically compelling reason to choose faith over logic. You have stated this yourself numerous times. have I misinterpreted. You seem to misunderstand me in thinking my claims are exclusive, like you try to make yours. I don't see the necessity of exacting language since that is not an objective state of being due to altering brain patters.
<< Should he choose differently? I won't get into that. But his own ego compels him to not accept inferior solutions. >>
You're familiar with Occam's Razor?
That's exactly my point. I don't see wuite what you're getting at. My claim is that you won't accept an "inferior" solution to a "superior" one. Am I really that far off?
<< The problem here is that this can lead to an absolutist stand and we have a "my absolutism is better than yours" argument again. >>
In short, an ideology.
Not quite. Absolutism does not presuppose ideological foundations. It certainly is sufficient but not necessary. Without a necessary-and-sufficient proposition, one cannot begin to claim true understanding without recognizing the logical limits.
Is an ideology necessarily bad? No, it's not. Only intolerant ideologies (e.g., ideologies which are not based on observations and/or logic) are 'bad', because they reject anything which would disprove (parts of) the basis on which the ideology is based, usually a (collection of) myths.
Ok, I see what you mean here. I agree with that although I still don't like valuation.
moving on.
Excuse me? Who are you to say that reality is not subjective? It's related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. We don't know if reality is subjective or objective...In a sense, a cat in a box would be a cat in a box no matter what in an objective reality, but in a subjective reality it's ANYTHING inside the box until you open it and it appears to be a cat. You didn't know it was a cat until you looked, therefore it was not necessarily a cat, in a way. Anyway, reality isn't objective but it isn't really completely subjective either. It's difficult to navigate and harder to explain. See my earlier post about trying to prove that someone else exists and isn't a figment of your imagination. You can't.
Which is the point I made, albeit with some more technical jargon. After which I tried to get into something which does not lead us down that path.
[edit]
so allow me to make this temporary argument, since it is how I think things are.
1) God-features are grounded by non-God features
2) Non-God features do not imply God-features
[/edit]
In reference to your quote, I would like to suggest that you read the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. I won't give the entire text here since it is better by far to read the genuine article, but the gist is that you start off in a small cave which is all you know, therefore it must be all there is to know. But as you learn things you gain access to larger and more expansive caves than you could have ever imagined, which then become your world and you can never go back to the relative safety of your old world. Basically when you apply this to religion, religion is an excellent system in many regards, but once you recognise it for what is is and what it does, it is extremely hard for most to go back to the faith. I'd post more but I need to leave for work. Looking forward to reading more tonight.
You have an interesting mind. Plato's ideas here are particularly helpful in one's development, especially with your succint summary. My emphasis in all of this (as stated in the previous thread) is to not allow psychic states to manipulate one further. I also emphasized the importance of the truth and validity of psychic states to one's overall well being and the necessity of at least remaining mindful of this fact.
Cheers !
[edit]
Dismal, do you need some more support? How does this current discourse aid you in your perception of Divinity? How are you affected emotionally and cognitively? My main interest at this point are those important psychic states, since that is what I care about most when dealing with people.
[/edit]
Yea, I would have to say it is I believe because of fear, maybe because I don't know either. There are some aspects of christianity that I just can't believe, like creationism... (no need to get into it in this thread). I would say that I believe because I don't know, I mean, it is the best explanation for what happens after a person dies, personally I just can't accept that someone dies and that is the end, nothing more.
stev0 <- very confused about religion.
stev0 <- very confused about religion.
dcdomain
Diamond Member
- Jan 30, 2000
- 5,158
- 0
- 71
If the only reason you have for believing in God is that of fear, I suggest you find another reason for believing. Otherwise, your hate of religion will do nothing but grow due to your fear. Instead of being afraid of religion, why don't you look deeper into it, find the bad, but also find the good. It's easy to start not believing when you dont put effort into staying strong. As for the person who asked "what is hell anyway? does it even exist?".... "Hell" exists, and the evidence to back it up is simply that you are discussing it. If there was no "Hell", how would you know what that word was and be capable of using it in the questions you posed to this forum. You obviously have some concept of the characteristics of such a place which one may call "Hell". So why don't you tell us what "Hell" is, I'd really like to know.
(I didn't write this, my buddy saw the post and asked to reply =D)
(I didn't write this, my buddy saw the post and asked to reply =D)
You've reached the core of religious belief, which is fear of insignificance. Instead of running from it and being miserable all your life going through the usual ups and downs like everyone else, try turning around and giving it a big hug. Why does there have to be a meaning to life, why does it have to last forever? Always take a step back and ask yourself why do you think the way you do, examine the mental conditioning you've been through.
Appreciate what you have, that you are even here to be able ponder such things, and I think you will find happiness and contentment. God is everything, he is the nature that we will never understand. He transcends religious branches and ideologies that are able to claim absolutely that they are the ones that know the real god. We are micro-organisms on a rock floating through infinity, but why does that have to be a bad thing?
Just my ramblings perhaps, but you can find god if you, rather than knowing where to look for him, know how to not look for him. Check out some buddhist philosophy, you might find it enlightening.
Appreciate what you have, that you are even here to be able ponder such things, and I think you will find happiness and contentment. God is everything, he is the nature that we will never understand. He transcends religious branches and ideologies that are able to claim absolutely that they are the ones that know the real god. We are micro-organisms on a rock floating through infinity, but why does that have to be a bad thing?
Just my ramblings perhaps, but you can find god if you, rather than knowing where to look for him, know how to not look for him. Check out some buddhist philosophy, you might find it enlightening.
<< oy vey.
my good and passionate friend, how I would love you to see what I see. >>
The feeling is mutual.
<< << Elledan is right in some respect, all "civilizations" (I cringe at that word since Elledan seems to place a valuation on it in defining goals for concrete actions) do have a religion of sorts. I assert that the reason they do that is because God is real. What do I mean by that? By that, I mean, that the experiences of the mystics are fundamentally a part of the universal human experience and placing metaphysical or physical valuations on it only takes away the direct experiences. >>
You're not making any sense here. Please elaborate.
In assuming that a civilization is somehow at a different state fundamentally that non-civilization, you claim that there are certain solutions used by "primitive" civilizations that are no longer applicable in everyday living. I claim that the human brain cannot rid itself of all the old baggage aquired through years of evolution and before going to "the next level", we should figure out what it is we are, without being Luddites.
I don't see what you don't understand. Your comment is akin to a student asking me to look at a 40-page paper and saying, what's this all about? Can you give me more specifics to explain my views? I guess my claim is that thoughts are fragmentary. Logic requires words. Words are inadequate, albeit useful. While it has it's place, the problem we eventually get to way way down the line is circularity. My proposal is a transcendance of that through analyzing the experiences of gurus both in terms of everyday life (for all people) and for the empirically inclined, in terms of their models. >>
You're still making no sense at all.
<<
<< This was a large part of Jesus' message. >>
There's no evidence that the Jesus as described in the bible ever existed.
Please don't use red herring. I never made any claims of historicity. My emphasis was on the insight. If you perceive all claims of characterizations in a book to be historic, then perhaps you still bear a grudge against your "necessary but outdated ideology" which you claim you have made amends with. >>
You're familiar with Sidharta's teachings? Fascinating stuff.
<<
<< He rebuked the Pharisees for being learned men and not letting the people experience divinity and the Kingdom of God (which is within you). He said that were are all gods (I don't want to look up passages here but they are there) but at the same time are fallen short of the glory of that ineffable which is a part of living.
You seem to find it hard to believe that the spiritual exists. >>
He simply sees that there's more than the ideology he grew up with tells him.
Eh... Not ideology as you use it. The claim was one of a larger ideology but it was also a claim of transcendent human experience, without the excessive elitism. If that's an ideology, then be it, but I don't see how you can claim categorization to ineffability. >>
You lost me here.
<<
<< I seem to find it hard to believe that anything other than the spiritual exists. Why? Because God to me is Real. >>
Two words: blind faith.
Why do you think that your god exists? Why did so many other people before you believe that their god(s) was/were real? Blind faith.
Don't use dialectic please. I never said "my god exists". I never said I believe. All I ever said here is that God is Real. >>
Which god? Can you prove its existance? Or is it like a voice in your head, a feeling, a hand which touches you in your sleep? What?
<< Also, I want to make the comment that without self, how can anything be mine? Why did people before me "believe"? It's a necessary coping function. Much like reason. Also, don't assume I define "spiritual" in any way you know of. We come to different levels of being, at which normal rules alter. >>
Your 'theory' makes no sense at all.
<<
<< I could cite a dozen or so philosophical arguments and all that jazz but that doesn't ultimately matter. What good is it for a man to gain the world (understand the wisdom of the ages) but to lose or harm his own soul? I am quoting with metaphysical implications but think about it. Does it make a difference if we call God 2+2=4 or a warm feeling around the heart if the universal experience is Real? If it is real, I think we should pursue it. Now it seems to me that this is what everyone tries to argue about. Fundamentally, we each experience an objective reality. Granted, this may be colored by culture or our own temperament but it is Real. What we should pursue then is the real. But our individual differences compel us to claim what we see as real as some sort of absolute solution to the existential dilemma. Sadly, this often leads to a "my book is better than yours" argument. Recognize this and benefit from it.
Take Elledan here who is logically compelled to choose a empirical solution. >>
That's incorrect. I value both observations and pure logic.
I don't quite see the contradiction. >>
Empirical means only based on observations, not on pure logic.
<< All I said is that your temperament is such that you have an especially intense intellect. Thus, you are compelled to choose the empirical solution over blind faith. >>
I choose the most logical conclusion.
<< In other words, there is no metaphysically compelling reason to choose faith over logic. >>
Metaphysically compelling reason? Wha?
<< You have stated this yourself numerous times. have I misinterpreted. You seem to misunderstand me in thinking my claims are exclusive, like you try to make yours. I don't see the necessity of exacting language since that is not an objective state of being due to altering brain patters. >>
I think we're out of sync again
<<
<< Should he choose differently? I won't get into that. But his own ego compels him to not accept inferior solutions. >>
You're familiar with Occam's Razor?
That's exactly my point. I don't see wuite what you're getting at. My claim is that you won't accept an "inferior" solution to a "superior" one. Am I really that far off? >>
Not at all. Because of my 'intense intellect', I'm able to choose what is the most likely answer to a question.
<<
<< The problem here is that this can lead to an absolutist stand and we have a "my absolutism is better than yours" argument again. >>
In short, an ideology.
Not quite. Absolutism does not presuppose ideological foundations. It certainly is sufficient but not necessary. Without a necessary-and-sufficient proposition, one cannot begin to claim true understanding without recognizing the logical limits. >>
If there's something wrong with what I have perceived till that time as the truth, I'll reject that what is false.
<<
Is an ideology necessarily bad? No, it's not. Only intolerant ideologies (e.g., ideologies which are not based on observations and/or logic) are 'bad', because they reject anything which would disprove (parts of) the basis on which the ideology is based, usually a (collection of) myths.
Ok, I see what you mean here. I agree with that although I still don't like valuation. >>
You don't have to like it. Just think about it.
Elledan, I've heard that logic is useless when talking about God, because God transcends all human reasoning -- we are not capable of understanding god. But I'm not sure if its a good reason, or just a cop-out.
<< Elledan, I've heard that logic is useless when talking about God, because God transcends all human reasoning -- we are not capable of understanding god. But I'm not sure if its a good reason, or just a cop-out. >>
You've heard this?
I see it as an easy way out of a debate. How does one define 'transcending Human reasoning'? I transcend the reasoning of the majority of all Humans, does that make me a god? Nay, it's not a good argument.
Hi Dismal, This was your question:
after all these years of defending religion and what not, i'm starting to change. i've already thrown out organized religion out as a bunch of crap, although I still believe in God, but i think I only believe because of fear. I suppose that's how it's always been (belief of fear).
do you believe out of fear or what?
I am thinking about your question. I'm thinking about when it used to be my question. I could never stop questioning. I questioned and I questioned and one day I asked why do I question. I experienced a most amazing answer. God was handing me the questions from behind a wall. I realized it suddenly when I became the question.
Why do you question? Out of what do your questions arise?
I have this picture:
A fish swims happily in the sea until a tempest driven wave lands him on the shore. There, gasping for his life he discovers he is a lung fish, at home in two worlds. The questions of air and water only seemed that way. They were always really about oxigen. What is here called oxigen is elsewhere called love.
after all these years of defending religion and what not, i'm starting to change. i've already thrown out organized religion out as a bunch of crap, although I still believe in God, but i think I only believe because of fear. I suppose that's how it's always been (belief of fear).
do you believe out of fear or what?
I am thinking about your question. I'm thinking about when it used to be my question. I could never stop questioning. I questioned and I questioned and one day I asked why do I question. I experienced a most amazing answer. God was handing me the questions from behind a wall. I realized it suddenly when I became the question.
Why do you question? Out of what do your questions arise?
I have this picture:
A fish swims happily in the sea until a tempest driven wave lands him on the shore. There, gasping for his life he discovers he is a lung fish, at home in two worlds. The questions of air and water only seemed that way. They were always really about oxigen. What is here called oxigen is elsewhere called love.
personally Im a catholic but i think it doesnt matter who or what you believe in its the actions you do while you are alive that determine your afterlife or I could be wrong and we are all going to hell but for some reason I dought that.
The Bible is fraught with mistakes and contradictions. If this is the word of God, then God is pretty ignorant and stupid, which contradicts his own word.
That is why I am an atheist.
That is why I am an atheist.
I know what you mean, Silveronsilver. I inherited a Guttenberg, but I through it away because of a typo.
<< I know what you mean, Silveronsilver. I inherited a Guttenberg, but I through it away because of a typo. >>
Talking about typos
However, Silveronsilver is correct. There are many contradictions between the Old and New Testament. Ever wondered why there are at least as many interpretations of the bible as the bible has pages?
By the way, no language can be objective, therefore no text can ever contain an objective view.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter