Atheists

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you very much. :) But, if you really don't see the difference then perhaps
there isn't one....for you.
Click to expand...
i see the premises about higher/ quantum consciousness to be very similar to what eye exaggerate believes the end conclusion might be slightly different but the building blocks look the same

Zaehet Strife said:
I understand the fact that he has never said anything dogmatic like, for example hes never said anything about being spiritual or life after death or anything like that.
Click to expand...
lol he might have taken a great effort not to mention the words but all the hallmarks are there from what i see
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
i see the premises about higher/ quantum consciousness to be very similar to what eye exaggerate believes the end conclusion might be slightly different but the building blocks look the same



lol he might have taken a great effort not to mention the words but all the hallmarks are there from what i see
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not making premises or conclusions. If you don't see the distinction and think I'm carefully crawling around to propose anything, well, I have nothing to propose. I'm not asking for faith or for you to believe in what I say. It matters not to anyone to anyone, I hope, what you surmise or suspect, and certainly not to me. And it is quite the problem with words and why I choose to describe my perceptions the way I do. It's an attempt to submit raw experience only, not playing silly buggers with emotional manipulations or artsy analogies (not that there is anything wrong with that) I think it is a universal experience. I think a lot of confusing explains have been written, perhaps about this, but I set that all aside. I attempt to suspend belief. If someone leaps then, to what it seems to them, well, that's the problem with words.

Wasn't Paul Simon that sang this? "A man hears what he wants hear and disregards the rest." Nothing wrong with that. You do realize I never said "higher" or placed a postional value at all, on my perception. Your words.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
I just want to emphasis the need for utter completeness in this view of Now.

It requires a rather large shift of the definition of "I" and therefore identity itself.
The human body is not I.
The brain is not I.
All identity is not I.
Information about me is not I.
Leaves only the blistering light of Self that's not subject to entropy. Much more like everything than nothing.
Click to expand...
Doer said:
Ultimately correct. We are our own worse and only enemy. I recently proposed a neurochemical answer to the Eternity after death concept. Did you catch that post?

I might also add the reward for the experience of Self in Now unfolds in it's course. It is self evident and self fulfilling. A unique experience. Without the commentary track of chatter that induces sense of duration, after a while, an emerging perspective takes hold. Each little tiny glimpse adds up. So, I would not suggest seeking, rather finding the hidden facet of Self. It turns easily into the actual sense of Self, simply for the broadness of these aspects of Now.

And I'm not seeking any other knowledge but Now. So not talking about life after death. I'm talking about merging deep into the quantum entangled stillness of Now to perceive additional Knowledge of Self. Hard to explain. Real to experience.

If the perception of Self can be larger and awesomely self-referent it's better than not so much, right? And I don't see myself missing any boats of redemption otherwise, do you? We have always somehow perceived there is something more.....Self still Now, I say is worth some exploring. Not the question, the answer.
Click to expand...
Doer said:
I'm offering my experience. I have perhaps managed to get a point where eyes open or closed, still or not I Know there is more to Consciousness of Self than the yack-yack mind will allow. Mr. Mind seem offended that I would want some peace. Ah, so I'm on the right track.

I am not proposing any dogma or explanation beyond that, I can say it seems to me that it is an experience of extra, but not necessarily exterior, perception, and, the experience is completely uncategorized by language. So, to attribute any meaning would be dogma. But, please allow this fine point. It's not information about myself, no psychological "working on myself." It's a self directed shift of my understanding of Identity. Just the experience does the shifting.

Once words are left behind, concepts are meaningless. The Knowledge of Self. What does that even mean? Assigning meaning is my definition of dogma.

Are you familiar with the Plato's Cave conjecture? That's a pretty close analogy. I see it very simply. We can perceive in another "direction" with Minds eye. We can perceive, wordlessly, another part of Self. We have it, we don't use it,. Does that help me? I say it does. How?...that would be dogma. That's it. No fairy tales, no promises. We make of it what we will, or not.
Click to expand...
Doer said:
Well, I'm not making premises or conclusions. If you don't see the distinction and think I'm carefully crawling around to propose anything, well, I have nothing to propose. I'm not asking for faith or for you to believe in what I say. It matters not to anyone to anyone, I hope, what you surmise or suspect, and certainly not to me. And it is quite the problem with words and why I choose to describe my perceptions the way I do. It's an attempt to submit raw experience only, not playing silly buggers with emotional manipulations or artsy analogies (not that there is anything wrong with that) I think it is a universal experience. I think a lot of confusing explains have been written, perhaps about this, but I set that all aside. I attempt to suspend belief. If someone leaps then, to what it seems to them, well, that's the problem with words.

Wasn't Paul Simon that sang this? "A man hears what he wants hear and disregards the rest." Nothing wrong with that. You do realize I never said "higher" or placed a postional value at all, on my perception. Your words.
Click to expand...
hmm ok your right there isnt "higher" uttered. wheres the part that didnt sound to be woo tho?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
"woo"? sounds to who, you? If it seems like something to you, I'm having a hard time understanding just what that is or which parts might not be.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
"woo"? sounds to who, you? If it seems like something to you, I'm having a hard time understanding just what that is or which parts might not be.
Click to expand...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
Woo most always contains most of the following characteristics:

  1. A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases)
  2. A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it, quote mines of studies that if bent enough could be described in such a way to support it, or outright misapplication of studies.
  3. It involves the supernatural and paranormal (not necessarily)
  4. A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community
  5. An invocation of a scientific authority
  6. Lack of scientific research, but abundant testimonials
  7. A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them
  8. A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing
  9. And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price.

in you attempt to not sound spiritualistic/ religious you left me in a deal of confusion as to what you mean as well.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
I think when our discussions do not pretend to contain answers, but rather interpretations, then the subject doesn't really matter. If it's simply a naked expression of what is in your brain, then it's nothing more than an attempt to describe the world. If actual woo took this stance, well most of it wouldn't exist.

If someone says, 'this is what I think and I don't expect it to mean anything to anyone but me', what more could you ask for?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
Woo most always contains most of the following characteristics:

  1. A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases)
  2. A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it, quote mines of studies that if bent enough could be described in such a way to support it, or outright misapplication of studies.
  3. It involves the supernatural and paranormal (not necessarily)
  4. A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community
  5. An invocation of a scientific authority
  6. Lack of scientific research, but abundant testimonials
  7. A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them
  8. A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing
  9. And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price.

in you attempt to not sound spiritualistic/ religious you left me in a deal of confusion as to what you mean as well.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...seriously, I've never heard of that. But, I don't get out much. :) This is meaningful to me that you have the reaction. I have to admit from the list, I'm having a hard time understanding just when I swerved into "woo" (funny word) Can you point a particular number and reference.

I assure you, I'm not attempting to do more than describe as baldly as possible. But, should I just say xyr2 or some variable placeholder that has no significance or meaning? Isn't that Scientology for example? Looks like woo, quacks like woo, must be woo.
Is that what you mean? For the largest scale items I place my words as plainly as possible but you may be substituting more charged words or building extra charge into my words, perhaps because of this definition. I'm only asking you to consider that.

I do find the reaction quite interesting. I would like to see why it creates a great deal of confusion? Do you subscribe to the idea there is nothing besides the inner dialog in here? Is it my fault all the good words are taken and abused? :)
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Originally Posted by lefty11
All I know is there ain't no atheists in a foxhole and thats the truth.



You guys know the Tillman Story? Medal of Honor, turned out to be friendly fire. The situation is that he was
murdered on the battlefield. He was a scoffing atheist, by all accounts, walking back to the Humvee in plain
sight, not 100 yrds out.

Killed by the platoon's "preacherman." (no, not the Chaplin) It was such a tense situation, Tillman's buddy eased
off 3-4 yards and knelled down with his hands on his helmet. He says he told Tillman they weren't shitting around,
but Tillman would not kneel. This is the story the family got out of everyone with the Freedom of Information Act
and then cross referencing the highly redacted reports until they were sure who the buddy was and had him verify it.
Then they made a documentary.

So, that proves there are no atheists in the foxhole.
Click to expand...
I suggest you familiarize yourself with his story.

First off, Tillman didn't get the CMoH. Secondly, he had an appointment to speak with Noam Chomsky upon his return and he was very critical of Dubya. This made him extremely unpopular in a unit where in order to join, you have to complete a qualification called Ranger Indoctrination Program. His diary still hasn't turned up. The army killed it's poster boy because he was going to tell the country the type of BS they were stirring up. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq invasion and would have been a very effective anti-war activist.

The first official story was that he died heroically fighting the enemy, at the hands of the enemy. At this time, authorities already knew it was a lie. Stanley McChrystal knew it was a lie when he wrote the citation on his silver star that he was a hero.

The current official story is that it was an accident, subsequently, the same officials who pushed both stories have admitted that it may have been a murder.

He was an atheist though. So was I when I was there. There are plenty of atheists in fox holes.
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
I think when our discussions do not pretend to contain answers, but rather interpretations, then the subject doesn't really matter. If it's simply a naked expression of what is in your brain, then it's nothing more than an attempt to describe the world. If actual woo took this stance, well most of it wouldn't exist.

If someone says, 'this is what I think and I don't expect it to mean anything to anyone but me', what more could you ask for?
Click to expand...
I pretty much took this stance with Doer already, this is what he thinks and he doesn't really expect anyone to understand but him...accept if you do something that you cant really explain how to do, you can think the same exact way.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I suggest you familiarize yourself with his story.

First off, Tillman didn't get the CMoH. Secondly, he had an appointment to speak with Noam Chomsky upon his return and he was very critical of Dubya. This made him extremely unpopular in a unit where in order to join, you have to complete a qualification called Ranger Indoctrination Program. His diary still hasn't turned up. The army killed it's poster boy because he was going to tell the country the type of BS they were stirring up. He was an outspoken critic of the Iraq invasion and would have been a very effective anti-war activist.

The first official story was that he died heroically fighting the enemy, at the hands of the enemy. At this time, authorities already knew it was a lie. Stanley McChrystal knew it was a lie when he wrote the citation on his silver star that he was a hero.

The current official story is that it was an accident, subsequently, the same officials who pushed both stories have admitted that it may have been a murder.

He was an atheist though. So was I when I was there. There are plenty of atheists in fox holes.
Click to expand...
Just remembering what I saw in the documentary. My point was if atheists are too outspoken they better chose carefully their foxholes. And this version just says that out-speakers against the Green Machine are even more in danger. Didn't mean to offend. It was sorta a lame joke, IAC, sorry.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Just remembering what I saw in the documentary. My point was if atheists are too outspoken they better chose carefully their foxholes. And this version just says that out-speakers against the Green Machine are even more in danger. Didn't mean to offend. It was sorta a lame joke, IAC, sorry.
Click to expand...
It's all good, I'm not surprised that religious groups have seized upon the story to push propaganda just like the army did.
 
skunkd0c

skunkd0c

Well-Known Member
i gave up on the debate as to weather god exists or not many years ago, i decided that since i will not follow a god or be subordinate willingly to such an entity
the existence of god is irrelevant from my standpoint
to be created for the purpose of worshiping another to the point of obedience does not appeal to me

i feel that religiously minded people are those that tend to have subordinate personalities
they do not question the nature of things, and fear death a little too much
religion or god gives them the idea they have someone other than themselves looking out for them
and gives them some kind of insurance policy against death with the promise of heaven and such things
it's a lovely idea, but not the reality i know

peace :)
 
overgrowem

overgrowem

Well-Known Member
Numbers 1 and 2 0f post#1 seem to describe conservative Christians and Evangelicals better than atheists.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Zaehet Strife said:
I pretty much took this stance with Doer already, this is what he thinks and he doesn't really expect anyone to understand but him...accept if you do something that you cant really explain how to do, you can think the same exact way.
Click to expand...
Not exactly since we are talking about what is here with us right now, perhaps right next to thought but begins when the attention turns from the inner thoughts. I can explain how I practice, don't get me wrong. But, this is a tough crowd. I get accused of "woo" but then can't find out where I went into it. I hope I stay away from it. But, to offer any advice or explanation of how to get Peace FROM Mind....let's just say that it not a casual idea to be debated. That's religion, theology, woo, etc.

I have been trained and I have practiced for many decades. So, I know it's a nit, but what I try to do for the vaguely interested is to describe as mildly as I can, that there is more to consciousness, to me, than they might suspected and how that relates to Now. Yet, still, it might seem like peddling woo.

So, I would not like it if you thought like me. Nor would I suggest my path. It's a strange and rocky road. I mean if everyone is caught in the roar of thinking and one person is trying to relieve themselves from that tyranny, I could not begin to suggest how to practice or how to start looking. Or if you even should. Not needed, it seems to me.

BELIEF ALERT - perhaps by just considering the idea, ones own Self can lead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top