Atheists and Theists are both mistaken.
Offline First, we have to accept the fact that it is impossible for the human mind to comprehend Reality. That gives you a test that you can use: If you think you understand Reality, you have made a mistake. Christians think they understand Reality. They are wrong. Atheists believe they understand Reality, and they too have made a mistake.
It is, however, possible to understand what Reality is not. This requires that you be willing to drop your pre-conceived beliefs, stop thinking, and simply watch.
There is a process of Spiritual Evolution that is taking place. We are all involved in it whether we want to be or not; whether we know it or not. The process takes many directions, and moves at many different speeds. All of us will reach enlightenment. Some will take hundreds of thousands of years; some will simply accept it now.
The reason we can be assured that we will all achieve enlightenment is because it has already happened. The concept of time being linear is an illusion. That is one of our biggest mistakes. You have enlightenment now – you just don’t know it. It is nearly impossible for a human to think outside of linear time. In these few sentences, I seem to have contradicted myself regarding time, but that is because we cannot understand that there is no such thing as time.
There is also no such thing as physical reality. (Any quantum physicists out there?) The acceptance of the absence of time and physical reality is a very big step. But once you have taken that step, it all begins to fall into place. What does “no time” and “no physical reality” mean? It means no place called heaven. No hell. No universe. No “you”. Of course, there is a “You”, but “you” don’t know what that is.
The fact is the only Reality is perfection. Here is another test we can use. If it is not perfect, it is not real. Are you perfect? Am I? No. Therefore, we are not real – we (meaning we humans) don’t really exist. The universe does not exist, and God did not create it.
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the Peace of God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Krehlic wrote:I thought scientologists believed something about alien spirits living inside us that died in a volcano... or something like that. I've never really researched it though.I would suggest a brief study of it then. 30 minutes of browsing through a few articles should be enough to get the basic idea. I find scientology to be simultaneously the most dangerous religion in the world and the most conductive religion to the atheist point of view. After all, it proves conclusively how a religion can be created and widely accepted in a very short period of time. But many of it's practices are medically and psychologically disgusting. And ironically the church of scientology no longer follows all of Hubbards original precepts. The very guy who created it lost all control of it on his death bed.
Have you seen the original papers Hubbard wrote? Dude was slammin' H, and it shows. He does things like; numbering the pages twice. Capitalizing words for no reason. It honestly doesn't even make sense to try and read what Hubbard originally wrote. It's like Keanu Reeves on "Celebrity Jeapordy" saying "Eleventy-Billion." Sure, it's english...but it's not anything that makes sense. If you want to leave the Sea corps., you have to go through a Route-Out process(which has been described as an attempt to brainwash you into staying, from those who've made it out). It sounds horrifying, and it honestly doesn't make one bit of sense.
As to the OP; What you're suggesting is no more or less irrational than the belief that a supreme intelligent being deliberately created the universe and us(perhaps, for us). That is to say, you can't(by definition) provide any evidence that what you're saying is true; evidence doesn't even apply, since this is an illusion anyways.
Read Deepak Chopra's writings if you want to know more about what the OP is talking about. From what I've read, sounds pretty similar.
- Login to post comments
Offline From a theist point of view, the sun comes out due to God's will and because he said so. A theist is prone to believe this because he/she has put their faith {confidence and trust} into religion.
There is no evidence of any god. This is why religious faith is noncontingent faith.
We know there is a sun; we know the earth rotates; we know there is photons; we know we can see things if light reflects off of them; we know we have eyes; we know we have a brain that processes information. There is evidence for these things. They are all contingent on evidence. Even if you have faith that you will win the lottery, lotteries in fact actually exist. However, if you have faith that you are going to heaven, this faith is noncontingent because there is no evidence of heaven existing. Religious faith is not based on empirical knowledge
"What you said was that religious faith and faith in science are the same thing." Please, I never said that. Quit putting words in my mouth and quit seeing something that was never there to begin with.
Why would you ask this if you do not think they are the same?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline I really do not know how I could possibly make this any clearer. But, I will try one last time, otherwise, I feel we'll have to move this to another topic or through PM's as it is totally derailing the thread.
You did it again. More smoke and mirrors. Look at the two examples I used and look at them at face value. I even supplied the definition in parentheses. If you do not believe my definition is correct then feel free to consult a dictionary. You took what I said and interjected something that was never there to begin with. You are doing this to try and justify something that isn't there to begin with. Drop the adjectives contingent and noncontigent. I never used them. Do you see that merely by adding those two adjectives you have totally misconstrued what was originally said and misleading the audience?
The way the question is phrased, the actions are indeed both identical. You are ignoring the word 'put'. Put is the operative word not faith. Faith is the object of the operative word put. When you put the adjective (descriptors) you totally change the original meaning. I mean would it help if I just used the words confidence and trust instead of faith? Either way, both parties are performing the exact same action with same definition (again, which I supplied) of faith.
Whether it is rational or irrational is irrelevant because I never made any mention of it. You are making it a point of contention. A contention that does not exist. You on the other hand keep pulling it back in, and for what reason, I do not know. Perhaps to demonstrate your abilities of comprehension?
This is quickly resorting to both of us taking a trip back to the sixth grade and diagraming sentences. Although, I have partially done this for you already.
Do I need to further explain to you how the word 'put' totally changed the meaning when you left it out of the paraphrased quote? Do I need to further explain how applying two seperate adjectives to one word will never mean the same thing, especially when the meaning of the adjectives are different? You see it's the adjectives that have the different meaning not the word faith itself.
The word faith was used correctly both times. Both in grammar and context.
- Login to post comments
Offline
>>...you would be my 'Teacher', so you aren't Real.
Exactly. The Teacher is not Real. The lesson is not Real. It is that way simply because there is nothing to learn or be taught. All we have to do is remember what we are.
It's very much like the Matrix. There are reasons why certain stories grab our attention, and that is because there is someting behind them that the unconscious mind picks up on.
Some stories garner more attention than others due to personal interest. Not as a symptom of reality being unreal. If I see a story about Jupiter and a story about a god, I'll take Jupiter. Because it interests me more. But a christian will choose the one on god, since it interests him more.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
>>do you live your life by this philosophy?
As much as possible. However, it is extremely difficult for a number of reasons. If I had to put a percentage on it, I'd have to say that the percentage of time that I spend in this philosophy is at the low end of the scale. But, I am advancing. Once this path is accepted, there is no turning back.
>>Do you, for example, do extremely dangerous things based on your belief that your body is your mind's image of it, and if you don't think you'll be damaged, you won't be damaged.
I love flying down the highway at go-to-jail speeds on potent motorcycles. (That's where my name comes from. I love to sneak up on hogs, wait for the perfect moment, then inflict severe spankings as I blow by leaving the $30,000 piles of crap in the dust.) Doh! Sorry. My ego takes hold of me at times.
I have been hurt, and I avoid it. Pain is an excellent example of how the ego "proves" that the body exists. It is also a good example of how relentless the ego and its illusion works to keep us trapped. (As soon as we accept that the universe is an illusion, the ego is finished, and it will do all in it's power to stop that.) But pain is an illusion, just like death.
I have tried, but I cannot place this path into any of the four areas of your graph. It is a combination of all four. Gnostic because it deals with redemption of the spirit. Theism is the farthest away because it denies god as the creator of this world. Agnostic because there is no proof of the existence or denial of God. Atheism because God does not exist in this universe.
>>If you know of this by your "Teacher", then how did this "Teacher" know?
Because the Teacher has evolved spiritually to the threashold of Reality, but can still communicate with us.
>>And can you tell us anything about "him" or whatever he is?
No, not really. I have some ideas about it. There is a specific series publications that go through it, but basically the message comes through a series of symbols, voices, works of art, acts of forgiving people, work...
>>But where are you going with this? You should talk about more concrete things, don't you think?
I... we are going home. This is a journey without distance. I... we go home by letting go of the crap we hang on to. That can be translated into concrete things or concrete actions. It determines how you relate to people. It determines what you do.
>>Even if we are microscopial and can't experience most of this Universe, that doesn't necessarily mean we are not real, does it?
Not necessarily, but it does mean, what I ment to say, is that we humans are not equipped or prepared to believe we really understand what is actually going on.
That was a great read, very intriguing. Why didn't you just post that link before? I think I understand what you are saying now.
I'll comment on it further tomorrow. Right now I'm going to bed... it's almost 1 in the morning here and I'm tired.
I'll give you my take on the article when I can, later.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Alright, brace for a long post.
The article was well written and the concept makes perfect sense the way they lay it out. However, the entire concept is based on what we do not know and makes some incredible assumptions.
It explains how atoms and their electrons defy classic Newtonian law. An electron does not orbit its atom as a particle, but surrounds it as a wave. The atom and electron can only be sustained at a certain frequency or the electron collapses in on the atom or dissipates. They assume that, because there is no apparent law governing the atom and its electron, that there is no law and then assert that the electron’s frequency is entirely probabilistic. Therefore, the atom can either exist or not exists. To solve this problem they give atoms their very own parallel world of limbo where they neither exist nor don’t exist. They are in a state of potentiality.
So, as the article examines problem after problem presented by this assumption, it really comes down to the saying “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sounds?” Well, according to this outlandish concept, no, it doesn’t make a sound, and neither does it fall at all. When someone approaches the tree, it can potentially be either standing up or fallen down, it will not coalesce until someone looks at it. The article makes its own analogy of the moon – if no one is looking at it, then it does not exist.
By this skewed logic, we finally arrive at the conclusion that existence is dependant on consciousness. Without a consciousness there is nothingness – there is no world or matter. This consciousness, according to the article, is independent and one. Apparently I am you and you are me, but we don’t know it.
Read the article to understand this, but I’ll try to explain it with the analogy of a computer:
A single user, single processor, computer seems to be able to do many operations at once. However, it, in fact, can only do one at a time – operate one program at a time. The processor sends packets of instructions to each running program, systematically and quickly. The programs that are not receiving these packets are in suspense, but you wouldn’t exactly know it. Each program is independent of the others, each having its own coding and function, and is only aware of the coding of others if they are meant to know. These programs can represent people and any other sentient animals. The CPU can represent the one consciousness. The consciousness operates every sentient being, but as it operates it, it only knows what that being is supposed to know. When it switches to another being, it leaves that knowledge of the last one behind and takes up the new being’s knowledge. The coding of the programs can represent our knowledge and physical attributes.
If this analogy doesn’t make any sense, then just read the article.
Now, all that being said; I have to say that I do not agree with this concept. It all seems to begin at the mystery of the atom and then makes some really far fetched assumptions to justify this lack of understanding. “I don’t know” is an ok answer. Speculation is just fine; it leads to exploration and knowledge, but there is an unforgiving lack of evidence that leads me, and most other skeptics, to believe that the people who formulated this idea were totally off their rocker. Yes, it works, but that does not mean that it is the way of things. It simply means that someone is capable of inventing an interesting concept that saves itself from natural law.
Again, that being said; since it does not violate natural law as I know it, I am willing to admit that it is a far more likely possibility than a personal god. I think I’ll put it in the same box as the deist god. Still, belief in such a far fetched reality is irrational as there is just as much evidence to support it as Allah, Yahweh, Zeus and Santa. The whole purpose of the concept is to explain a gap in our scientific knowledge.
After reading this article I understand how this idea works, for the most part. However, I have no idea what Hogspanker was talking about when he was explaining an incorporeal ‘Reality’ and our illusionary refuge from ‘God’. I find it very premature to suggest even what this article has to say, but even more so is the addition of an explanation and description of an immaterial world and it’s inhabitants, as described by Hogspanker.
These additional assumptions tread on religion’s turf.
This concept as a whole, especially Hogspanker’s take on it, is very irrational. It is interesting and can really get you thinking, but without proof or evidence, it just isn’t worth believing.
A gap in understanding does not constitute irrational belief.
But who knows, maybe we'll make some amazing discoveries in the future that point towards such a reality - I doubt it.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
>>Alright, brace for a long post.
Good gawd! It took me two day to get through it.
Perhaps I made a mistake by bringing up quantum ideas. I brought it up to simply point out the uncertainty in our perception, even when it is based on science. The McFarlane article does not really get into what I am attempting to describe, and that is Mind.
I'm not sure I really follow the analogy of the computer and the program. In the first place, I think your statement "processor sends packets of instructions to each running program" is not correct. In fact the program sends instructions to the CPU. All the CPU does is perform logical operations such as AND, OR, XOR and so on. The CPU is simply an extremely high-speed binary logical comparative calculator. It is not "aware" of what it is doing. The program is actually more "aware" than the CPU in the sense that the program determines what data is to be manipulated, where it is to be stored, and how it is to be presented. The only awareness is in the mind of the programmer. In the second place, God (Mind) does not compute because there is nothing that must be computed.
Don't get me wrong. I reject the personal god that created us and the universe. To me that is total crap. It is in fact a very dangerous belief that is responsible for the murder of untold millions of people.
You are a very intelligent and deep thinker. You seem to require evidence and proof. I don't because I don't have the confidence in the human brain to come up with anything that can be taken seriously as proof of much of anything that is really important to us. What has science really done for us anyway? I know, we've been to the moon, we beaten a number of nasty illnesses - the accomplishments of science are tremendous. But what is the bottom line? There is as much human misery as there has ever been. We are litterally at the brink of our own destruction. It is science that has created the weapons that will probably kill millions of us within the next fifty years. It is science that has caused the global warming that may kill us all.
If you need evidence and proof, give me the mathimatical equation that proves the existence of love, hate, greed, generosity...
I use science but I see its limitations. We will not solve our problems through science. Stephen Hawking has stated the only hope for the future of mankind is to leave the planet. Two weeks ago the Dooms Day clock was set up two minutes toward midnight. The human population explosion will continue until something stops it and it will not be human wisdom or science. It will be a massive die-off of human populations. There is more to this "situation" than can be explained through science. That is what moves me. It is that which I have tried, unsuccessfully, to explain.
You and I and everyone else are of the same Mind. We are at war with ourselves because we are under the illusion of separation, and we will continue to be until we accept the Truth that we are One.
Ok, perhaps my analogy of the computer was poorly laid out. I'm not trying to say that this one consciousness model is pretty much the same as a computer. The real thing I was getting at was the multitasking and the way that the CPU is the center of it all. All the programs are worked out by the CPU, which can represent the one consciousness.
...lets just drop the computer analogy.
I understand the idea of the one mind. I may not have illustrated it well in my previous post, but I do understand what you are saying. My problem with it is that it is a supernatural explanation of something that we cannot yet explain. It's a very clever concept as it can be rationally worked out and it saves itself from natural law, but just because it can work in our minds does not mean we should resort to belief in such things. We need evidence. Without it, the concept is just speculation.
To me, it’s just as good as the idea of a deist god. It explains things with something that is also unknown and unknowable. I doubt it, but there may have been some intelligence that set the world in motion however long ago. The same goes for the one consciousness. They are both separate from the natural world, but have no defined parameters, unlike the personal gods of religions. For this reason I cannot rule them out. They should both be purely speculation.
The part of it all that you tried to explain that I don’t understand is how we are hiding from God, or how you can begin to define what the supposed reality outside of this reality is. Those assertions overstep speculation and begin to encroach on religion’s territory.
We do have much to learn about our universe and we are just getting started. Our science today cannot explain many things, but that’s not to say it never will. I mentioned earlier that some of this resembles the ‘God of the Gaps’, which is where theists pick out gaps in scientific knowledge and things that are not yet explained and then claim to have an answer, which is always “God did it.” The way this one mind idea is the same is that it looks at apparently unexplainable dead ends and then explains it with un-testable solutions, assuming that science will never be able to explain it.
Now, I’m not saying that this one mind idea is definitely false, but I am saying that we have no way of knowing if it is or not. To have such faith in something like this, that is impossible to verify, is irrational. There is nothing wrong with saying that it is the way things might be, but to assert that it is so, without any evidence to suggest, is no better than a theist doing the same.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Just found this topic, so i'm a bit late out of the gate. Ok, Spanker, I get your point, and i follow. I don't necessarily agree, but I get it. So, what about the school of thought that says Reality is entirely subjective. Your perception is your reality, and any time you learn something new, do something new, or otherwise ingest any kind of information, your reality has just changed. Your view of the universe, and because your perception is reality, the universe itslef has changed, due to the new infromation, wether it's true or false. Truth and fiction are percieved, therefore, by that reasonong, they have a direct effect on reality in that if you are fed a lie and you don't know it's a lie, that is part of the universe to you ,therefore, it is your reality. All personal realities are correct, because we percieve them to be, until some new information is absorbed, that we agree with. At that time, reality, and the universe it's self, has just changed, because our perception of it changed.
Great topic, btw, lol.
The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.
All of this stuff reminds me of The Matrix, except that the 'real world' with the machines and hoverships in the movies is the You that you speak of, instead of an actual real world similar to the illusion in its elements. The computers are simply your mind deceiving you and such.
I consider what you speak of to be a possibility. I myself feel that time is not linear like you say, but rather something that can be stretched out or shortened depending upon experience and such. Like watching some amazing event, it seems to take minutes to happen when watching a video of it suggests that it was only a few seconds. You would say that has to do with our mind's perception, and I agree. But for everything to be only part of one Mind that is only ours and everything else is illusion, that may or may not be so. I see no purpose to that, though there doesn't really need to be. And assuming this is true, you would be my 'Teacher', so you aren't Real. You don't exist, but I do. None of you exist, only Me. In this way, atheism and rationality seems to be a comfort (hah).
Though I suppose that it would fit in the way of all this for me to be split between your idea and my previous views. As I have read about Schroedinger, either the cat is dead or the cat is alive. Until you lift the lid, both are true, or something?
The concept does allow individuality. Even though it would all just be an illusion, each person is his own and can have totally separate thoughts, goals, perceptions, feelings, etc. When the one consciousness switches from one person to another it leaves those thoughts and memories behind and adopts the new memories of the next person. The one mind does not have to actively be living all of the lives on the planet at once, but it would have to switch back and forth. In other words, it couldn't live out one life then start the next. The time inbetween transitions can be as long or as short as you could imagine and to us it would seem no different.
I don't believe any of this is true, but it is interesting.
...just wanted to clear up how that part of it works
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Pardon me but i'm chipping in....
If i have a rock in my hand, how do i know that i really am holding a rock in my hand? How do i know that the rock is real?
Technically, i don't. We only have perceptions of reality.
BUT - if you are going to go about it in that fashion you are wasting your time, and you are wasting your life.
As an engineer I often make assumptions about physical situations in order to formulate a problem or model something mathematically.
This is exactly what i'm doing with my perception of reality. Even though I know it is only a perception, I treat it as reality. I assume that God does not exist. This is what a rational person would call a 'reasonable assumption' due to the massive likelyhood that nothing supernatural exists.
Saying that there is a 'something' just because our perceptions only align 99.999999999% with reality is daft.
It is like a deaf man, sitting beside a radio, saying that 'smells like teen spirit' must be playing because he can't hear...
Yes, 'smells like teen spirit' might be playing, but it's not very likely. Especially if the radio is broken.
>> All personal realities are correct, because we percieve them to be...
Very close. However, it is not the case that there are six billion "realities". The "reality" that was projected by the split mind contained the illusion of separation. All these apparent "realities" are the same. I enclose reality in quotes because it is an illusion. True Reality is One, and that is what we are here to remember. Once the memory of True Reality dawns on the split mind, this "reality" (which seems to be broken into billions of pieces) will simply not exist.
>>...you would be my 'Teacher', so you aren't Real.
Exactly. The Teacher is not Real. The lesson is not Real. It is that way simply because there is nothing to learn or be taught. All we have to do is remember what we are.
It's very much like the Matrix. There are reasons why certain stories grab our attention, and that is because there is someting behind them that the unconscious mind picks up on.
>>How do i know that the rock is real?
How do you know your hand is real?
>>BUT - if you are going to go about it in that fashion you are wasting your time, and you are wasting your life.
Everything we do in this illusion is a waste unless we are in the process of letting go of the illusion. Everything, from sweeping the floor to finding a cure for cancer is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
>>I assume that God does not exist.
That is a very rational assumption because god does not exist here ( in the illusion ). From the point of view of the separated mind, there is no god.
I like that analogy. This universe is nothing more than a song being played by a broken radio that cannot possilby play any song.
There is no scientific solution.
There is no social solution.
There is no economic solution.
There is no political solution.
There is no military solution.
There is only a spiritual solution.
This is a philosophical point that could be argued for eternity, but just to play along, explain "spiritual solution". If all realities are subjective, wouldn't spirituality be included in the individual subjective reality?
The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.
The average atheists perception of reality is arguably a closer approximation of reality.
surely you mean mythology and religion are evolving?
I thought you said there is no such thing as time. If there is no such thing as time how can you comment about its linearity? Also, if there is no such thing as time, what is the scale against wich we measure radioactive decay?
Explain that to the physical universe.
Marvelous! Physical reality and time are non-existent, therefore heaven and hell don't exist?! But let me guess, God does?
Why? Why is something which is imperfect not real? this makes no sense. an electron, a proton, a neutron, is perfect. According to you, these building blocks of matter are therefore real. Why would, say an orange(for arguments sake lets assume this is an "imperfect" orange), made up of electrons, neutrons and protons not be real?
maybe you should define perfect (within the context of your test of realness) for me as well.
WHAT GOD?
When I read this sentence i got the feeling that you might have had something to do with the creation of the universe. . . Is that you, God?
Just because YOU cannot understand it, and just because scientific knowledge is incomplete, does not mean there is a creator that designed the universe such that it cannot be understood. Indeed, it is so unlikely that the possibility can be disregarded for practical purposes.
2000 years ago you would have said the earth was designed so that we don't know wether it's round or flat.
Just because we can never be sure that what we are experiencing is an illusion, does not make it an illusion.
You are assuming it is.
That is irrational.
I think Hogspanker has turned philosophical speculation into full blown religion - or irrational faith at least.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
Hogspanker is not real
>>Hogspanker is not real
Aha!! You are absolutely, 100% correct.
See, you are beginning to get this stuff already.
>>explain "spiritual solution".
I probably can't, but I'll try. If you look at human history, as insignificant as it is within the entire universe, it is a study in failure. Nothing has been solved. Of course, we mount our high horse and think we've done much; technology, science, medicine etc. But the bottom line is nothing has really changed. We still kill eachother, get sick, die, etc. Nothing has really been solved, and the problematic issues that cause the crap we experience will never be solved using the physical techniques we have been using. Life will remain an individual and group struggle for survival that will end in failure every time despite the various advances that seem to take place. In the end, the only solution is to get to a point where we say "There must be a better way". When that happens, we have taken the first step in the path to a spiritual solution because we will be looking into areas where we have never looked before. It is spiritual becuase we are looking for solutions that do not exist in the physical world.
Please do not confuse spirituality with the bull crap that makes up religion.
>>The average atheists perception of reality is arguably a closer approximation of reality.
Yes, very true. And there is a reason for that. The atheist has not considered the fact that this is an illusion. The atheist looks at the illusory universe and says "there is no god" and he is absolutely correct because there IS no god in the illusion.
>>surely you mean mythology and religion are evolving?
Spiritual evolution has nothing to do with mythology or religion. Mythology and religion keep us trapped in this illusion; spiritual evolution is the way out.
>>I thought you said there is no such thing as time.
Correct, time is an illusion. There is nothing but the eternal now. Someday in the "future" (and I hope it's a long time) you will die. And when that happens it will be ..... now.
Radioactive decay is a physical process just like water running down hill. It can be observed and measured physically, but like all things physical it is an illusion.
>>Explain that (the physical universe does not exist) to the physical universe.
Pretty tough, espically considering I'm using a physical brain to think, physical fingers to type, and physical equipment to communicate with you.
There is no way to explain this physically. There is no physical proof. There is no physical evidence. Physical evidence that there is no physical universe is kind of a brain teaser.
However... it is possible to "step back"; to step out of it and look at it from the outside in. I've done that. Not very much, and only for extremely brief instants. You will do that too at some future point. Maybe not in this lifetime, but it will happen. And when it does it will hit you like a freight train, and all you will be able to say is "Oh....... of course..... how else could it be?" At that point there is no turning back.
>>Why is something which is imperfect not real?
Because in Reality there is nothing to compare. There is no good or bad; no hot or cold; no perfect and imperfect. It simply IS.
>>maybe you should define perfect
I am only at the beginning in the spiritual path. I am in nursery school spiritually. I use the word perfect to describe Reality, but again, in Reality there is no perfect and non-perfect. The fact that I am using words to describe this is an indication of my entry level position. The best way to describe Reality is with complete silence. Complete vocal and mental silence.
>>WHAT GOD?
Using the word "god" can be misleding because there is too much baggage that goes along with it. The word "Reality" is a better choice in my opinion. That statement (Herein lies the peace of God) is not mine, and uses the word "God" for very specific purposes.
>>I think Hogspanker has turned philosophical speculation into full blown religion - or irrational faith at least.
The difference between religion and a true spiritual path is that religion is concerned with economic/political/ideological social control. Truth does not care what you think. Reality is not concerned with any of your activites in the illusion.
The fact that I am attempting to explain this at all is evidence of what a beginner I am on this path.
Those who know don't speak. Those who speak don't know.
And yes, it is totally irrational.
Why do you assume that the physical universe is an illusion?
What makes you think that any supernatural entity exists?
Well, you're speaking. So you don't know? But you do know that it's "totally irrational". What did I miss?
Anyway, your "understanding" of physics is quantum, not mechanical. There's a BIG difference. Laws governing quantum physics relate poorly, if at all, to the real world (mechanical physics). A brand new approach might serve you well.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
>>Why do you assume that the physical universe is an illusion?
Because I have reached the point where I said "There must be a better way". This does not work. Death, pain, isolation, illness, war, etc. It simply does not work. Now, I have a good life. I'm successful, I do what I want to do, I'm healthy, I have a hell of a lot of fun. But I look around, and I see that on a basic level this sucks. And most folks just accept it. They fight and get through it - for a few decades. Then they're toast. It doesn't matter if they had a long wonderful life, or starved to death at age 2. In the end, we're all toast. And guess what, it is our choice. Few people realze that this is our choice. It's time to choose again.
>>What makes you think that any supernatural entity exists?
The word entity assumes separation. An entity here, and entity there. There is no separation. What is Real is all there is, and all that is Real IS. Everything else is illusion. It is a choice to flop around in this bloody hog waller illusion of death and pain. We are free to do that as long as we want. But some of us have had enough, and we are ready to move on.
>>Well, you're speaking. So you don't know? But you do know that it's "totally irrational". What did I miss?
No, I don't know. It is not possible for a human to know and understand the true nature of Reality. If you knew Reality, you would not be here.
Looking at It from the illusion, from earth, from the human brain, from the point of view of science and "common knowlege" it is totally irrational. To tell a person that not only does the physical universe not exist, but you don't exist either is irrational. The only way you can "see" that is to step back and look at it from the outside in.
>>A brand new approach might serve you well.
Why in the name of creeping gawd would I look for a new approach? We've been looking for a workable approach for untold millions of years; trying this, trying that, going down that blind alley, getting stuck in this bloody hole. Why would I want a different approach after finally..... finally finding one that actually works?
>>If no thing is real, what does the word 'real' refer to?
You are asking the right questions, but you are asking a question that cannot really be answered from the point of human reference.
I don't often quote passages out of context. But in this case, a quote might be helpful simply because you are asking a question that can't be answered in this world. Don't let the words chase you off. Words are only symbols.
" Miracles enable you to heal the sick and raise the dead because you made sickness and death yourself, and can therefore abolish both. You are a miracle, capable of creating in the likeness of light. Everything else is your own nightmare, and does not exist. Only the creations of light are real."
You equated the laws of quantum physics with the laws of reality (mechanical). They don't relate well. Any qualified quantum physicist would tell YOU this. Sure, your contention that life is an illusion could be true, but it's basless. It holds no weight. We have absolutely no logical reason to believe life is an illusion. Laws governing quantum physics won't support your arguement at all. So "A new approach would serve you well" as for making a practical argument. How you feel about life, humanity, and a broken world doesn't apply.
As for my quasi quote "well your speaking but you don't know": your entire statment contradicts its self. Read it back carefully.
I'm fine with your open ended spirituality. Really. But it seems you'd be better off keeping it personal. You're trying to establish some sort of validity for a position you've yet to validate to yourself. So just relax. You really don't need to validate anything, unless you want to argue with others about its (your spirituality's) validity. Kinda funny how that works.
what is the relationship between the brain and the dream or the dreamer?
Miracles – not real (according to you)
enable – not real (nothing is enabled)
you – not real
heal – not real (healing is an illusion)
and – not real (no thing is included {all is one})
raise – not real (inert)
dead – not real (not dead)
because – not real (reasons are useless)
made – not real (no thing can be)
sickness – not real (illusion)
death – not real (imaginary)
can – not real (cannot)
therefore – not real (no conclusion can be made because no thing is real)
abolish – not real (not abolished)
both – not real (there’s only one)
are – not real
a – not real (articles cannot reference anything)
capable – not real
creating – not real (no thing can be made)
etc etc etc etc
"Nothing is real" is an invalid argument.
Your argument for god fails completely.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I am new here and want to offer a bit of advice and observation.
Religion was just a way to explain the phenomena of the world. It is surprising that it lingers on but it seemed to work in controlling the societies; here is a way to deal with it. Obviously I haven't read everyone's rant but I scanned a few and get the general feeling of unrest. Western religion has co-opted most all of the pagan rituals and celebrations to control the masses (and that's a lecture in itself...) The way to argue against religion is basically to illustrate the absurdities and errors compare to factual evidence or recent observation. Because of the many facets of the bible and people's clinging to it, logic is not useful for any debate about the relationship of the religious teachings with fact, as there are precious few. If you insist on arguing religion with someone logically and fairly, you will lose; you may as well go get the cutting board and start whacking yourself on the forehead with it, monk style. Most mythology do not require facts in foundation, only a good story. Just as in child psychology, you won't get good results saying to someone their religion is no good. You must offer an alternative; just as AA replaces alcohol with 'a higher power'. With the decline of education in America(replaced with superstition and tribal membership in some church or 'belief' )you have a great challenge ahead. Presenting a fanatical opposite view is just too scary to most religions people, the harder you press them to give up the fantasy, the harder they will hold on to it. The effort to rid society of religion will be a great effort and I have no idea about the best way to make it work. I see lots of new people in this country who have no interest in education and rely on superstition to survive. I think the future(ama) may come to more religious skirmishes and maybe states will become armed camps of Catholics and Mormons, Baptists and Islamism; it could be real weird. I also see indications that we really miss the Russians: lots of Republicans want this country to be Catholic and Socialist at the same time. Anyway, if you want to be heard, you will have to be a sane voice of reason and peace and hope the best will prevail. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him walk on it!
one more thing before I go: The big bang theory is a creationist (religious)view; not factual in my opinion.
g.c.
dilbert98
Wow. Interesting Hogspanker. If I had to sum this all up, everything you have basically said is very very similar to Taoist philosophy. If I had to take a stab at it, you are discovering truth by examining paradoxes and how they in a sense are fundamental truth. It's like this question:
Does nothing exist?
You cannot answer that question. No one can. But there is a truth. See the paradox? If nothing exists then it is something because it exists. So, then nothing doesn't exist. This paradox does exist but to understand how that nothing can exist and still remain nothing you have to understand the limitation of language and human thought.
In Taoism, when you speak of Mind, that is akin to what Taoism refers to as The Way. Now, when I speak of Taoism in this sense it is not the religous Taoism but the philosophical Taoism. This line of thinking is over 4,000 years old. In taoism there is the unimaginable Way. The way that cannot be described through words. You cannot speak of it, you cannot see it. In some instances, if you even do believe the existence of a God, God is part of The Way. If you do not believe in a God that too is part of The Way and takes everything to a whole new level of thought.
Here is a neat little story, not mine but I will borrow it.
Two people are having an argument. Now, one person has to be right and one person has to be wrong. This is what logic dictates. From a taoist point of view, both individuals would be right. Or if you're more pessimistic, they would both be wrong. This defies all logic, yet it is totally possible.
For those of you getting hung up on logic, you have to take it a step above. Logic is a human notion. Someone argued that eventually science would discover it all but that is not necessarily true. I mean look at our own numbering system. Once you get into decimals, the number gets smaller but never actually reaches 'zero'. It will come close but it will never reach zero.
Sorry if it feels like I'm rambling but this is what I got out of it.
Upochapo!
Yhew, that was good! I really hope many people get to read what you wrote. It will take me a while to digest it and get back (very busy).
I think it's hard for people to get this because it is so simple. People are not used to dealing with this level of simplicity. From what I've seen so far, it answers every question. I'm just getting started.
What is possible and what is probable are 2 entirely different questions. Anything is possible. If you want me to believe it you need to do the math. Probability is based on reason be it inductive or deductive. Possibility is based on mathametics. No reason is needed. Get it? This "level of simplicity" you're referring to is impotent when its virtues are argued in the wrong context.
Focus instead on probability. Just don't forget to back it up with solid numbers.
So the tables turn...
It only dictates that if the point of debate is a dichotomy. If not, both could be wrong.
From a scientific point of view, both could be right. One could have a Newtonian view of gravity, the other, an Einsteinian view, and both views could lead to the same result.
Not sure why accepting the possibility of error is pessimistic.
If it is possible, then it cannot defy all logic - certainly not modal logic!
Seriously, the two people could be debating the value of 2+2.
Five! Says the first.
'eleventy six' says the second.
Both wrong. In fact, unless the number of participants exhuasts all the possible options, it is possible for them all to be wrong.
Or, just demonstrate that you're off the mark here, vis a vis your conceptualization of logic.
As for taking a step above logic... I'm not even sure what you mean by this.
Yep. But logic works because it takes into account metaphysics, which is NOT a human notion so much as it is the recognition of deductive truths.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
man this is some crazy nihilistic buddhism.
its really hard to reason with someone who doesnt really believe in 'real' existance of everything. whether or not our reality is 'real' (even though that is the very definition of reality.), it doesnt matter, because it is as real as anything can be to us. our senses tell our consciousnesses what they can, and it is enough for us to get by. because if nothing was real, then i dont think we would even be able to post on this 'imaginary' forum on the 'imaginary' internet to communicate with each other.
the flaw with many epistomological statements that state 'nothing can be known' or 'everything is an illusion' is that the human mind is incapable of producing original thought. we are able to take in what we see around us and adapt it to new uses, but never think of an idea completely original. meaning you couldnt make me up if you tried. (a good thought experiment for this would be to try to think up a color that has never been seen and is not any combination of the primary colors. think of what infared looks like....)
so if you can't just make up everything you see, the world is not a movie being projectd by your brain, instead there is an objective reality and we are all apart in it, and the things we do cause effects in the universe, therefore we prove our existance by the things we change. (i exist, because i have just caused you to think up a response to this post, i made a change therefore i must exist.)
as for past lives and many of your points, you just seem to state it and assume its true then offer an undescribable complex system which cannot be explained as the answer. which is often the pitfall that many religions take.
i probably shouldnt have posted as you contradicted yourself by saying no one can know anything, and then began to state what you 'know'....lol how do you know this belief you have isnt a deception by some HIGHER power or the billionth dimension?
second duplicate post.. move along nothing to see here.
sorry for the triple post, i got an error when i tried to post.
The problem, I think is that everyone here is getting hung up on words. You have to look past the words. Hoggspank used the words One and one. We could easily use the words Way and way. Or any word for that matter. Word and language are severely limiting.
One thing that confuses me, is that while a theist puts their faith in religion, it seems that an atheist puts their faith in science. How are these two concepts different from each other? There are gaps from a religious point of view and there are gaps from the scientific point of view.
I used right and wrong in passing in my earlier post. If you believe in right and wrong; good and bad then you are just as guilty as a theist for believing in something that cannot be proven. These are human concepts. Invented by people.
If someone wants to use the example of 1+1=?, for right and wrong argument, then great. From a mathematical standpoint we can come to a right and wrong. But, depending on how you look at 1+1 and the possible representations it could have, we can come up with any number.
And, what is this "nihilistic buddhism"? If you are unable to grasp the concept of what is being said, fine but don't throw such comments and spins into there so as to distort what is trying to be said. Quit using what someone is trying to say is related to religion. You have issues when someone quotes a passage from the bible this is no different.
Oh and yes it is that simple. It is you who is clouded by drawing on your own past experiences. You are only deriving or coming to a conlusion by what you have learned from your past and things that you were told.
I understand fully all too well what Hoggspanks is attempting to say. I understand his concepts. I have been there myself. Why? Because I'm not getting hung up on the words whereas most of you are. My last post was picked apart because of wording. The individual who did it proved my point. Look at the context and flow.
I have to throw this edit in there:
Can you not see that both sides are saying the exact same thing from all accounts? It's funny to me because, while you may see that there is a disagreement, I see it that you are all agreeing with each other and no one is realizing it.
When I'm done answering your question I'll ask you: how are they the same?
Why is this so? Because your committing a fallacy of equivocation here - you're using 'faith' in two different senses.
These 'faiths' - faith in the supernatural, 'faith' in science, are fundamentally different. You're conflating theistic faith, which is unjustified belief, with 'colloquial' faith, which is belief taken on probability.
Science is naturalistic. One does not need to violate naturalism in order to 'believe in it'. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural, a belief for which there can be no rational grounds, a belief that violates everything we know of the world, including basic ontology itself.
Here are four reasons why any natural assumption is NOT theistic faith.
1) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world (i.e. such as 'believing in science) would not justify assuming any more than what is needed in order to begin knowing the world. Theistic faith violates this precept.
If there is in fact a need to assume the existence of other first person ontology, this only allows me to assume whatever is needed to unpack first person ontology, nothing more.
2) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify ever holding to any such assumption if rational-empirical methods demonstrate a gross failure of the assumption to adequately account for reality. Theistic faith violates this precept.
This is where pragmatism enters into any foundationalist approach to justifying knowledge. No naturalist would continue to hold to an assumption that simply failed to work.
3) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify making any assumption that violated what we know of the world through rational-empirical methods. Theistic faith violates this precept.
Consider Stephen Hawkings here, in his description of speculative cosmological theory:
There are theories in cosmology that have as much evidence going for them as astrology - the difference, however, is that these cosmological theories do not violate what we already know of the universe.
- Universe in a nutshell
4) The claim that we must make assumptions in order to begin to know the world would not justify any supernatural or 'transcendent' assumption. These terms: "supernatural" or 'transcedent are defined, from the outset, in such a way that they preclude the possibility of holding to them as a 'properly basic belief' because each definition is a negative definition, devoid of any universe of discourse.
LOL!
And Mike Tyson can punch, you can punch. So you're both equitable, right? You can box Mike for a few rounds, right?
Hawkings can debate, and you can debate. So you can debate Hawkings on cosmology, right? You're both 'equitable'
Come on. There are 'gaps' in justifying science. There is an uncrossable chasm between theistic faith and justified knowledge. Saying this equates the two is comical.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
"
When I'm done answering your question I'll ask you: how are they the same?
Why is this so? Because your committing a fallacy of equivocation here - you're using 'faith' in two different senses.
These 'faiths' - faith in the supernatural, 'faith' in science, are fundamentally different. You're conflating theistic faith, which is unjustified belief, with 'colloquial' faith, which is belief taken on probability.
Science is naturalistic. One does not need to violate naturalism in order to 'believe in it'. Theistic faith is belief in the supernatural, a belief for which there can be no rational grounds, a belief that violates everything we know of the world, including basic ontology itself.
Here are four reasons why any natural assumption is NOT theistic faith."
---------------------------------------
Ok. And, this is why things spiral out of control. When did I ever say natural assumption is equivalent to theistic faith. There is no fallacy in my argument. You have created the fallacy. You are the one that is applying two seperate definitions here causing a fallacy to surface. Faith is nothing more than having confidence or trust in a person or thing. I don't care if it's supernatural, natural, or fish scales. You are picking and choosing two seperate definitions you want to justify your argument whereas I have used only one definition. And that definition applies to both equally.
Why is it that you keep putting these spins on everything? We can sit there and debate til the cows come home this way by doing what just happened here.
One of the major themes Hoggspank hinted about was simplicity. People consistently create something more complicated than what it's supposed to be.
Quote:
LOL!
And Mike Tyson can punch, you can punch. So you're both equitable, right? You can box Mike for a few rounds, right?
Hawkings can debate, and you can debate. So you can debate Hawkings on cosmology, right? You're both 'equitable'
Come on. There are 'gaps' in justifying science. There is an uncrossable chasm between theistic faith and justified knowledge. Saying this equates the two is comical.
--------------------------------
Who is talking about any kind of justification? There are holes found in religions and there are holes found in scientific theories. That's all I merely pointed out. Again, looking for something that isn't even there.
Faith in a god has never been a tangible concept. In fact these two different faiths are opposites.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
quote=AiiA]
Faith in a god has never been a tangible concept. In fact these two different faiths are opposites.
------------------------------------------------------------
(Bah! I will get this quote thing figured out sooner or later, sorry about that.)
Control is an illusion. I know this. Poor wording on my part. How about; "This is why things spiral outwards until there is nothing but a tornado of words and ideas that is due to the influx of ideas and notions that were never there to begin with due to assumptions of meaning and context."? Is this better for you?
If you're going to use examples at least use the same examples and keep the context the same instead of two different ones in each instance. We will use your sun example.
From a scientific point of view, the sun comes out due to the rotation of the earth and because the scientist says so. An atheist is prone to believe this because he/she has put their faith (confidence and trust) into science.
From a theist point of view, the sun comes out due to God's will and because he said so. A theist is prone to believe this because he/she has put their faith (confidence and trust) into religion.
Have not both parties done the same thing here? It's quite clear that both parties are doing the same thing here. Because, the atheist has done exactly what the theist has done. So, I ask, how is what the atheist has done any different than what the the theist has done? Simply by pure definition alone (which I provided in parentheses) it is the same. And, this is what I originally asked. I didn't ask what are the differences both sides used for their reasoning of faith.
If I would have asked, How is faith in science different from faith in religion? Well, then that is a totally different question. And, maybe, you'd have a leg to stand on. The only thing that was done was that smoke and mirrors were put up to create an illusion and confuse the reader.
So, explain to me how my question is nonsensical? It is a completely legitimate seeing as how the reply and conclusion that was drawn was based upon assumptions. You are guilty of the same thing. You are totallly distorting what was actually said and putting up smoke and mirrors.
"What you said was that religious faith and faith in science are the same thing." Please, I never said that. Quit putting words in my mouth and quit seeing something that was never there to begin with.
This thread has gone WAY off topic. I hope we can get it back on track. If anyone wants to pick this up through pm's or start another topic to pick this up that'd be swell. I'd jump into that one so as not to hijack this anymore than has been done. If someone does make one, please PM so I know about it that way we can pick up there.