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

[olylifter420]

no, i could careless if they accept my beliefs or not... what i do care about is that they realize what type of hypocrites they are...

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.

 

[mexiblunt]

Oly says the darndest things! Religious guy with a "nothing" avatar. A blank space so fitting.

 

[olylifter420]

Oly says the darndest things!!!!!


[video=youtube;VKVTmx1zos8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKVTmx1zos8&feature=related[/video]

Agree. I have stated several times that my problem with Oly is not his intellect. It's his 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]

[video=youtube;VKVTmx1zos8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKVTmx1zos8&feature=related[/video]

Oly says the darndest things! Religious guy with a "nothing" avatar. A blank space so fitting.

 

[Luger187]

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.

thats not the opinion we have of him. we dont like him because he runs his mouth and does provide anything to the discussion. of course he wants us to just give up and let him be. he wants to believe without questioning anything. we are trying to show him that it is better to question your own beliefs to verify they are solid. but instead he says we are hating on his beliefs, which is ridiculous

 

[Hepheastus420]

thats not the opinion we have of him. we dont like him because he runs his mouth and does provide anything to the discussion. of course he wants us to just give up and let him be. he wants to believe without questioning anything. we are trying to show him that it is better to question your own beliefs to verify they are solid. but instead he says we are hating on his beliefs, which is ridiculous

Can you explain to me how he would be a better person if he dropped his religion.

 

[Luger187]

Can you explain to me how he would be a better person if he dropped his religion.

he wouldnt be posting things saying we are stupid atheists that hate him because he is religious. he would begin to see the universe and himself for what it is, a collection of atoms grouped in such a way as to cause thought and the ability to reason. maybe then he will begin to use them and fully realize that his spiritual feelings were nothing but his brain.

 

[olylifter420]

he would begin to see the universe and himself for what it is, a collection of atoms grouped in such a way as to cause thought and the ability to reason.

i do see it for what it is and this was not a discussion about evolution, physiology nor chemistry, but about beliefs in God. dont confuse them son. you see, your atheists beliefs have hindered your ability to think properly.

 

[Heisenberg]

Can you explain to me how he would be a better person if he dropped his religion.

It is not about his beliefs. Indeed your beliefs are quite similar yet you don't see unified disapproval among us for you. It is simply about conducting yourself with respect and tact.

 

[Luger187]

i do see it for what it is and this was not a discussion about evolution, physiology nor chemistry, but about beliefs in God. dont confuse them son. you see, your atheists beliefs have hindered your ability to think properly.

dont act like im changing the discussion

 

[karri0n]

I'm glad the thread title is "olylifter420" and not "Question my beliefs, but be prepared to answer for yours". Otherwise, we would be waaaaay off topic.

 

[Hepheastus420]

thats not the opinion we have of him. we dont like him because he runs his mouth and does provide anything to the discussion. of course he wants us to just give up and let him be. he wants to believe without questioning anything. we are trying to show him that it is better to question your own beliefs to verify they are solid. but instead he says we are hating on his beliefs, which is ridiculous

So besides annoying you guys, simply by saying you are wrong just like you say he is wrong, how would this make him a better person? I'm sure he doesn't deny what his body is made of and understands he is made of atoms. So please answer my question.

 

[Padawanbater2]

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.

OK, I think I completely understand your position at this point. I appreciate the point by point reply, that really helps clear things up. That's the same style I try to use as I think it's easy to comprehend things when it's in smaller pieces.

I was wondering though, what is your opinion of organized religion, today, as seen around the world? And, what is your opinion of people who believe in organized religion? Why do you think, with so many people believing the seemingly positive aspects of their faith and discarding the negative ones, we face some of the problems we do? Do you think waging war is easier in a world with or without religion and why?

Thanks dude, I would +rep you again for that quote alone, but I have to spread it around first.

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

Oh thanks, I figured I'm around often enough, and I enjoy the company of you good people This is where I learned to grow weed the proper way, I'd like to help out anyone who wants it

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.

X's 3.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Oly, I and everyone else would appreciate it if you would stop posting things that just take the thread off topic, and stop posting anything negative or personal. Look at Hep and Karri0n as perfect examples of how to conduct yourself in the thread. If you feel offended by anyone, quote the post, it's as easy as that.

Thanks man

 

[robert 14617]

one of your Q: what do i think of organized religion , it's great for the most part until it reaches a fanatic level, land grabs, persecution , the taking of life . people who just want to share their beliefs together peacefully should be allowed , as i wish to find out where i stand ready to be a believer if there were more proof until then i find myself in the non believer category

 

[Padawanbater2]

one of your Q: what do i think of organized religion , it's great for the most part until it reaches a fanatic level, land grabs, persecution , the taking of life . people who just want to share their beliefs together peacefully should be allowed , as i wish to find out where i stand ready to be a believer if there were more proof until then i find myself in the non believer category

What do you think it is about organized religion that can allow people to reach the fanatic level?

 

[robert 14617]

What do you think it is about organized religion that can allow people to reach the fanatic level?

for an example,,, i have not read the Koran (sp) but understand it does not condone killing as the radical groups that call themselves righteous, or the Christians weaving the bible spewing hate at a soldiers funeral its people getting away from the basic beliefs and allowing individuals power over them to make bad decisions

 

[Brazko]

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.

While speaking metaphorically, you just contradicted yourself. This is a fallacy that the religious and non-religious make constantly. Thinking they are separate from the Universe. How are you possibly separated? You say your surroundings are not separated, but can you describe, or in other words point out what is the Universe and what's not? You've already told me that humans weren't, hopefully you take the consideration of what you're saying.

You are no more separated from the Universe, than every cell of your body is separated from you. Needless to say the atoms that coalesced to form you are no different than the atoms of water, the sun, a tree, a rock, or a billy goat. Even the atomsphere you breath. Unless you are saying that manifestations of matter that spring forth, become separated from the Universe. I would, metaphorically speaking, have to agree with you..

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.

I mean your state of being as to your mental, emotional, and Yes, physical self. In any case, alteration of any with relation to the next makes causality inevitable.

not that I am aware of.

And you shouldn't be able to show distinction, but I'll decide the case as it would've been addressed in the first questions above..

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

Of course they do...

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.

Yes, the effect on other living/animated things are noticeable. So since we cannot confirm in any valid manner our affect on inanimate objects. Can an inanimate object affect your state of being. e.g. camp fire, shadow on a wall, a cloud, horizon sunset, etc..

Could any of these inanimate objects affect your state of being?

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

Ok this was my mistake. I mistook you to be saying pantheism was concerned with the supernatural. I wanted to see where you read this. It is nowhere in those links, but I better understand the position you were taking. But you should've corrected your perceptions by reading further into your giving credible links, as the criticisms you assign falsely to pantheism are addressed. There is a wide gap that separates the actuality of the giving subject that differs from the construed assignment of personal opinion, which leans heavily towards preferred misconception.

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?

Once again its not a decision to point one in a direction, but a position to relate and express an idea.. That's it. Pantheism was an objection to the idea of God, not an idea of a God. The only distinction as I said before is the ability of one word to have fluid expression, while the other is rigid in and of formality.

Why look at the universe and decide it represents or is a manifestation of a unity that connects us all?

Its not a decision, its an observation..

Where are the evidential arrows?

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle#Dividing_an_atom

But like everything else, the objectified information is bound to interpretation. I find absolutely nothing wrong with being led. I also find nothing wrong with leading. Escaping mistake is inevitable either way, but fearful of being wrong isn't a mark of admiration, but displayed cowardice to not trying. I do not need to hide behind a method to forego failure when failure is ultimately inherited into any process by the simple application of it.

If someone can indeed change their state of consciousness in relation to this
unity, how can we confirm that?

We have already identified through science that observation causes change in relation of that which is being observed..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

How do we decide on the methods used to bring us to this special state of
consciousness?

How did we decide the absolute state of what consciousness is? At what point in time on the evolutionary ladder did we as human primates make a decision to catalog our consciousness as the ultimate state of existing? Did Bobo coin the term consciousness for us?

Consciousness is no more than a fictitious term used to describe the human condition of relating to the rest of the Universe. And if that is the case, has that conscious state of existing changed, or has it always been the same.

The decision that brings you to that state lies in the conscious decision to reside within that state.

How can we objectively know that those methods are effective?

To objectively know is to objectively understand and have absolute knowledge of every aspect of the Universe. But subjectively speaking, the effectiveness is demostrated in your state of being.

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.

Elvis is not the Whole, but part of the Whole.. However, you cannot not remove 1/4 from the whole without being left with 3/4.
4/4 = 1, no matter how you rearrange it.. Divinity lies in the relation to the whole. Being absent-minded to the whole renders your state of being to that which you have individualized it to. It doesn't change the reality of the total sum. Energy is Energy, you can describe it any way you want and it still remains the total sum...

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

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.

For some reason, I have trouble understanding the kind of puzzles you put together. What kind of puzzle are we trying to put together were the pieces don't go together to form a whole picture?

The terms are meaningless when trying to objectify everything into a precise meaning. I've stated already this is more a cognition problem, then it is a language problem. It is meaningless to you. We are in agreement.

 

[Heisenberg]

While speaking metaphorically, you just contradicted yourself. This is a fallacy that the religious and non-religious make constantly. Thinking they are separate from the Universe. How are you possibly separated? You say your surroundings are not separated, but can you describe, or in other words point out what is the Universe and what's not? You've already told me that humans weren't, hopefully you take the consideration of what you're saying.

You are no more separated from the Universe, than every cell of your body is separated from you. Needless to say the atoms that coalesced to form you are no different than the atoms of water, the sun, a tree, a rock, or a billy goat. Even the atomsphere you breath. Unless you are saying that manifestations of matter that spring forth, become separated from the Universe. I would, metaphorically speaking, have to agree with you..

Yes, the contradiction was right there in the first three words and I feel the question was begging for it. At the atomic level there is little difference, but there is much difference between myself and a tree. There are similarities in the way everything is constructed, and the stuff we are constructed of comes from the universe. I don't think it's a big step to say we all share common makeup, I do think it's a big step to think that this unity somehow indicates something besides the obvious literal meaning.

Could any of these inanimate objects affect your state of being?

Yes, a campfire or some such might affect my mood, then again it might not. It does not produce a repeatable, quantifiable effect or even a predictable one. There is nothing to suggest this effect means anything other than my regard for the object. An abstract idea or memory can affect my mood in the same way.

We have already identified through science that observation causes change in relation of that which is being observed..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

In QM an observer does not need to have consciousness. It can be a robot, a sensor, or a piece of paper. The observer effect is more about how measurement affects the thing being measured. Even theoretical physicists can only guess at what this means. How can pantheism state that this has any bearing on our relationship to the unity, unless it is just speculation.

Well it's entirely possible that this is beyond my grasp, but I don't feel the links did in fact address the criticism as much as just throwing science and new age sounding words at it, words which expand their definition to mean almost anything. This is spooky language that is difficult to understand, just like quantum physics is strange and hard to grasp. The fact that they are both this way does not mean that they compliment or support each other. I regard pantheism as philosophical speculation, and nothing more. It does make sense on some levels, and I find the subject to be very interesting, but I am unable to find validity for this anymore than the idea that the universe is a simulation being ran on a computer of the future. Pantheism is an idea that takes it cues from reality, but allows itself to make any assumption or adjustment it needs to explain what it wants.

If pantheism is a way to reach the truth, then we must redefine truth to be subjective to the mind which holds the expectation. So I suppose pantheism offers a way to reach a subjective truth within yourself, in which case it has very little real world application.

 

[Brazko]

I don't think it's a big step to say we all share common makeup, I do think it's a big step to think that this unity somehow indicates something besides the obvious literal meaning.

Then literally speaking what is the Universe if it doesn't mean unity?

The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all space, time, matter, energy, planets, stars, galaxies, intergalactic space,[2][3] and beyond.

unity [ˈjuːnɪtɪ]
n pl -ties1. the state or quality of being one; oneness
2. the act, state, or quality of forming a whole from separate parts
3. something whole or complete that is composed of separate parts
4. mutual agreement; harmony or concord the participants were no longer in unity
5. uniformity or constancy unity of purpose


What else has been indicated for it to mean anything else? Is asserting that the idea/concept of God making this confusing and hard to understand. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record but thats a cognitive dilemma.

You have assigned yourself a method of understanding that accommodates your cognitive reasoning, just as a believer has assigned a method of cognitive reasoning that accommadates their understanding.

To fault someone with the cognitive ability to decipher the similarities into a rational understanding, regardless of the terminology/language applied, doesn't qualify or justify reasoning to say it doesn't have real world application.

Yes, a campfire or some such might affect my mood, then again it might not. It
does not produce a repeatable, quantifiable effect or even a predictable one.
There is nothing to suggest this effect means anything other than my regard for
the object. An abstract idea or memory can affect my mood in the same way.

If I place a female in front of 10 males. 3 are attracted, 3 more become disgusted, another 3 thinks of their mom/sister/best friend, and 1 notices her shoes is dirty. What is the quantifiable or predictable effect here? I'll answer it for you, they all under went a chemical reaction. Your abstract idea or memory is usually accommadated by a visual, smell, and/or sound. You undergo a chemical reaction that was triggered by your surroundings, as is with any and everything else.

In QM an observer does not need to have consciousness. It can be a robot, a
sensor, or a piece of paper. The observer effect is more about how measurement
affects the thing being measured. Even theoretical physicists can only guess at
what this means. How can pantheism state that this has any bearing on our
relationship to the unity, unless it is just speculation.

When/where did I state the observer had to be conscious? If anything, that is what I am saying that any two reference points does induce measurement and change. And even within the defined meaning of what consciousness means to modern humans, the point of reference of that being observed will vary differently in conceived time and apppearance of it happening.

And how are you interpreting pantheism in its meaning to have consequence in altering the meaning of that relationship? Does atheism alter the meaning of that relationship? I think not. You are assigning false attributes once again to accommadate your misconception.

Well it's entirely possible that this is beyond my grasp, but I don't feel
the links did in fact address the criticism as much as just throwing science and
new age sounding words at it, words which expand their definition to mean almost
anything. This is spooky language that is difficult to understand, just like
quantum physics is strange and hard to grasp. The fact that they are both this
way does not mean that they compliment or support each other. I regard
pantheism as philosophical speculation, and nothing more. It does make sense on
some levels, and I find the subject to be very interesting, but I am unable to
find validity for this anymore than the idea that the universe is a simulation being ran on a computer
of the future.

I agree and disagree with some of your opinions and assertions, but the validity to comparing it to the theory of a simulation program is akin to only your ability of understanding and comprehension, which is submerged in misconception.

Pantheism is an idea that takes it cues from reality, but allows itself to
make any assumption or adjustment it needs to explain what it wants.

Yes it's based on reality, but I don't understand what assumptions or adjustments it tries to make. Other than it's ability to adjust/translate terminology, eg. Nature = God = Tao. Yes, you are correct!! Its not a scientific term..

If pantheism is a way to reach the truth, then we must redefine truth to be
subjective to the mind which holds the expectation. So I suppose pantheism
offers a way to reach a subjective truth within yourself, in which case it has
very little real world application.

Who said Pantheism was the way to reach the truth? If the Univere is infinite, and possibilities are infinite. What method will give us the absolute truth, when the truth lies in infinite possibilites? It only makes sense that understanding the infinite cases of possiblities will bring us closer to the truth. If truth was anything but subjective, we would have already discovered the ultimate absolute truth. If objectively found truth only leads to objective truth, then what is the hold up? Is it not far reaching to say that truth has always been subjective to our minds?

In any case, Pantheism is a idea/concept to the meaning of God, not a scientific method of determining if God is literally true. Because it accepts the word god into its language, it's categorically placed as a religion, but it does nothing more to the effect of simply explaining Nature as Nature. And as I said before its an idea, that many other religions are categorically placed.

Its acceptance to reasoning other terminology with the likes of nature seems to be the only thing causing you confusion. If so, it is best to not over analyze and stick with what accommadates your cognitive ability.

It's not a scientific term!!