Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours :)

[Luger187]

oly, why are you even here? say something that has to do with the thread, or GTFO. there was a great conversation going immediately before you showed up and it turned to shit because you are here.

 

[Heisenberg]

funny, even though you told me you believe in God... what a hypocrite

Oly says the darndest things...

 

[Brazko]

I have to question which one of us misunderstands the position. The central distinction as I understand it is belief in a unity and that one can change ones state in relation to that unity..

Ok, lets check our understanding....

Are you separate from the Universe?

Are you able to change your state of being in relation to your surroundings?

Are your surroundings separated from the Universe?

Do the relations of your surroundings effect your state of being?

Does your state of being effect your surroundings?



edit: Could you please post your encyclopedia entries? The ones you are referring.

Also, could you please explain the redundancy and superflousness?

 

[olylifter420]

i see you like to deflect... nice

[video=youtube;doihYFkeWsQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doihYFkeWsQ[/video]

Oly says the darndest things...

 

[olylifter420]

still doesnt change the fact that you're a hypocrit

Oly says

 

[olylifter420]

there was a great conversation going

so you call a one sided discussion great? that is really stupid, why dont you GTFO?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Perhaps your delivery needs work? You say you already mentioned the same thing I did, OK, go find the post and quote it in its entirety so I can see the context. If that's the case, shouldn't you be standing by my side asking Karri0n the same thing? Instead you take the defensive and, again, pull the hurt card... Getting us nowhere. Can't you just get past the whole "they're all out to get ME!" attitude? Just stop man, right now, as you are reading this, THINK about this, why are you getting so damn upset? Compose yourself, stop acting like a child, answer the questions as asked and stop using logical fallacies every post you make. Study these things so you can better yourself, so you can avoid the mistakes they present. Stop taking things so personally.

 

[karri0n]

I'm sorry, I meant how do you study the deeper aspects of spirituality?

Reading the right books, talking to people of various different spiritual systems, lots of meditation and pondering.

As MP pointed out earlier, each of us can feel what someone else might consider a "spiritual" experience, but what does that constitute? Are there standards to follow or consider? Do they have to be consistent? An "experience" by its definition would seem to me to be something individual to each person, completely subjective, so that would exclude it from requiring consistent standards for evaluation.

I disagree. I feel that everything should be subjected to the scrutiny of constant standards, but those standards are not the same for everyone, and must be developed on a personal level, mostly through trial and error. That's not to say there are no resources available to use as a starting point.

So basically, what the question really comes down to is 'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not just my own imagination?', how do you distinguish between the two? This is a problem theists face that I've never got a rational explanation for. There doesn't seem to be a way around it, which explains the necessity of faith, in my mind. That's the slot that fits the void created by this logical problem. You insert 'faith'... "you've gotta have faith.." because you can't explain it any other way. 'Faith' is just a word that was created the try to answer an illogical question.

A valid question. experienced teachers of things such as vision quests and guided meditations, message retrieval, and other various things that can be confused with imagination teach a fairly simple method of determining whether something is valid or imagined, and that's "are you able to consciously change what you are watching?"

"Imagination" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. Beyond that, indeed, on a quantum level, it's been shown that there is little difference between reality and fantasy. Whether you choose to accept this or not has little bearing, as spirituality is not something that lies within the physical realm, and is generally something that lies within the psyche and the emotional body. In short, and "imagined" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two. An "imagined" spiritual experience has measurable affects on the physical body from activation of different areas of the brain, to changes in brainwave frequency, heart rate, blood pressure, serotonin,dopamine, and other various neutrotransmitter levels, muscle tension, electrical resistance as measured on the skin, body temperature, etc.

How do you expect people to accept that, given the enormous consequences atheists like me have pointed out like starvation, global conflicts that harm millions of innocent people, etc.?

a. I don't expect you to accept it, and I'm quite certain I mentioned that in my post. You asked why I haven't shared, and I said "because you wouldn't accept it".

b. consequences of what exactly? I'm relating my personal experiences. You seem to be once again equating all spiritual systems with those of fundamentalist regimes, ad the consequences you speak of are the result of politics and economics intertwining with religion. Make no mistake, I believe separation of church and state, and indeed the separation of spirituality from any form of institutionalization to be not only dangerous due to the possibility of large-scale politicization such as you are referencing, but also that as soon as it becomes institutionalized, it loses most if not all of its spiritual meaning.

 

[karri0n]

This is directed at everyone except Oly:

STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.

 

[olylifter420]

Yo man you take this shit too serious bro... You got a problem with me, pm me. Dont be a little bitch a cry like one... Pad is the mod, he is all for the bashing of others religions and.beliefs, so i dont think it will get closed...

You believe these.discussions are so good when they aint! You all talk about the same thing over and over again, with atheists never accepting anything a believer says.

You and luger41 make a good couple, why dont you all mate and have a bunnch of oly haters

This is directed at everyone except Oly:

STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.

 

[olylifter420]

Atheists need their fun and to them, well

 

[Padawanbater2]

Reading the right books, talking to people of various different spiritual systems, lots of meditation and pondering.

This is what I was trying to get at, if we do different things to try to study the different aspects of spirituality, wouldn't we reach different conclusions about it?

You may have done this already before, but could you define exactly what you mean by 'spirituality' as specifically as possible?

I disagree. I feel that everything should be subjected to the scrutiny of constant standards, but those standards are not the same for everyone, and must be developed on a personal level, mostly through trial and error.

What does a 'spiritual experience' constitute, and how do you know it's an authentic 'spiritual experience' and not just in your imagination? What is the difference between the guy who says he speaks to God and people who just have these 'religious experiences'? This is where consistent standards for everyone are important.

You seem to have contradicted yourself "consistent standards", but not the same for everyone". Wouldn't those be inconsistent standards?

A valid question. experienced teachers of things such as vision quests and guided meditations, message retrieval, and other various things that can be confused with imagination teach a fairly simple method of determining whether something is valid or imagined, and that's "are you able to consciously change what you are watching?"

Yes, but I'd argue that most people are not very well versed in such techniques, so most people who experience these kinds of feelings (which are then reinforced by our society) automatically attribute them to their religion and mark it up to a 'religious experience' without any actual evidence other than the experience itself. That doesn't seem like a very good way to acquire knowledge to me.

"Imagination" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal.

I'm not using the word 'imagination' in that context here. You can swap it out with the phrase "in my head" or "in my mind" if you want, the question still remains unanswered;

'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not in my head/mind?'

...spirituality is not something that lies within the physical realm, and is generally something that lies within the psyche and the emotional body.

What do you have to support that? What is the 'psyche and emotional body'?

In short, and "imagined" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience.There is no distinction between the two. An "imagined" spiritual experience has measurable affects on the physical body from activation of different areas of the brain, to changes in brainwave frequency, heart rate, blood pressure, serotonin,dopamine, and other various neutrotransmitter levels, muscle tension, electrical resistance as measured on the skin, body temperature, etc.

So the only standard you use to determine if someone is having a 'religious experience' (be it 100% made up in their own mind or not) is if it has measurable effects on their physical body?

I'm sorry man but that just is not science. You can't simply say 'this subject believed he was being spoken to by God, we were able to pick up measurable differences in hormone and chemical levels, therefore, it must have been real'.. There is a distinction between something you think up and believe and something that actually is real.

This seems to be a pretty common misconception contrasting between the two, science and religion. Personal experiences are paramount for theists, it essentally forms the foundation of their entire faith, but personal experiences don't amount to anything in science, they are not proof or evidence of anything because they are individual to the person having the experience. I cannot replicate a feeling you had that changed your mind or strengthened your existing belief during something you experienced, so bringing it to the table won't mean a thing to me.

The objective focus of science ensures the evidence get's analyzed without envoking emotional responses.

a. I don't expect you to accept it, and I'm quite certain I mentioned that in my post. You asked why I haven't shared, and I said "because you wouldn't accept it".

How could you yourself accept that?

I tell people this all the time, I'll tell you now...

Even if I was 100% sure God existed, if it demanded obedience, demanded to be worshiped, gave innocent people terrible diseases, caused, or at the least didn't prevent things like famines, plagues, war, etc., basically, if the God of the Bible actually did exist, and I was 100% sure, I wouldn't follow it or worship it or any of that because all that stuff is wrong, it doesn't matter to me that God is in charge of it, it's still wrong. Deep down, I trust myself more than I trust any other person on the planet, I've thought long and hard about these topics, and I know that a being capable of creating existence, creating love, would not require such absurd things. It's that simple. If I stood before that God on some day of judgment at the end of my life and it asked me why I didn't worship it or why I didn't acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, I would tell it because it's wrong.

b. consequences of what exactly? I'm relating my personal experiences. You seem to be once again equating all spiritual systems with those of fundamentalist regimes, ad the consequences you speak of are the result of politics and economics intertwining with religion. Make no mistake, I believe separation of church and state, and indeed the separation of spirituality from any form of institutionalization to be not only dangerous due to the possibility of large-scale politicization such as you are referencing, but also that as soon as it becomes institutionalized, it loses most if not all of its spiritual meaning.

You're right, I didn't mean to generalize.

This is directed at everyone except Oly:

STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.

Well we did a great job, 23 or 24 pages without incident, that has to be a record! That points system in the beginning seemed to detour people from the personal attacks, I think oly just couldn't contain himself, which is usually what happens when you still want to talk but don't have anything to say.

I think he's the one that takes things a little bit too seriously...

I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going

 

[Hepheastus420]

This is directed at everyone except Oly:

STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.

So you want to snitch on oly for stating his beliefs? Wow.

 

[Luger187]

So you want to snitch on oly for stating his beliefs? Wow.

he isnt stating his beliefs at all. he is complaining that we dont find his evidence sufficient, when he provides no evidence. he complains that we all hate on him because we are atheists and he is religious, which we are not doing. these things waste our time and fill up the thread with useless nonsense, when we could be filling it with legitimate debate instead.

 

[Hepheastus420]

he isnt stating his beliefs at all. he is complaining that we dont find his evidence sufficient, when he provides no evidence. he complains that we all hate on him because we are atheists and he is religious, which we are not doing. these things waste our time and fill up the thread with useless nonsense, when we could be filling it with legitimate debate instead.

I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.

 

[karri0n]

This is what I was trying to get at, if we do different things to try to study the different aspects of spirituality, wouldn't we reach different conclusions about it?

Ideally, if we were both following sound and correct processes of study, did not allow bias or preconceptions to pollute our process, and had thetime and ability to learn everything there is to know about the subject, our conclusions wold be he same.

You may have done this already before, but could you define exactly what you mean by 'spirituality' as specifically as possible?

Essentially having a connection with the aspect of divinity set down by your particular spiritual system and living as close to in tune with it as possible. For a pagan, this would mean living their ife in tune with the natural cycles of the earth. For a Christian, this would mean living their life as closely to the way Jesus lived his as possible.

What does a 'spiritual experience' constitute, and how do you know it's an authentic 'spiritual experience' and not just in your imagination? What is the difference between the guy who says he speaks to God and people who just have these 'religious experiences'? This is where consistent standards for everyone are important.

You seem to be implying "the guy who says he speaks to god" is crazy person, and in this case most likely schizophrenic. The difference is that that person's evaluations of many aspects of reality cannot be trusted, as his brain does not work correctly.

You seem to have contradicted yourself "consistent standards", but not the same for everyone". Wouldn't those be inconsistent standards?

Fair enough. This becomes an issue in terminology - I meant that a person should use the same standards they would use for evaluating anything else as they do for this. The standards are consistent in relation to other things the person may be evaluating, but not in regard to the entire population

Yes, but I'd argue that most people are not very well versed in such techniques, so most people who experience these kinds of feelings (which are then reinforced by our society) automatically attribute them to their religion and mark it up to a 'religious experience' without any actual evidence other than the experience itself. That doesn't seem like a very good way to acquire knowledge to me.

Which is why experts recommend that people take classes, workshops, or at least read books on the subject(also because they want their money, but there are honest people and shysters in most professions.).

I'm not using the word 'imagination' in that context here. You can swap it out with the phrase "in my head" or "in my mind" if you want, the question still remains unanswered;

"In our head" as you put it, is also simply another aspect of our reality. The realms of thought and consciousness can and do have very real effects on the physical world, even if nothing more than an idea can be conceptualized and then brought into existence by hands working toward that goal. In short, an "in our head" spiritual experience is a "real" spiritual experience. There is no distinction between the two.

'How would I know what I'm feeling is actually something "spiritual" and not in my head/mind?'

Barring a mental disorder such as Schizophrenia, there's little distinction.

What do you have to support that? What is the 'psyche and emotional body'?

The psyche and the emotions. What do you mean by what do I have to support that? Is it not widely known(especially among atheists) that much of religion and spirituality is an aspect of psychology?

So the only standard you use to determine if someone is having a 'religious experience' (be it 100% made up in their own mind or not) is if it has measurable effects on their physical body?

No. I was pointing out one of the ways spirituality can be seen to affect people physically. I wouldn't use that to quantify a religious experience.

This seems to be a pretty common misconception contrasting between the two, science and religion. Personal experiences are paramount for theists, it essentally forms the foundation of their entire faith, but personal experiences don't amount to anything in science, they are not proof or evidence of anything because they are individual to the person having the experience.

Which is why science cannot quantify religion or spirituality. This comes down to my original discussion with MP where I pointed out that I can accept personal experience as being something real, and you cannot. I'm not a scientist by profession, but if I were, I would not attempt to use this reasoning in my work.

I cannot replicate a feeling you had that changed your mind or strengthened your existing belief during something you experienced, so bringing it to the table won't mean a thing to me.

I know. I said that as the answer to your original question.

The objective focus of science ensures the evidence get's analyzed without envoking emotional responses.

Religion/Spirituality ≠ Science

How could you yourself accept that?

Repeated results.

I tell people this all the time, I'll tell you now...

Even if I was 100% sure God existed, if it demanded obedience, demanded to be worshiped, gave innocent people terrible diseases, caused, or at the least didn't prevent things like famines, plagues, war, etc., basically, if the God of the Bible actually did exist, and I was 100% sure, I wouldn't follow it or worship it or any of that because all that stuff is wrong, it doesn't matter to me that God is in charge of it, it's still wrong. Deep down, I trust myself more than I trust any other person on the planet, I've thought long and hard about these topics, and I know that a being capable of creating existence, creating love, would not require such absurd things. It's that simple. If I stood before that God on some day of judgment at the end of my life and it asked me why I didn't worship it or why I didn't acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, I would tell it because it's wrong.

Good on you. I agree 100%.

It's really only monotheistic religions that require worship of such a deity. Depending on your views, These things you referenced are simply parts of nature. Famine and disease are necessary to avoid overpopulation, war is a natural tendency of many different animals that build social structures in the conflict over resources and territory.

To a traditional or ancient polytheist, there would be gods who hold dominion over things such as disease, famine, and war. The gods of war were indeed worshipped, because while many people can see the ills of war, war was a very real part of life, and gaining the favor of a war god was one way of ensuring your tribe's survival. The gods who held domain over things such as famine and disease weren't worshipped, but appeased.

I won't close the thread, we've got a good discussion going

Cool. Congrats on your promotion to Mod by the way; I didn't notice that until Oly pointed it out.

 

[karri0n]

I believe he just wants you guys to be more open and accepting of his beliefs. Instead of the usual he's religious so he's crazy opinion.

No. No one is disrespecting his beliefs and no one thinks he's crazy because he's religious. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's crazy, but many hold a negative opinion of him based on his nonsense, personal attacks, and attempts to derail a thread with unrelated posts and bullshit.

 

[Heisenberg]

Are you separate from the Universe?

Yes and no. Probably no more so than yes. I believe we came from the universe and will return to it. In the meantime we have consciousness which offers the universe a way to know itself, speaking metaphorically.

Are you able to change your state of being in relation to your surroundings?

State of being meaning either to exist or not exist? I can stop being if I chose, or I can continue being, that's about it. I can change my attitude towards my surroundings.

Are your surroundings separated from the Universe?

not that I am aware of.

Do the relations of your surroundings effect your state of being?

My surroundings as related to what? To me being? Already answered that. My surroundings can affect my attitude, my mood, my well being (poverty).

Does your state of being effect your surroundings?

Does the fact that of my being as opposed to my not being affect my surroundings? I consume and destroy, as well as build and preserve. Does my mood or attitude (state of consciousness) directly affect my surroundings, no. Not if by surroundings you mean inanimate objects. My mood and the signals I give off can effect other living things, if they notice.

edit: Could you please post your encyclopedia entries? The ones you are referring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/p/pantheism.html

Also, could you please explain the redundancy and superflousness?

Speaking about a naturalistic pantheistic view, which is IMO the least criticizable, I have the same problem as I have with any supernatural explanation. Where is the reasoning to point someone in this direction? Why look at the universe and decide it represents or is a manifestation of a unity that connects us all? Where are the evidential arrows? If someone can indeed change their state of consciousness in relation to this unity, how can we confirm that? How do we decide on the methods used to bring us to this special state of consciousness? How can we objectively know that those methods are effective? It seems to be rhyme without reason. It is more than is needed to explain; superfluousness. If we have no sound support for these ideas, then the belief must incorporate a degree of faith and suggests a degree of divinity. Assuming this is accurate, then what makes these ideas any more valid than the idea that the universe exists only to support Elvis and the rest of us are just failed embodiment's of the perfect state of being, Elvisness? We can strive to become better and improve our state of Elvisness in relation to Elvis, who is really the universe.

The redundancy is right there in the language. Everything is a unity, and the unity is everything. All is the universe therefore the universe is all. The only god is nature, and nature is the only law. To me it seems these statements are basically meaningless, and in order to give them meaning we must convolute and contrive practically every term used until it means something completely different.

 

[Heisenberg]

No. No one is disrespecting his beliefs and no one thinks he's crazy because he's religious. I don't think anyone actually thinks he's crazy, but many hold a negative opinion of him based on his nonsense, personal attacks, and attempts to derail a thread with unrelated posts and bullshit.

Agree. I have stated several times that my problem with Oly is not his intellect or his beliefs. Hep has similar beliefs and we get along just fine and still have rational discussions. It's oly's conduct and his failure to think things through. It's his sloppy methods which seem to entail ignoring context, and his childish tendency to purposely cause grief. It's his lack of being self critical, as evidenced by the dumb sounding shit he says in almost every post. His words are disconnected and often devoid of any point or genuine expression. I don't think this is a result of someone who is stupid and unable to think intellectually, I think it is the result of a lazy uncritical mind that forgives itself every mistake and bias, including resentment.

 

[olylifter420]

dont i say the darndest things!!!

funny that you are religious while having jack black as your avatar... irony at its finest

This is directed at everyone except Oly:

STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

The forum needs some kind of anti-rep feature that makes a post count negatively toward their rep and post count. I recommend anyone who actually wants to continue discussion in this thread take your pick of some of his most "colorful"posts within it and report him.This would never be my approach under most circumstances, but it has gotten far out of hand. I'd also like to make it clear to any mod that there are at least two people who would prefer to not see this thread closed if it does come to a point that action needs to be taken.